Hacker News Reader

Don't assume that everybody shares your opinions, even if those opinions are popular. The OP could be a fan of robust intellectual property regimes, including software.

Clearly he/she has a different opinion. I'm asking for clarification. For example, one possible valid response is "I helped write this patent because I believe it isn't actually harmful and serves my personal interests."

However, if the authors were aware of the image inlining features in other products before writing the patent, it does strike me as dishonest to then pretend to the USPTO that they didn't exist. I can't claim to know what the authors were or were not aware of, so I can't make any judgements on that issue.

To clarify: the patent authors are lawyers, and were almost definitely not aware of any of what the patent covers. They would have spoken to the inventors to get a very specific set of answers that they were looking for, specifically not including 'is this super obvious with lots of prior art that would make it invalid?'

Or, for a cynical view: for companies churning out tons of patents, it's optimal to churn out as many patents as possible. The more patents the USPTO has to deal with, the less effective they are at their jobs. The less effective they are, the more mistakes they make; the false positives (i.e. rejected applications) can be clarified to be non-infringing, and the false negatives… well, now that's one more patent in the war chest.

That’s a fair question. Quitting at the first mention of patents would be hard to justify to my wife and family, and in any event would not avoid the situation. IIRC John had left Facebook while this was in process and was still obliged to sign, per the terms of the employment contract he agreed to when he started.

Whether an employee would actually be fired or sued for failure to cooperate is doubtful. But if you wish to avoid any possibility of taint, the only option would be to boycott all patent-holding entities. That would severely limit your employment options in this industry. That's RMS territory.

I don't really have an opinion beyond that. Patents, like lawsuits and depositions, are a non-zero risk if you do programming for a living. But they are rare things day-to-day. Deus volent.

Fair enough. I do think there's a middle ground between "actively seeks to write new patents" and "full RMS." It's not typically realistic to avoid working at places that hold software patents, but in my (limited) experience you can at least avoid adding to the problem. Ideally, you could negotiate for the patent clause to be removed from the employment contract before you even begin the job. I understand that's not always possible.

I used to work at a company that started out without any software patents, and at some point management decided to encourage the engineers to help generate some. I politely informed my manager that I wouldn't be participating, a few others did the same, and as far as I know none of us were penalized. Sometimes it's possible to just say "I'd really rather not" and have that be the end of it.

I realize I'm speaking from a position of privilege, in that I have only myself to support and I live in an area full of employment opportunities. But I do think it's valid to encourage people to put some thought into the outcomes of their actions in this area.

Regarding another comment in this thread about Facebook's patent attitude being purely defensive: that may be the case now, and I do believe it is, but in five years, who knows who'll be running the company?

How does this patent APPLICATION harm anyone? It discloses some technical information (though clearly this is already a well known idea), and Facebook will never be awarded a patent for this. The public benefits from dud patents because they disclose in fairly precise (though esoteric and overly longwinded) language some technical idea while the applicant does not gain anything when it is eventually rejected.

Also, it occupies the patent lawyers' time and tilts the cost/benefit analysis ever so slightly in a direction that disfavors silly patents.

> How do you reconcile that morally? Is your current job and standing in your company worth the damage you've done by assisting in the creation of this [seemingly] obvious patent

'Why did you leave your last job?' 'They wanted to file a patent on some work I did and I refused, even though it was in my employment contract to help.' 'Well, thanks for coming in. We'll let you know.'

> that [seemingly] ignores prior art[1] and could be used to stifle innovation?

Lots of patents ignore prior art. It's easier to plead ignorance that way, and you get a chance at getting a patent that no one realizes is infringing. There's no incentive for a patent applicant (or rather, a team of patent lawyers on retainer) to do any prior art research. Better to dump that on the USPTO and hope they can't figure it out or don't bother.

Deleted comment

You make a really good point. I didn't sufficiently consider the subversive nature of the actual patent.

A lot of silicon valley companies get patents to use defensively (basically how you have to play the game). If I worked at FB and had insider knowledge that the company was generating patents for only defensive purposes it wouldn't bother me that much.