If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(EFF)   There's a special push today by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to pressure Congress to support patent reform. Click here to see how you can help   (trollingeffects.org) divider line 48
    More: PSA, congresses, patent reform, reforms, plain  
•       •       •

2016 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2013 at 3:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-19 03:02:14 PM  
Wont happen
 
2013-11-19 03:07:15 PM  
I patented the click. You all owe me $bajillion.
 
2013-11-19 03:07:37 PM  
Once again, special interest groups attempting to squash legal patent holders rights to persue what is rightfully theirs.

Totally unacceptable.
 
2013-11-19 03:08:27 PM  

Piizzadude: Wont happen


I don't see why they wouldn't be able to shut down some low-level patent trolls.

But putting an end to the economically inefficient, innovation-hampering web of lawsuits among tech companies is a pipe dream.
 
2013-11-19 03:08:50 PM  

Piizzadude: Wont happen


I wouldn't be too sure... a lot of the big tech companies are the ones who have to put up with patent troll bullsh*t, so there won't be much negative pressure from them.
=Smidge=
 
2013-11-19 03:09:28 PM  
Is this a Twitter-dependent process?
 
2013-11-19 03:09:43 PM  
Unless those tweets contain your credit card info and authorization for your Representative and Senator to take a 5-figure 'campaign contribution' each they probably won't do much to sway any votes.
 
2013-11-19 03:10:16 PM  

Piizzadude: Wont happen


You got a supporting argument, or are you just lazy and apathetic?

This isn't a fringe movement or obscure topic, reform could totally happen. Then question is are you going to help it happen or are you going to sit there like some kind of flaccid asshole.
 
2013-11-19 03:12:04 PM  
WHAR Zimmerman bail hearing thread WHAR!
 
2013-11-19 03:13:49 PM  

Endive Wombat: Once again, special interest groups attempting to squash legal patent holders rights to persue what is rightfully theirs.

Totally unacceptable.


1. Abolish all patent law overnight.
2. Businesses all panic, then continue to make the things they are good at while competing with people who, presumably aren't as good at making those things.
3. People buy those things, but nobody is allowed a monopoly for *the entire life cycle of the product*
4. The company making the best things gets the most business.  Other businesses innovate to keep up.
4. Everyone's lives get better.
 
2013-11-19 03:14:28 PM  
I must really like 4.
 
2013-11-19 03:15:06 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Piizzadude: Wont happen

You got a supporting argument, or are you just lazy and apathetic?

This isn't a fringe movement or obscure topic, reform could totally happen. Then question is are you going to help it happen or are you going to sit there like some kind of flaccid asshole.


By the time you even got around to explaining to the average American why this is important, they maybe will have enough understanding to complain about big government and furthermore.

Knock yourself out, though.
 
2013-11-19 03:15:53 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Piizzadude: Wont happen

You got a supporting argument, or are you just lazy and apathetic?

This isn't a fringe movement or obscure topic, reform could totally happen. Then question is are you going to help it happen or are you going to sit there like some kind of flaccid asshole.


Why? Because the only really effective way to shut down trolls is to say if you don't use it, you lose it. Too many major companies hold patents for one reason or another and do not actually put them to use. They mostly hold them for defensive purposes.

If you say that a company that doesnt produce anything, loses the patent, what do you do with those in bankruptcy?

End user immunity. You are giving free reign for me to go an pirate.

Functional claiming. No more rounded corner lawsuits? no.

That is why it won't happen.
 
2013-11-19 03:16:20 PM  
Where was the 'execute troll and their lawyer' upon proof of being a troll option?
 
2013-11-19 03:19:12 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Piizzadude: Wont happen

You got a supporting argument, or are you just lazy and apathetic?

This isn't a fringe movement or obscure topic, reform could totally happen. Then question is are you going to help it happen or are you going to sit there like some kind of flaccid asshole.


Flaccid Asshole is the name of my Butthole Surfers cover band.
 
2013-11-19 03:20:13 PM  

Piizzadude: Hickory-smoked: Piizzadude: Wont happen

You got a supporting argument, or are you just lazy and apathetic?

This isn't a fringe movement or obscure topic, reform could totally happen. Then question is are you going to help it happen or are you going to sit there like some kind of flaccid asshole.

Why? Because the only really effective way to shut down trolls is to say if you don't use it, you lose it. Too many major companies hold patents for one reason or another and do not actually put them to use. They mostly hold them for defensive purposes.

If you say that a company that doesnt produce anything, loses the patent, what do you do with those in bankruptcy?

End user immunity. You are giving free reign for me to go an pirate.

