A) I'm perfectly ok with hating the player and the game. Patent reform would be great, but you can't legislate sanity or neighborliness.
B) This is not the game. As Fred Wilson explains, web company patents have been thought of as defensive. If this triggers a wave of patent lawsuit bullshit, then everybody will end up poorer. Except the lawyers, of course.
The more we have companies blatantly showing how unproductive and how software patents are actually hurting innovation, the more likely it is that change will happen.
Just remember though that right now the pharmaceutical companies are massively outspending the technology sector as far as lobbying Congress. (A Senator is a wonderful thing --- everyone should own one!)
As a Google employee I can contribute to Google NetPAC. I'm not sure what opportunities exist towards donations to organizations that directly lobby Congress. The EFF is an advocacy organization, which is a good start, but they are not a lobbying organization per se.
It's a horrible system and it's not a productive way to use money as far as society is concerned, but unfortunately, it's the way the game is structured, and if you don't play the game, you'll get run over by those who do....
Absolutely. It's easy to bash at Yahoo, but we can't forget that while Facebook (and many other players, including Yahoo) are using one hand undermine the "intellectual property" of other companies, they're using their other hand to try and protect their own IP using the same laws.
Take this absurd Facebook patent as an example
>System and method for dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network (US2008040673).
While the situation is different, as Facebook aren't suing anyone (yet), we can imagine if the roles were reversed, the story might be a little different. Why else would they file for patents if their intent wasn't to defend "their ideas."
If we're calling out Yahoo's patents as junk, we should be doing the same for facebook and the rest, otherwise we're turning a bad system of "who dunnit first" into an even worse one, a popularity contest.
I agree completely. While Y! is clearly acting in desperation, this is an obvious and predictable act given the legal system in which they operate and patent portfolio they have. We can (and should!) demand that they not do the expected, but I the think anger is better focused on systemic reform then getting angry at any single company's actions. In a system of laws, what else should anyone expect but a legal entity to act in what it sees as its own best interest. Software patents need to end; working to that end is the best way to deal with this sort of event.
It seems that a lot of people think that we need substantive patent reform, but what I haven't heard is any real proposal except for scrapping the entire system (or possibly just for software). I've put together the basics of a proposal here:
I'm sure that it has a lot of problems, but we need to start having the discussion of how to fix the system, instead of just whether or not it needs fixing.
+1. Nothing more to add. Other than: I think we're stuck with the current system for at least a decade because we just "did" patent reform which was really just a dog and pony show for the unwashed masses.
Yes, current patent law is broken, but that doesn't mean that Y! have to use it. If this was a defensive move against a patent claim from Facebook, I'd have some sympathy. But as far as I can tell, it isn't. So I don't.
When the player is a huge corporation consisting of numerous layers of management, it is very hard not to hate them.
This player will most likely also lobby aggressively to thwart any attempts at reforming the patent system since it is one of its few remaining sources of revenue.
True. Very true. They are in a weak position, and this is their hand.
It may take all out war, and an overwhelming of the legal v startup ecosystem, before sense returns. Akin to the opinion piece in the NYTimes "Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System" over the weekend.
Patent reform is not going to happen until people start hating the player. Whenever someone says "don't hate the player" we end up a little bit further away from patent reform.
For reform, the trick is to find a solution that works at two ends of the spectrum:
1) A pharma company spends $1B on R&D to develop a drug and get FDA approval. If someone could knock off the resulting compound at 10 cents per pill, we wouldn't have the drug.
2) Software companies, where there are hundreds of potential patents to file or infringe on, and there is tons of iterative evolution.
Not really. Those who act unethically bear the responsibility, and saying that since system is broken it's OK to abuse it just doesn't cut it. With that said, of course the system needs to be blamed (and changed) as well.
They had a choice - not to use those patents they know are worthless, to make money from FB. So yeah, I'm also perfectly fine with hating the player in this case, too.
Why would it be ok for Yahoo and other big companies to use patents "only" to threaten small shops and keep the status quo?
