Hacker News Reader

Comment by gkoberger | Hacker News Reader

The patent involved basic traffic encryption (SSL or TLS combined with the RC4 cipher), and the company already has made $45 million off it.

Here's some more info on the company they lost to:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/02321120982/meet-p...

TL;DR: They're patent trolls.

View on HN

>the company already has made $45 million off it

I know that saying "made" is the generic form for acquiring money through any means. However, it also carries the connotations of production, of creation. I would rather say that they have already extorted $45 million using it.

Well since Newegg made the money, perhaps TQP was awarded the $45M that Newegg et al made, or TQP was shown to deserve the $45M that Newegg et al made. But you're right, let's be clear: TQP didn't create any wealth here.

EDIT: I'm mixing numbers. Not all of the 45M was from Newegg.

If the copyright enthusiasts can misuse legal terminology to refer to copyright infringement as actual theft, I say let's go ahead and call this a theft as well. We'd be closer to the truth.

So they have six more years to sue. Can they renew and is there any plan they will renew this? Even though RC4 is no longer recommended I don't see us moving away from it for another 5-6 years given many servers probably can't upgrade to newer ciphers (I am thinking about those old RedHat servers). Correct me if I am wrong though.

I think the patent has expired. Patent apps issued before June 8, 1995 have a 17 year term from issuance. 35 U.S.C. 154. This patent issued in May 1995. See "date of patent" in upper right corner of the pdf doc.

I know that. The article said they have 6 graceful years after expiration. My question is can they renew it?

Patents can never be renewed. That's the entire point of patent systems: limited-time monopoly.

Not entirely true. Pharmaceutical patents can be effectively renewed if a new use for an already patented drug is discovered.

They can also attach a molecule to the side of an existing drug and patent that, and then stop manufacturing or marketing the original drug.

I've wondered, how does that prevent a generic version of the original from appearing? Clever marketing and control of their product isn't good but it's not evil.

Most generics are in fact manufactured by the original patent holder and sold to third parties (or in some cases marketed by a subsidiary with a different name). Setting up a manufacturing process for a drug is often non-trivial, so if the original manufacturer stops producing a drug, it may not be worth anyone else's while to (a) create a factory, and (b) get their version of the drug through safety testing, etc.

(I'm no expert, but I did work with pharmaceutical companies for about a decade, and in many cases they were manufacturing selling brand name and generic drugs side-by-side, or selling brand name in some markets and generics in others -- all from the same factory.)

> Setting up a manufacturing process for a drug is often non-trivial, so if the original manufacturer stops producing a drug, it may not be worth anyone else's while to (a) create a factory, and (b) get their version of the drug through safety testing, etc.

So what you're saying is that drug patents add only a thin/negligible benefit above and beyond natural barriers to entry? I guess that's a good trade then--i.e., here's a "monopoly" (in your uncontested market) in exchange for the recipe of the secret sauce. From society's point of view, all that's left is to tune the expiration of the patent to coincide as closely as possible with the competition completing their tests and first factory without dissuading applicants.

Alternately, if competition is never going to reproduce the secret sauce as described in the patent, may as well do away with them since they could be scare would-be competitors from entering the market.

It's not black and white. The US is particularly screwed because of loopholes in regulations that drug companies started exploiting in the late 90s to advertise direct to patients (illegal almost everywhere else). So you've got drug A which is going out of patent and A' which is A with something hanging off it that's harmless but counts as novel. So you switch gears and put all your marketing behind A' (including cherry picked studies). You can produce A cheaper than anyone else, but you don't have to. Anyone trying to enter the market with A risks you undercutting them, and meanwhile you're marketing A' against A.

Patent holders can, in some cases, sue for damages for acts that occurred up to six years in the past. But there's no new infringement or damages accruing after expiration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com