Functional claiming. No more rounded corner lawsuits? no.

That is why it won't happen.


OH and I do support it, very much so. I just feel it won't happen
 
2013-11-19 03:24:42 PM  

BeesNuts: Endive Wombat: Once again, special interest groups attempting to squash legal patent holders rights to persue what is rightfully theirs.

Totally unacceptable.

1. Abolish all patent law overnight.
2. Businesses all panic, then continue to make the things they are good at while competing with people who, presumably aren't as good at making those things.
3. People buy those things, but nobody is allowed a monopoly for *the entire life cycle of the product*
4. The company making the best things gets the most business.  Other businesses innovate to keep up.
4. Everyone's lives get better.


1. Spend multiple years and lots of $$$ to invent a product
2. Bring to market
3. Be immediately copied by people who do not have your R&D expenses
4. No Profit
5. Businees fails?
 
2013-11-19 03:25:25 PM  
Is there a link for people who don't use Shiatter?
 
2013-11-19 03:27:05 PM  

un4gvn666: Hickory-smoked: Piizzadude: Wont happen

You got a supporting argument, or are you just lazy and apathetic?

This isn't a fringe movement or obscure topic, reform could totally happen. Then question is are you going to help it happen or are you going to sit there like some kind of flaccid asshole.

By the time you even got around to explaining to the average American why this is important, they maybe will have enough understanding to complain about big government and furthermore.


I can explain it in 58 minutes.
 
2013-11-19 03:29:21 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: Is there a link for people who don't use Shiatter?


http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
 
2013-11-19 03:30:12 PM  
I patented getting aroused by a member of the appropriate sex. I only accept Bitcoin.
 
2013-11-19 03:33:43 PM  

sdd2000: BeesNuts: Endive Wombat: Once again, special interest groups attempting to squash legal patent holders rights to persue what is rightfully theirs.

Totally unacceptable.

1. Abolish all patent law overnight.
2. Businesses all panic, then continue to make the things they are good at while competing with people who, presumably aren't as good at making those things.
3. People buy those things, but nobody is allowed a monopoly for *the entire life cycle of the product*
4. The company making the best things gets the most business.  Other businesses innovate to keep up.
4. Everyone's lives get better.

1. Spend multiple years and lots of $$$ to invent a product
2. Bring to market
3. Be immediately copied by people who do not have your R&D expenses
4. No Profit
5. Businees fails?


You forget that while these businesses might not be able to recoup R&D costs, their legal costs dropped through the floor.  Furthermore, if I spend 4 years and several million dollars inventing, thinking about designing, proving and bringing a product to market, I have a sneaking suspicion that nobody is going to be as good at making it as I am.  If they are, then yes, my business has failed because I am bad at what I am doing.

Also known as capitalism.

For extraordinarily large undertakings like the LHC, Going to Mars, the Interstate Highway System, drug research, I happen to think capitalism simply falls apart *anyway*.  The demand isn't there unless you provide a socialist framework by which to finance the project and drive business towards it.

I don't necessarily advocate the abolition of patent law, but it's an interesting thought experiment to me.  I think the knee jerk reaction of "BAD FOR BUSINESS" is lazy, and I think patent law gives an excuse to businesses to be lazy too.
 
2013-11-19 03:34:03 PM  
How long before Fark requires facebook login?
 
2013-11-19 03:35:34 PM  

albatros183: How long before Fark requires facebook login?


T-minus the last day I log in.
 
2013-11-19 03:35:34 PM  

albatros183: How long before Fark requires facebook login?


26 minutes
 
2013-11-19 03:35:44 PM  

Hickory-smoked: un4gvn666: Hickory-smoked: Piizzadude: Wont happen

You got a supporting argument, or are you just lazy and apathetic?

This isn't a fringe movement or obscure topic, reform could totally happen. Then question is are you going to help it happen or are you going to sit there like some kind of flaccid asshole.

By the time you even got around to explaining to the average American why this is important, they maybe will have enough understanding to complain about big government and furthermore.

I can explain it in 58 minutes.


That's 56 minutes (being extremely generous) longer than the average American attention span.
 
2013-11-19 03:36:43 PM  

BeesNuts: Also known as capitalism.


Standard Oil was also known as capitalism. The idea is actually more on the flip side: what's to prevent a large company from stealing a startup's ideas and killing them off?
 
2013-11-19 03:38:24 PM  

BeesNuts: sdd2000: BeesNuts: Endive Wombat: Once again, special interest groups attempting to squash legal patent holders rights to persue what is rightfully theirs.

Totally unacceptable.

