
EFF Patent Project Gets Half-Million-Dollar Boost from Mark Cuban and 'Notch' - jeffool
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-patent-project-gets-half-million-dollar-boost-mark-cuban-and-notch
======
against-patents
If you're a designated inventor of a patent or a patent application who
opposes patents, you could publicly state your support for patent abolition at
the Inventors Against Patents site: <http://inventors-against-patents.org>

(A site operator here; the site was launched a few days ago. The idea is that
anyone campaigning for a patent reform can use support by designated inventors
as a presumably convincing argument in the eyes of the general public.)

Edit: As Richard Stallman points out in a comment at EFF's site, abolishing
software patents can be easier than shortening the period during which a
monopoly is granted to 5 years as EFF proposes; he cites a requirement by WTO
that all patents are granted for a period of 20 years.

The nice thing about publicly supporting abolition is that you automatically
support "less radical" proposal's like EFF's 5-year reform, and you support
all of them at the same time just once and all campaigners can use your
support. DRY :)

~~~
jack-r-abbit
I can see how that would be quite the annoying situation to be in. On one
hand, an inventor that opposes patents could simply not file a patent. But
then that leaves them open for someone else to come along and file the patent
and then sue them for patent infringement. So the inventor is then compelled
to file a patent simply as a way to keep some one else from getting it... even
if they never plan to go after others for infringement.

~~~
CamperBob2
You can always stop someone else from patenting your idea by publishing it
yourself, though. You don't have to play the game to affect the outcome.

~~~
Semaphor
Clear this up for me please. How does that help? Isn't that essentially the
prior art thing that still has to get resolved in the courts?

~~~
CamperBob2
Yes, but it changes the dynamics. If the defendant can point to solid prior
art, the patent troll will likely beat a hasty retreat. The last thing they
want is to have their weapon taken away from them by the adults in the room.

~~~
Semaphor
Thanks! Though that still seems more expensive than filing the patent.

------
lolcraft
Hmmm, that's a bold move from Notch. I wonder how political activism in the US
by a Swedish citizen is going to sit. Personally, I would just have thanked my
luck for working in a country with sane patent laws.

~~~
fruchtose
I think Notch is in a good position. Minecraft has huge draw among children.
Think of how many politicians' kids might play it.

~~~
jlgreco
Maybe my perception is skewed, but I imagine most American politicians'
children being in their 20's to 30's.

Edit: Apparently wikipedia really does have a page for everything:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_age)

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Our President's kids are 11 & 14\. Sure that is just one case but I also
imagine current generation of politicians is on the edge of a more recent
trend to have kids later in life (not counting the other trend of having kids
at age 14).

~~~
jlgreco
Obama is only older than 15 or so of the 100 senators. As far as American
politics go, he is quite young.

------
mtgx
EFF's ideas for patent reform:

<https://defendinnovation.org>

They sound pretty good to me.

~~~
loceng
#1 I feel this is just a scapegoat with allowing people to hope and wait 5
years for bullshit patents to expire; I don't know what a fair length of
advantage time, temporarily monopoly should exist.

#2 If someone isn't infringing, then sure - troll should pay. But a lot of
unknowns could invalidate a patent, perhaps just decidedly not detailed enough
by a judge who ends up reviewing it, which I don't think makes sense to be a
point of having the troll pay for it. If a patent is seen as invalid, then it
can no longer be used to sue people.

#3 Agreed.

#4 It would be impossible for either party to prove, so then this just leaves
costs open ended for the person who owns the patent.

#5 This is confusing. They seem to be trying to deal with a problem not
directly associated with patents themselves? More they just want more
information to make it easier if it'd be a good idea or not to infringe? You
could always send an email and ask if what you're doing infringes - assuming
you're not trying to patent something on top of existing patents further.
Though I imagine that's not a tactic most people would be comfortable with.

#6 Define what a small fraction is, vs. how important something is in an
application; It could be the most valuable piece in some overall 'bloated'
scheme

#7 If you look at benefit to the economy, currently measured by GDP, any money
being spent (on lawyers) is positive for GDP, and therefore for the economy..

In conclusion, I think these suggestions put forward by EFF are meant to deal
with stopping the damage and strain trolls put on the system, though not
fairly take into consideration real innovation, that actually is created, and
used. Things like "swipe to the right to unlock" - I don't think that's
complex enough to consider it patentable - but it is patented (I believe) -
but never should have been. I am sure there are much more complex systems that
people can come up with, that might take many years to develop or discover -
but once known and concepts turned into something tangible, it would not take
long to re-engineer, so there may not then be any incentive to attempting to
develop said system; It could even take years of looking for someone to fund
what you want to create that you have a patent on, especially if it's "so far
out there" that people might have trouble understanding its value. Anyway -
it'll be interesting to see where it all goes. I think all patents, software
and not, should be thrown out. Other mechanisms would surface to allow
innovation to move forward.