Let them fight between eachother, let Yahoo sue Facebook sue Gooogle sue Microsoft sue Apple sue HTC sue Samsung sue Sony sue Oracle sue ... let everyone sue everyone else. Let the total war on patents begin. Let the big players burn a ton of money on pointless legal battles. And then, and only then, they might push for a patent reform which will level playing field for all players, including new ones.
This is already what happens. Changes have reinforced and will further reinforce the status quo and ensure that only the mega corporations will be able to play.
They were useful for navigating the web between 94 and 96 or so. They then proceeded to acquire a few sites which were also useful at one point in time, (Flickr et al), although they do seem pretty good at driving such sites into irrelevancy.
I actually like Yahoo News for some reason. Some of the stories they feature in the front page makes me want to click through and read it when I'm bored.
This guy doesn't even mention the claims of the patents in suit, so why should I trust his opinion about their merits? If you don't know how to read a patent, you're absolutely not qualified to make pronouncements like this:
> None of them represent unique and new ideas at the time of the filing. I supect they all can be thrown out over prior art if Facebook takes the time and effort to do that.
Also, even the article that he links to just quotes the damn abstracts of the patents, as if that has anything to do with what they cover.
Honestly people, I know you like to rail against software patents and the patent system in general... but educate yourselves first, or you just come off looking ignorant to anyone who knows the first thing about patents.
I did consider the title, and was about to go with the original. Fred is one of the best writers out there - insight, humor, compassion, humility, honesty. I thought his closing remarks really captured his rare but real venom at the shakedown. Nothing more than that.
The close analogy, for me, was Oracle's attempt to shake down Google.
Patents are a game that's a lot like Poker.
I couldn't blame any startup for accumulating a patent portfolio because that's something of economic value -- it could help an acquisition because a larger company would like to put together a broad portfolio.
So long as you can get value out of it that way, it's all roses. Once you get to a lawsuit, it's ugly, largely because the result is unpredictable -- if people settle out of court you get the desired result, but if your opponent can fight you to the end, you're very likely to end up with invalidated patents. That, of course, is why companies like this broad portfolios -- if there are ten patents involved, it's much more likely something will stick.
The only Yahoo! property that I care about is Flickr, which I also pay for. It would be nice to find an alternative.
So: suggestions for a social photo archive service which is reliable enough to be the "master copy" of my pictures, and preferably has Flickr import ability?
Take a look at 500px.com; it seems a large swath of the higher-end of the community is migrating there. At this point, it's probably where I'm going to land with my archive if I have to move.
Unfortunately, I don't believe they have the ability to automatically import your Flickr photos.
I really don't understand what their weak market position has to do with this lawsuit. If Yahoo! believes Facebook violated their patents, they will sue. They _should_ sue. They do it now because apparently that's the way new CEO does the business. I can't blame him, can you? Now, whether FW post was an emotional rant or he has any business saying what he said, hard to judge. But I read his blog for a while now and don't recall last time stumbling at such an emotional rant.
Further, whether patent system needs "reform in this country" is relevant to the fact that one part believes other part infringe. If Yahoo!, Facebook or anyone else feels someone infringe and ended up saying "oh they system is broken lets wait until its fixed", then they may as well wait another 75 years.
I say good things can come up from this, especially if Yahoo! loses. Facebook is claiming that what they are being sued over was "nothing new" at that time. Cool! Have them win. Next time someone build highly successful social website with human connections done based on request/approve/reject, and Facebook will try to shut them down based on infringe of one of their hundreds of patents, you can say: "oh, none of this was new at the time of Facebook: MySpace, Fridndster, etc. Here, I am using Facebook own rules - they win, I need to win too".
The problem is innovation is measured as number of patents filed. Investors who want more innovation, judge how innovative a company is by number of patents. More patents -> more innovative. And so that's what managers optimize for.
The program is that is a ridiculously crude measure. Like measuring programmer output by lines of code, this idea that measuring innovation at such a micro level even makes sense, needs to die.
> Control for enabling a user to preview display of selected
> content based on another user’s authorization level (Filed
> 2005, Issued 2009)
> In plain English: Share an item only with selected friends
This is actually about a preview of what a given user (friend) would see.