1. Abolish all patent law overnight.
2. Businesses all panic, then continue to make the things they are good at while competing with people who, presumably aren't as good at making those things.
3. People buy those things, but nobody is allowed a monopoly for *the entire life cycle of the product*
4. The company making the best things gets the most business.  Other businesses innovate to keep up.
4. Everyone's lives get better.

1. Spend multiple years and lots of $$$ to invent a product
2. Bring to market
3. Be immediately copied by people who do not have your R&D expenses
4. No Profit
5. Businees fails?

You forget that while these businesses might not be able to recoup R&D costs, their legal costs dropped through the floor.  Furthermore, if I spend 4 years and several million dollars inventing, thinking about designing, proving and bringing a product to market, I have a sneaking suspicion that nobody is going to be as good at making it as I am.  If they are, then yes, my business has failed because I am bad at what I am doing.

Also known as capitalism.

For extraordinarily large undertakings like the LHC, Going to Mars, the Interstate Highway System, drug research, I happen to think capitalism simply falls apart *anyway*.  The demand isn't there unless you provide a socialist framework by which to finance the project and drive business towards it.

I don't necessarily advocate the abolition of patent law, but it's an interesting thought experiment to me.  I think the knee jerk reaction of "BAD FOR BUSINESS" is lazy, and I think patent law gives an excuse to businesses to be lazy too.


You have also failed to take into account the amount of R&D done by universities. Under your proposed system a university would have no incentive to "invent". The ability to license their inventions is to a large extent funds colleges like MIT, Cal Tech, and no offense to Drew- Duke University (especially the medical school).

Also in your model solution how are you going to have any new drugs created?
 
2013-11-19 03:40:50 PM  

BeesNuts: You forget that while these businesses might not be able to recoup R&D costs, their legal costs dropped through the floor.


Tell that to any pharma company.  The profits from their blockbuster drugs don't just buy yachts;  they also subsidize the less profitable drugs with a niche market, very expensive drugs which may be life-saving but are unlikely to recoup the initial investment.

The drug is patented when it's synthesized, so by the time it's approved by the FDA, the company has only a few years to squeeze every cent out of their short-lived monopoly.  After that, the Indian and Israeli companies start churning out bioequiavlent generics.

Cut into those profits, all we get are little purple pills and no new antibiotics or cancer drugs.

Sorry, much as I hate defending practices which pad the coffers of Big PharmaTM, patent law is good for our health.
 
2013-11-19 03:45:39 PM  

Piizzadude: End user immunity. You are giving free reign for me to go an pirate.


No... that would be under the purview of copyright law, not patent law.

What end user immunity means is you, the end user, can not be sued for using a product that violates a patent. In the example used on the linked site, this means that if a small business buys a wifi router to offer internet access to their patrons, they can not be sued just because someone owns a patent on setting up wifi routers.

In other words, it should not be the end user's responsibility to check if using something they buy off the shelf would infringe on a patent claim. It has absolutely nothing to do with piracy.
=Smidge=
 
2013-11-19 03:46:24 PM  
The flip side is somewhat told in the movie Flash of Genius. This is the story of the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper and his fight against being ripped off by virtually all of the automobile industry (especially Ford). The movie is partially accurate, they did take some real liberties in telling it, but it does present another side to the story.
 
2013-11-19 03:48:49 PM  

sdd2000: BeesNuts: sdd2000: BeesNuts: Endive Wombat: Once again, special interest groups attempting to squash legal patent holders rights to persue what is rightfully theirs.

Totally unacceptable.

1. Abolish all patent law overnight.
2. Businesses all panic, then continue to make the things they are good at while competing with people who, presumably aren't as good at making those things.
3. People buy those things, but nobody is allowed a monopoly for *the entire life cycle of the product*
4. The company making the best things gets the most business.  Other businesses innovate to keep up.
4. Everyone's lives get better.

1. Spend multiple years and lots of $$$ to invent a product
2. Bring to market
3. Be immediately copied by people who do not have your R&D expenses
4. No Profit
5. Businees fails?

You forget that while these businesses might not be able to recoup R&D costs, their legal costs dropped through the floor.  Furthermore, if I spend 4 years and several million dollars inventing, thinking about designing, proving and bringing a product to market, I have a sneaking suspicion that nobody is going to be as good at making it as I am.  If they are, then yes, my business has failed because I am bad at what I am doing.

Also known as capitalism.

For extraordinarily large undertakings like the LHC, Going to Mars, the Interstate Highway System, drug research, I happen to think capitalism simply falls apart *anyway*.  The demand isn't there unless you provide a socialist framework by which to finance the project and drive business towards it.

