AlbertCory

A little-known fact is that Donna Dubinsky, the CEO of Palm/Handspring in its glory days, is on the staff of the Dept. of Commerce specifically to help with the CHIPS Act.

Or at least was:

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2022/09/biden-h...

I don't know what role, if any, she had with TSMC.

It was never "patent everything you can see."

That committee I was talking about was to evaluate IDEAS for patents, so they were definitely beating the bushes. But not shooting everything that came out.

> You're a lawyer

No, actually. A patent agent.

> the status quo for patenting in software, and staff attorneys generally, is really unpopular, among highly educated people.

"highly educated" doesn't mean what you'd like it to. But yes, there should be major changes, starting with making software ineligible for the one-size-fits-all patent system.

> Google’s patent strategy is to patent everything it sees and hears about. This is a good case of it: https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea . As long as patent attorneys are on quotas at Google, they will be filing bullshit patents they didn’t invent all the same as the trolls.

No, that's not the strategy. I served for a while on a engineers' committee in Geo to evaluate submitted patent ideas, 1-4, "1" being "definitely patent, we're doing this" and "4" being "this is so bad you don't even get the $50 for the idea." Usually it got a "2" if it was something we might do sometime, and a "3" if it was a good idea but not worth patenting.

I submitted five or so applications (in Ads, not in Geo). Several they dropped when the post-CLS Bank PTO rejected them on 101 (subject matter) grounds. Since it can cost $50,000 or more to prosecute a patent, and that is cash to an outside law firm, not just Google lawyers' salaries.

As for this patentpandas guy: there is lots of prior art. This guy is a naif. "Publish any idea you have as soon as you have it" is always a good rule.

> throws its weight to take patented technology without payment

This is called "begging the question": assuming what is in dispute and needs proving.

"Patented technology" assumes that the "invention" was indeed worthy of a patent. If you want to take some example patents whose claims were thrown out in IPR, I'll be happy to debate them with you.

> Ex Parte Reexamination simply makes it easier to avoid patent claims since it provides another opportunity to throw out claims, some of which may have stood in a full trial.

Again, you are begging the question. I've actually watched a mock jury debate patent eligibility. Their assumption is that the PTO wouldn't have granted the patent if it weren't valid. I actually heard a member say about a piece of invalidating prior art (paraphrasing), "That's so obscure! It's not fair to expect the PTO to know about that!"

> The PTO reviewers are hardly more knowledgeable about technical fields than juries.

You can't be serious. Technical knowledge is not expected from a jury. PTO examiners are accustomed to doing this.

> Is this not depriving people of their right to a jury?

Not an unconditional right. A jury trial costs anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 a day. Demand for a jury trial by an NPE is basically extortion.

> Somehow 64% of reviews end up with changes, is this not a sign that the PTO has been all to regularly changing its mind about valid patents?

For the third time, "begging the question." Find some patents that were modified and we'll talk about them.

> Google has settled many patent cases over the years, surely some of them were valid patents.

Pretty weak reasoning. Settling is not an admission of guilt.

> I do agree many software patents are not applicable and are often spam, but there are real costs to decreasing patent rights outside of software.

At last you've hit on something reasonable: take software out of the patent field entirely, and we can make some good law.

"traditional" patents (mechanical, chemical, electrical, biological) should be separated from software.

The former have some claim to validity under the law, sometimes. The latter: almost never. That's at the root of the problem.

> the patent bar outside of pharma/npe's

that's it exactly. Pharma really should have its own patent regime, or at least, software & pharma should not have the same one.

I don't think you can really expect non-lawyers to understand that.

"Why is it being pushed?" and "who are the backers and the opponents?" would be better questions to ask. "What will be the practical consequences for software-intensive companies?" is another.

If software were not patentable (as it was not before 1982) then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

I gave some up above.

The EFF is indeed self-righteous. That doesn't mean they're wrong.

Former tech advisor to Google Patent Litigation here.

The Ex Parte Reexamination is a fundamental tool for fighting against patent trolls:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination

They can also be used by big companies to steal IP from small inventors. However, this is not why the backers of this bill are trying to limit them.

When a troll buys up a patent from the early 2000's, they hope to stretch its claims, with the help of a patent-friendly judge, to cover some modern technology. Naturally, it's the FAANG and other big companies they really want, but first they build up a war chest by settling with smaller fish.

