
Saved by Alice - nsgi
https://www.eff.org/alice
======
cyphar
I've always found the culture around software patents incredibly toxic. Very
rarely are patents used as means to fund future work (which is their entire
intention) and far more often they are used as an extortion tactic (even by
non-trolls).

And even if they were being used "correctly", software development is still
poorer as an industry because of them. As they say, Stallman was right all
along. [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-
patents.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-patents.en.html)

~~~
168
Does anyone know what exactly Stallman means by 'functional part'? I would
have assumed it to mean something like one feature, or perhaps one procedure,
but that does not quite add up with his examples having two to three times as
many 'functional parts' as they have lines of code.

~~~
cyphar
If you read the paragraph that referenced it, it appears he's referring to
constructs like 'if' statements and 'while' loops. In particular, he was
contrasting the difference between mechanical engineering and software
engineering:

> If I wanted to put an ‘If’ statement in a ‘While’ statement, I don't have to
> worry about whether the ‘If’ statement will oscillate at a certain frequency
> and rub against the ‘While’ statement and eventually they will fracture. I
> don't have to worry whether it will oscillate at a certain higher frequency
> and induce a signal in the value of some other variable. [...]

------
heisenbit
More important than innovation is often execution. Protecting shallow
innovation at the cost of hampering maybe less innovative but well executed
small businesses is not serving the common good.

------
CalChris
Clarified by _Enfish_.

 _Enfish v Microsoft_

> _The Supreme Court has suggested that claims “purport[ing] to improve the
> functioning of the computer itself,” or “improv[ing] an existing
> technological process” might not succumb to the abstract idea exception._

[http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-
or...](http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-
orders/15-1244.Opinion.5-10-2016.1.PDF)

------
IPS3c
Patent trolls only stifle real innovation.

------
makecheck
I can see two rules that would help immensely with trolls:

1\. There should be an _absolute maximum_ on the litigation that can be
brought against _any_ organization for _any_ reason in a given time period
(say, a year), and that total cost should not be able to exceed some tiny
fraction of its total operating costs for that period (parent companies
included, to avoid hiding actual illegal activities in subsidiaries). In other
words, it should be _impossible_ for someone to kill a startup “in the crib”
simply by creating overwhelming lawsuits that are too expensive in time and
money to deal with.

2\. There should be a very substantial penalty for failing to convict after
accusing a someone of a patent violation; something like 10x the legal costs
of the party that was accused, _and_ a moratorium on any similar accusations
against any party for some period (like 6 months). In other words, slow these
trolls down and hit them hard when they fail, and they might not try to make a
shady business out of it.

~~~
saagarjha
Of course with absolute legislation like this you're going to end up with
someone abusing the rules. Already been sued too many times this year (as any
large company is)? Congratulations, you're now immune to lawsuits.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Plus: "Hey, Steve, buddy - I'll pay you the cost of losing if you sue us for
infringement - we're one law-suit away from being invincible."

------
jfaucett
Why not just make all patents illegal? Then just let companies mitigate the
risks of IP infringement through the purchase of insurance. The insurer could
offer various policies some that compensate for all losses due to infringment
and/or also going after perpetrators, etc. This seems like a more optimal
solution to me than the current lot of legislation and trolling, I think it
would maximize rate of innovation while also allowing companies to invest and
have safeguards against IP theft.

~~~
inimino
I don't get it. What would it mean to "go after perpetrators" if there's no
longer any such thing as a patent?

------
ATsch
This is meta, but I it would be awesome they'd add a slight margin to the text
on mobile, it's very difficult to read if the text starts on the border of the
page.

~~~
ljf
On my white phone it looks bad, but on my black phone it works - I wonder what
the dev had? ;)

------
lucb1e
So... what is Alice?

~~~
lisper
Did you not read the article? Alice is the name of a company, and also the
abbreviated name of a court case (Alice v. CLS Bank) in which Alice, the
company, was the plaintiff.

~~~
kyberias
To be fair, the linked page does not adequately explain what Alice is. To me
it was clear that it was some important court case and they just want to call
it "Alice". But I can understand why it might be hard to understand for some.

~~~
lisper
You can't be serious. The very first words of the article are:

"In Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that ..."

That makes it clear that "Alice v. CLS Bank" is a court case, and Alice was
the name of one of the litigants. That phrase is linked to another article,
whose first sentence is:

"In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bank today."

Anyone older than six who can't figure this out on their own should be ashamed
of themselves.

~~~
mikeash
I would think that "Alice" used by itself refers to the litigant of that name.
The fact that it's used as a shorthand for the case itself is very much not
obvious.

~~~
lisper
It is common practice to abbreviate the name of a case. For example, "Brown vs
Board of Education of Topeka" is almost invariably referred to as "Brown vs
Board of Education" or sometimes even just "Brown v. Board". "Dred Scott v.
Sanford" is invariable referred to simply as "Dred Scott". "Obergefell vs
Hodges" is usually referred to simply as "Obergefell." This is particularly
true when the context makes the shorter reference unambiguous.

~~~
mikeash
That's fine if you're familiar with that convention, but if you're not then I
wouldn't expect you to understand it straight off.

I see nothing wrong with the article abbreviating it in this way, but your
ridiculously condescending comment is way out of line.