I don't necessarily advocate the abolition of patent law, but it's an interesting thought experiment to me.  I think the knee jerk reaction of "BAD FOR BUSINESS" is lazy, and I think patent law gives an excuse to businesses to be lazy too.

You have also failed to take into account the amount of R&D done by universities. Under your proposed system a university would have no incentive to "invent". The ability to license their invent ...


If there is not sufficient economic incentive to invent something privately, but there is a social incentive to invent something publicly, perhaps we can come up with a way to finance those things publicly.

I'm talking "restructure the entire way we do this" levels of mucking with the system, so I honestly haven't thought of all the problems.  But the common one is "nobody will innovate anymore".  I disagree, I think people who want to make money will continue to innovate and they will actually strive to be better at making their products than anyone else, rather than simply being the first to the trough.

As for the big BIG programs, medicine, space exploration etc, I happen to think we'd do better to publicly finance them.  I think we should stop publicly financing the creation of weapons.  I think we should stop publicly financing extra food supplies to burn.

Think of the goods and industries unhampered by patent law.  I have a beer in front of me, so let's use that.  I can't patent a beer.  I can copyright its name, and my brewery's name, but the beer itself and its recipe are fair game.  The only thing I can do to protect that business is to have the best recipe, or to be better at making and distributing it than my competition.  The result, after we got prohibition and the subsequent tri-opoly of miller/coors/bud, is thousands upon thousands of new beers introduced to the market every year.

In the presence of patent law, I can *stop* innovating because my revenue stream is protected.  In the absence of patent law the only way to succeed is to innovate.

/I have no doubt there are kinks though, drugs is the biggest struggle for me
//So... single payer + publicly financed R&D + reform the FDA + ... idk what...
 
2013-11-19 03:55:07 PM  
The Electronic Frontier Foundation should start a university. I would totally buy one of their sweatshirts.
 
2013-11-19 04:00:21 PM  

BeesNuts: sdd2000: BeesNuts: sdd2000: BeesNuts: Endive Wombat:

Think of the goods and industries unhampered by patent law.  I have a beer in front of me, so let's use that.  I can't patent a beer.  I can copyright trademark its name, and my brewery's name, but the beer itself and its recipe are fair game.  The only thing I can do to protect that business is to have the best recipe, or to be better at making and distributing it than my competition.  The result, after we got prohibition and the subsequent tri-opoly of miller/coors/bud, is thousands upon thousands of new beers introduced to the market every year.

In the presence of patent law, I can *stop* innovating because my revenue stream is protected.In the absence of patent law the only way to succeed is to innovate.

/I have no doubt there are kinks though, drugs is the biggest struggle for me
//So... single payer + publicly financed R&D + reform the FDA + ... idk what...


 FTFY as copyright =/= trademark

As to the "stop" innovating you do know patents do not last forever and may take many years for the patent to actually issue, so you better be still innovating or you will be the next Kodak or Poloroid, or Blackberry, etc. Kodak and Blackberry still have some limited life left in some of their patents and the law allows in some cases a look back of six years for damages, but other than those assests there is little left in those companies.
 
2013-11-19 04:02:16 PM  

Piizzadude: End user immunity. You are giving free reign for me to go an pirate.


Copyright law and Patent law are not the same thing.
 
2013-11-19 04:03:41 PM  

BeesNuts: In the presence of patent law, I can *stop* innovating because my revenue stream is protected.  In the absence of patent law the only way to succeed is to innovate.


See my post above regarding pharma.  Patents are filed well before the product goes to market, and patents expire.  You can only go on cruise control on your original innovation for a few years.
 
2013-11-19 04:12:22 PM  

BeesNuts: In the absence of patent law the only way to succeed is to innovate.


Or copy from someone with less capitol than you, then blast them out of the market share by aggressive marketing, cost-undercutting, and brand-name recognition.
 
2013-11-19 04:17:04 PM  
Little disappointed that EFF apparently can't tell which district I live in. WAY OFF
 
2013-11-19 04:30:48 PM  

Holfax: BeesNuts: In the absence of patent law the only way to succeed is to innovate.

Or copy from someone with less capitol than you, then blast them out of the market share by aggressive marketing, cost-undercutting, and brand-name recognition.


Another issue.  But this is happening anyway, right?

sdd2000: FTFY as copyright =/= trademark

As to the "stop" innovating you do know patents do not last forever and may take many years for the patent to actually issue, so you better be still innovating or you will be the next Kodak or Poloroid, or Blackberry, etc. Kodak and Blackberry still have some limited life left in some of their patents and the law allows in some cases a look back of six years for damages, but other than those assests there is little left in those companies.