~~~
ScottBurson
I agree that #1 and #4 are problematic, and to a lesser extent #6.

#3 sounds good, but how do you stop people from submitting code written in
Brainfuck or TECO or something?

~~~
throwaway125
Regarding #3 I think they want the patent holder to prove he is actually using
the invention for a (commercial) benefit. If you invent a copy protection
scheme they want to see you actively sell it to third parties or actively use
it in your own product. I think that makes sense to be honest, people
shouldn't be able to sleep on an invention until they find a suitable company
to sue for high profit margins.

Edit: This is in reply to points about _software patents_ only.

~~~
Retric
The classic drug pipeline includes pure research companies that would be
NPE's.

~~~
against-patents
Isn't it rather possible that the right answer for software is not like the
right answer for drugs, and that it takes an expert in a particular field to
propose a sensible reform (assuming one is needed in that field)?

A lot of the questions about what patents tend to do seem to have different
answers in different fields: [http://inventors-against-
patents.org/faq.html#is_abolition_o...](http://inventors-against-
patents.org/faq.html#is_abolition_obvious)

------
marcamillion
How does this work exactly....Mark Cuban sponsors a chair and the EFF hires 2
attorneys to execute the mission of the chair. But given that this a $250K
grant, that sounds like it covers their salary for 1 year. What happens in the
next year? Is this a commitment in perpetuity where he keeps paying these
salaries? Or does the EFF have to find money next year to pay these salaries?

I am not condemning this move, I am really curious about how this stuff works.

Anyone know?

~~~
shadowmint
No idea, but I guess having someone working on this issue full-time for a year
will give them some idea of how effective this type of move is, and it's
certainly better than no action at all.

If it is effective, I'm sure there are a variety of ways to continue to fund
the initiative.

~~~
marcamillion
Perhaps...but I am still curious as to how it works :)

------
dawernik
Yep, enough money for two attorneys oughta do it. Although i have to admit, i
would love to have that title 'The Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid
Patents'.

------
shawn-butler
The EFF should stick to its core mission. This is an overreach and is a
mistake.

Worse it's a waste of time, money and valuable attention. If you want
political action and have the money and resources then why not form a single-
issue political action group, get involved and do something?

This is just writing a check and getting your picture and name in the media,
something by the way at which Mark Cuban, whose hypocrisy knows little bounds,
excels.

~~~
morsch
That seems like be a lot of harsh claims and little to back them up.

It's easy to see how you could argue that this is exactly the EFF's core
mission, the link from software patents to digital rights is hardly ephemeral,
and the EFF has a history with the (since expired, the system works!) GIF
patent. I think that an opponent argument is conceivable, but you haven't made
it.

And why _would_ you form a single-issue political group, when you could join
ranks with a sympathetic existing political organization, which brings
enormous resources, relationships and standing to the table?

~~~
shawn-butler
The EFF is supposed to be about protecting digital rights. Do you believe that
either Apple or Samsung is violating the civil rights of the other?

I could see taking on a case on behalf of someone who is a victim of another
abusing the system say by an NPE troll. Wading into legal reform and becoming
a lobbyist organization is another matter entirely in my mind.

Generally speaking from the evidence we see around us on a daily basis, the
EFF is failing to hold the line in its mission as it is. They have no easy
task. I don't really see how biting off yet even more than you can chew and
becoming further diluted helps. Should the ACLU be active in environmental
causes? We can agree to disagree about how best to achieve political reform
and maintain credibility. There are indeed many ways to skin a cat.

~~~
dannyobrien
First of all, "civil rights" means (in the US context) a particular set of
issues, which aren't actually the core ones defended by EFF _or_ the ACLU,
although they sometimes overlap. I think you mean civil liberties.

Second, EFF has been working on intellectual property reform since its
founding. It's long argued that antiquated or misapplied ideas of how IP
should be enforced are actually a free expression issue, since (among other
ideas) code is speech. It's actually one of the core principles at the basis
of mapping traditional civil liberties onto the digital realm, which is at
least some of the (looser) ideas behind "digital rights". Patent reform is
part of that. It's not just about Samsung and Apple, it's about people being
able to express themselves -- in free software, or the application of
algorithms, in a digital world.

------
solutionhn
If HN was serious about patent trolls, we would have our answers by now.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4927832>

------
M8R-fhlcjm
what exactly have Cuban or Minecraft innovated?

~~~
xymostech
Well, Minecraft is the one of the largest (if not _the_ largest) indie
developed game in the world. So there's that.

~~~
M8R-fhlcjm
biggest != technical innovation

Quake 1 had better graphics and editors eons ago

------
M8R-fhlcjm
You won't be able to create an exception for software not to be patentable.
It's over, get used to it and move on.

~~~
against-patents
It's a tad pessimistic, given that, say, slavery was abolished by most nations
after being widespread and acceptable, in all cultures and on all continents,
for thousands of years. Things end, especially if people actively try to end
them.