Filing an IPR is a cheaper way than going to trial for challenging these bogus patents, and believe me, nearly all software patents are bogus. I busted lots of them, including this:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-patent-may-block-goo...

If you go to trial, it's some unsophisticated jurors who decide if the patent is valid. For a reexam, it's PTO people, who at least know what the law is.

So that's why trolls want to get rid of reexams: to force companies to negotiate with them.

I suppose I should know this: who owns newspapers.com? What's the connection?

I saw Ann when she gave a talk at Google (that was when she was still married to Sergey). They had spit cups we could use if we wanted our DNA sequenced. I didn't.

Their business plan was straight out of South Park:

1. Collect lots of DNA

2. ??????

3. Profit!!

If you put yourself in the position of Hezbollah's IT chief, you get a different picture than this question assumes.

Let's assume you're somewhat competent and aware of supply chain vulnerabilities.

Let's also assume that pagers are not that popular anymore, and you insist on a pager that's completely passive. It can't emit any signals at all, or the Mossad would track it.

So you probably find some supplier of gear to the Iranians and other non-Western countries, and give them your specifications. That supplier is reliable, you think. It probably listens to a signal that Hez and only Hez transmits. It's Security By Obscurity, the choice of naive buyers everywhere.

You certainly don't buy anything off the shelf. Well, we know what's wrong with Security By Obscurity: Mossad only has to decipher one secret.

lots of verbiage and demand for definitions here, not much content. Always a good sign that it's time to end the conversation.

> since the Big band era (which i doubt anybody here know)

I "know" it through my parents. Although I don't know how much radio time they logged. They heard big bands live, for dancing.

I could be wrong, but I have the impression that radio stations would have "programs" of music, along with news and entertainment. It wouldn't be music all the time. There weren't portable radios, either -- you'd gather around the radio set.

Must have been good times.

I realized afterwards that 40 is too high and I was considering lowering it to 20.

But even by your standards, "it was always exactly like this" is clearly wrong.

that's what I thought you'd say: you'd be embarrassed to pick even 15 songs from your list and call them "great."

And then demand that I do some work for YOU.

OK, name me 40 great songs from your 2023 list.

where "great" is something more than "got a lot of plays on Spotify."

Speaking of Jaron Lanier: I actually saw him at BayCHI around 2000 or so, and someone asked him if Swing would ever come back.

He said, no, Swing was alive and things that are alive, die.

If you consider an artform like an ecosystem: there are epochs when many long-lasting species evolve and flourish, and others that are pretty barren. There's no reason to think that the general health of the ecosystem is always the same.

I don't know what radio station you listen to, but I haven't heard Yummy, Yummy is god knows how long.

On the other hand, Hotel California and Go Your Own Way both refuse to die.

There's no historical thought there. "everyone likes what was popular when they were 18" is a tired, mindless old canard.

Look at some Top 100 song lists from 50 or so years ago. Here are a couple:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin...

Unfortunately, aesthetics are not objective, and ""worse is utterly subjective" is not a criticism. There are no metrics that do any more than support an argument; they can't "prove" it.

good points.

We can't put the genie back in the bottle -- music's been digitized and things that used to be expensive and difficult are now cheap and easy, as Beato says.

No. No, it wasn't always like this.

> in terms of accessibility and of the diversity of music being made.

neither of those addresses music being "worse." There's no "objective" measurement of quality. If you have bad taste, you have bad taste, and you can always find someone to say you don't.

> I’m not sure that’s any different now than it was in the past

Beato explains how it's different. Look at some Top 100 song lists from 50 or so years ago. Here are a couple:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin...

"food is the best it's ever been!"

Judging by food consumption.

> You would think if the product were getting worse then sales would be declining

No, you wouldn't, unless you think sales are the only measure of quality. There is no "objective" measure of quality.

some know-nothing will inevitably call this Old Man Rants at Clouds. After all, what are you going to do about all this technology? Outlaw it?

Don't subscribe to Spotify, for a start.

True. Maybe someday, they'll decide "This isn't profitable enough!" and sell to Internet Archive.

> I haven't found anything on Substack compelling enough justify spending sometimes ~$10/month on a single writer.

Exactly. I might go for some package of 100 or so writers, with only their best stuff that week/month. But the reality is, the writers still wouldn't be making all that much money; not as much as Ted is.

It would be similar to being in the chorus for a Broadway show with Patti Lupone: she's making a whole bunch; you're at least getting paid.