Thanks, IANAPatentLawyer, obviously, I termed up my mix there.

I do know these things though, somewhat.  The rules are insanely complicated, so I can't claim to really understand the lifecycle of a patent.  I suppose my general response to that is more gut feeling than I'd like to admit right away :p

Kodak, Polaroid and Blackberry have been making inferior products for years and been able to get away with it for a variety of reasons.  Kodak and Polaroid were quite literally kept afloat by a stable of patents, Blackberry was intimately tied to businesses from their marketing strategy at the dawn of the smartphone era (super smart btw, businesses are much more brand loyal than the regular consumer).  But lack of continued innovation is the reason they *all* eventually failed.  Other people, with other technology, beat them in the market.

So when their patents (kodak and polaroid only I guess) lapsed, years of not keeping up with competition caught up with them, agreed?

If so, in the absence of patents altogether we have two potentials competing with each other.
1. Nobody can actuarially justify making innovative things without some guarantee of being the sole distributor of said things, stalling the system completely.
or, if that doesn't happen right away
2. The state of things as they exist when a companies patents run out, where they have to innovate constantly to compete, takes over and nothing really changes.

A third possibility I just thought of as I was writing that is that companies no longer exist as enterprises.  Now, we have companies that innovates over and over, riding patents into the future where they can make more products to patent and more and more money and endless growth.  A change like this could change that.  Companies would exist to sell their products and would only occasionally improve or innovate as necessary to compete directly with their 1-1 competitors.  New products would likely come from new companies.  And companies would have to be content with limited growth.

So there are lots of consequences I haven't thought of, obviously.  Which is why I like thinking about it.
 
2013-11-19 04:32:25 PM  
Protecting end users is a good thing. But to those wanting to take away the intellectual property rights from people who have created something new is nothing more than criminal. That also being said, if someone wants to Patent Troll they should be required to pay the legal expenses of those they sued. In other words, you want to sue someone because you filed a vague patent, you should be financially ruined. Make it so people are want to do this,
 
2013-11-19 04:49:54 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Protecting end users is a good thing. But to those wanting to take away the intellectual property rights from people who have created something new is nothing more than criminal. That also being said, if someone wants to Patent Troll they should be required to pay the legal expenses of those they sued. In other words, you want to sue someone because you filed a vague patent, you should be financially ruined. Make it so people are want to do this,


The problem I have is that "people" don't ever seem to end up with those intellectual property rights.  Which kind of blows the whole idea of "intellectual property" up for me.
 
2013-11-19 04:57:29 PM  
If you do nothing, it will surely never never change.

The list is a fair and reasonable first step that will benefit small businesses, which I'm told both parties care about, against patent trolls and large corporations.

It will protect end users against frivolous lawsuits.

I can't see the downside.
 
2013-11-19 05:19:38 PM  

gerbilpox: I patented the click. You all owe me $bajillion.


Ha, the joke's on you. My mouse uses a point-n-clack interface.
 
2013-11-19 05:31:30 PM  

Snarfangel: gerbilpox: I patented the click. You all owe me $bajillion.

Ha, the joke's on you. My mouse uses a point-n-clack interface.


i.imgur.com

Point-and-quack?
 
2013-11-19 05:33:13 PM  
first seventh are great, the eighth one is hopeless. Best we could hope for is narrowing functional claiming
 
2013-11-19 06:00:19 PM  
I have emailed, written (real letters), called, went to his office and have never NEVER heard from my DEMOCRATIC representative.  My senators are either republican or completely unavailable Dem.  I get better responses from the white house, they don't help but I get responses.
 
2013-11-19 07:20:06 PM  
EFF did FARK ALL about spying and surveillance, but gets all excited about screwing people who invent stuff. They are basically a Google trade group. They took the advertising industry's position on Do Not Track.
 
2013-11-19 10:17:20 PM  

Smidge204: Piizzadude: Wont happen

I wouldn't be too sure... a lot of the big tech companies are the ones who have to put up with patent troll bullsh*t, so there won't be much negative pressure from them.
=Smidge=


Yup, and a fair number of legislators on both sides of the aisle are getting sick of this shiat.

Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, just dropped his bill today, though it's not in final form yet- it's intended to be the base vehicle for a bunch of amendments other members of the Judiciary Committee have been working on. In the House, Goodlatte, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, has had a bill out for the last few weeks, mostly complete, though there may be room for a provision addressing threatening letters, one of which is in the Senate Bill, and a lot of House members want to include too.

There's big bipartisan momentum on this one right now. President's on board too. I'd expect something to pass.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report