The reason software patents suck so hard is because for every 10,000 totally bogus patents there's one that when you read it makes you think, wow, that really is an invention.
Patent system doesn't need to be reformed. It needs to be flat out abolished. It's a disgrace to the human race. You can't own ideas. Patent system is a form of control, just as is oil, or just as the way the monetary system is run. All these must go, will go.
I suppose we all knew this day would come from Yahoo. The start of where lawyers take over the company and product make a steady march to complete crap. Pretty common pattern for companies that can no longer compete (SCO anyone). It is sad Yahoo still have a great brand and could reinvent itself. This entire thing is nonsense but I guess to try and squeeze some more revenue for the share holders is what they are obligated to do. I miss the old Yahoo.
This is like watching a once great sports team play in a rusty, deserted stadium. This hurts so much because Yahoo helped make the a web a beautiful, free place where humans could create and communicate. They once understood that but are now reduced to mugging full pockets in back alleys. Pretty clear the company is being run by stooges and fee chasing lawyers now and is sinking fast.
[+] [-] viggity|14 years ago|reply
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
We need real, substantive patent reform in this country.
[+] [-] wpietri|14 years ago|reply
B) This is not the game. As Fred Wilson explains, web company patents have been thought of as defensive. If this triggers a wave of patent lawsuit bullshit, then everybody will end up poorer. Except the lawyers, of course.
[+] [-] tytso|14 years ago|reply
Just remember though that right now the pharmaceutical companies are massively outspending the technology sector as far as lobbying Congress. (A Senator is a wonderful thing --- everyone should own one!)
As a Google employee I can contribute to Google NetPAC. I'm not sure what opportunities exist towards donations to organizations that directly lobby Congress. The EFF is an advocacy organization, which is a good start, but they are not a lobbying organization per se.
It's a horrible system and it's not a productive way to use money as far as society is concerned, but unfortunately, it's the way the game is structured, and if you don't play the game, you'll get run over by those who do....
[+] [-] sparkie|14 years ago|reply
Take this absurd Facebook patent as an example
>System and method for dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network (US2008040673).
While the situation is different, as Facebook aren't suing anyone (yet), we can imagine if the roles were reversed, the story might be a little different. Why else would they file for patents if their intent wasn't to defend "their ideas."
If we're calling out Yahoo's patents as junk, we should be doing the same for facebook and the rest, otherwise we're turning a bad system of "who dunnit first" into an even worse one, a popularity contest.
[+] [-] alsothings|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kd5bjo|14 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3698637
I'm sure that it has a lot of problems, but we need to start having the discussion of how to fix the system, instead of just whether or not it needs fixing.
[+] [-] mmaunder|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prof_hobart|14 years ago|reply
Yes, current patent law is broken, but that doesn't mean that Y! have to use it. If this was a defensive move against a patent claim from Facebook, I'd have some sympathy. But as far as I can tell, it isn't. So I don't.
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodemaker|14 years ago|reply
This player will most likely also lobby aggressively to thwart any attempts at reforming the patent system since it is one of its few remaining sources of revenue.
[+] [-] barrynolan|14 years ago|reply
It may take all out war, and an overwhelming of the legal v startup ecosystem, before sense returns. Akin to the opinion piece in the NYTimes "Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System" over the weekend.
[+] [-] bborud|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nilsbunger|14 years ago|reply
1) A pharma company spends $1B on R&D to develop a drug and get FDA approval. If someone could knock off the resulting compound at 10 cents per pill, we wouldn't have the drug.
2) Software companies, where there are hundreds of potential patents to file or infringe on, and there is tons of iterative evolution.
[+] [-] shmerl|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slowpoke|14 years ago|reply
In case you missed it, it's the players who make the game and keep it running - a self-sustaining spiral of endless bullshit.
[+] [-] olaf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jazzsax|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdfasdf4321|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] markokocic|14 years ago|reply
Why would it be ok for Yahoo and other big companies to use patents "only" to threaten small shops and keep the status quo?
Let them fight between eachother, let Yahoo sue Facebook sue Gooogle sue Microsoft sue Apple sue HTC sue Samsung sue Sony sue Oracle sue ... let everyone sue everyone else. Let the total war on patents begin. Let the big players burn a ton of money on pointless legal battles. And then, and only then, they might push for a patent reform which will level playing field for all players, including new ones.
[+] [-] shasta|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelw|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bambax|14 years ago|reply
That's the strangest part. I never found Yahoo useful for anything (except Douglas Crockford, but he could have been employed anywhere).
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hessenwolf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AznHisoka|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monochromatic|14 years ago|reply
> None of them represent unique and new ideas at the time of the filing. I supect they all can be thrown out over prior art if Facebook takes the time and effort to do that.
Also, even the article that he links to just quotes the damn abstracts of the patents, as if that has anything to do with what they cover.
Honestly people, I know you like to rail against software patents and the patent system in general... but educate yourselves first, or you just come off looking ignorant to anyone who knows the first thing about patents.
[+] [-] cs702|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barrynolan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arturadib|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulHoule|14 years ago|reply
Patents are a game that's a lot like Poker.
I couldn't blame any startup for accumulating a patent portfolio because that's something of economic value -- it could help an acquisition because a larger company would like to put together a broad portfolio.
So long as you can get value out of it that way, it's all roses. Once you get to a lawsuit, it's ugly, largely because the result is unpredictable -- if people settle out of court you get the desired result, but if your opponent can fight you to the end, you're very likely to end up with invalidated patents. That, of course, is why companies like this broad portfolios -- if there are ten patents involved, it's much more likely something will stick.
[+] [-] tzaman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zyb09|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bergie|14 years ago|reply
So: suggestions for a social photo archive service which is reliable enough to be the "master copy" of my pictures, and preferably has Flickr import ability?
[+] [-] logic|14 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, I don't believe they have the ability to automatically import your Flickr photos.
[+] [-] pavs|14 years ago|reply
They are not stagnant, improving all the time. Not as big as flickr, but big enough and reliable.
I used both imgur pro and flickr but now I only use flickr because I am too lazy to switch.
[+] [-] joering2|14 years ago|reply
Further, whether patent system needs "reform in this country" is relevant to the fact that one part believes other part infringe. If Yahoo!, Facebook or anyone else feels someone infringe and ended up saying "oh they system is broken lets wait until its fixed", then they may as well wait another 75 years.
I say good things can come up from this, especially if Yahoo! loses. Facebook is claiming that what they are being sued over was "nothing new" at that time. Cool! Have them win. Next time someone build highly successful social website with human connections done based on request/approve/reject, and Facebook will try to shut them down based on infringe of one of their hundreds of patents, you can say: "oh, none of this was new at the time of Facebook: MySpace, Fridndster, etc. Here, I am using Facebook own rules - they win, I need to win too".
[+] [-] lrobb|14 years ago|reply
Wait... Is he still talking about the facebook lawsuit?
[+] [-] pagehub|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polymatter|14 years ago|reply
The program is that is a ridiculously crude measure. Like measuring programmer output by lines of code, this idea that measuring innovation at such a micro level even makes sense, needs to die.
[+] [-] rplnt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelw|14 years ago|reply
The article links to the description of the patents http://paidcontent.org/article/419-meet-the-10-patents-yahoo... and tries to summarize each one in "plain English."
> Control for enabling a user to preview display of selected > content based on another user’s authorization level (Filed > 2005, Issued 2009) > In plain English: Share an item only with selected friends
This is actually about a preview of what a given user (friend) would see.
The reason software patents suck so hard is because for every 10,000 totally bogus patents there's one that when you read it makes you think, wow, that really is an invention.
[+] [-] ypcx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrgreenfur|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barrynolan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Teef|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hoff|14 years ago|reply
Yahoo! could be aiming to be acquired by Facebook or Google.
Assuming the patents involved are tenable, this looks rather like a viable reverse-acquisition strategy.
[+] [-] shapeshed|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polshaw|14 years ago|reply