
Yahoo Crosses The Line - barrynolan
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/03/yahoo-crosses-the-line.html
======
viggity
I really don't like saying this, but here it goes:

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

We need real, substantive patent reform in this country.

~~~
alsothings
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.

~~~
gaius
_We can (and should!) demand that they not do the expected_

Then you are demanding that the board neglect its fiduciary responsibilities
and go to jail.

~~~
chalst
The almost-myth of the fiduciary responsibilty of company executives to be
irresponsible. I wrote elsewhere [1]:

> A point about the morality of companies angle: the so-called "fiduciary
> duty" of companies that is an overriding duty to maximise shareholder
> returns within the constraints of the law above all other ends is a legal
> obligation in only a few countries. In most countries, including most states
> in the US, executives have a legal responsibility to be honest and open
> about their performance and honest (if not very open) about their strategy,
> but have no legal obligation to prefer a more profitable course of action
> over another, which is obviously right since there is usually no knowable
> fact of the matter about whether one business plan will turn out to be more
> profitable than another.

> In short, the idea that companies have a moral obligation to act immorally
> if it pays is mostly or always a myth.

There is no chance that Yahoo executives would go to jail if they decided not
to pursue a cursed-earth patent troll strategy. Fiduciary duty is about
executives not putting their personal interests before that of the
shareholders.

It is not even obviously in the company's interest, what they are doing. If
cash-rich FB refuses to settle, all 10 patents get invalidated, and Yahoo has
to pay heavy legal fees, then Yahoo is left with a smaller warchest of
patents, and one whose firepower has been seen to be lacking. Does the quiet
period make that such an unlikely outcome?

[1]:
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/103703080789076472131/posts/K74a...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/103703080789076472131/posts/K74aSprXFVn)

~~~
lnanek
I had a ton of stock options that would have made me rich if Yahoo had
accepted Microsoft's buy out well above the trading price a while back -
something shareholders would have loved. So even this particular company is
well known for not following the duty of making the most money for its
holders...

~~~
tmh88j
>even this particular company is well known for not following the duty of
making the most money for its holders

The selling of a company doesn't exactly fall into maximization of shareholder
profits: it depends on a couple things. The board of a company has no
obligation to maximize it's short term value. Otherwise, anytime someone is
offered a profitable buyout and turns it down they would violating their
social responsibilities. I could be wrong, but I had a similar discussion with
a close friend who is a big dog in the world of finance and that's the message
I got from him.

Here's some relevant info: >The role of such statutes is especially important
in light of the QVC decision, which prohibits directors from simply approving
a strategic merger based on their business judgment that the transaction
provides more value in the long term.
<http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/8-3shareholders.html>

Also, you may be interested in this. [http://sloanreview.mit.edu/executive-
adviser/2010-3/5231/the...](http://sloanreview.mit.edu/executive-
adviser/2010-3/5231/the-case-against-corporate-social-responsibility/)

------
markokocic
Well, I don't agree with the author.

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
Right, because that's what they're going to push through: legislation that
levels the playing field.

------
bambax
> _I used to care about that company for some reason_

That's the strangest part. I never found Yahoo useful for anything (except
Douglas Crockford, but he could have been employed anywhere).

~~~
icebraining
Yahoo! Pipes is extremely useful.

~~~
frou_dh
Hell yeah. Very cool service.

I mainly use it to correct strangeness in sites' RSS offerings. For example,
BBC iPlayer offers feeds for channels but not per show (?!), and Penny Arcade
doesn't offer a feed for just the comic without the news posts.

------
monochromatic
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.

~~~
moldbug
Can we bring Hitler into the conversation?

No one needs to be "educated" in the intricate and fascinating political and
economic power dynamics of the Third Reich to have a valid opinion about
Hitler. All they need to know is that Hitler killed the Jews and was evil.

Similarly, no one posting here needs to know anything about the technical
details of patentology, a subject in which I suspect you're quite expert, to
know that the patent system is evil and needs to be eradicated from the earth
- like Hitler.

Does that make you a bad person? Fact is, a lot of good people worked for
Hitler. But at a certain point, they all had to reevaluate their career
choices. I can only hope you'll do the same.

~~~
monochromatic
If ridiculous comparisons make you feel better about holding strong opinions
on subjects you're ignorant about, then by all means.

> The best lack all conviction, while the worst

> Are full of passionate intensity.

~~~
moldbug
An analogy is not a comparison. You know that. But lawyers love to play
stupid, don't they? It sells in East Texas.

Don't worry, I'm quite aware of the mechanics of our patent system. I also
know a lot about Hitler. But I believe it's intellectually permissible for
others to condemn Hitler in a sentence - without my extensive training in
Hitler Studies.

The worst in this case are not full of passionate intensity. It's their
wallets that are full - and their minds which follow the money. If I take a
drive in Palo Alto and see a fancy new building, five to one it's yet another
branch office of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.

The only people who support the patent system are those who profit from it.
I'm quite sure you're one of them. Hey, everybody's gotta eat - but try not to
kill the host, OK?

~~~
monochromatic
> An analogy is not a comparison

An analogy absolutely draws a comparison. I don't even know what you're
getting at here, other than trying unsuccessfully to nitpick.

> But I believe it's intellectually permissible for others to condemn Hitler
> in a sentence - without my extensive training in Hitler Studies.

So you think it's permissible to condemn a human being while knowing
essentially nothing about him, just going by what the groupthink tells you.
Got it. Because "knowing essentially nothing" is what we're talking about
here. I'm not saying you need to be an attorney to comment intelligently. 15
minutes of reading, if one reads the right things, would teach him more than
90% of the people here know about patents.

> Dewey, Cheatham and Howe

How clever. Never heard that one before.

> The only people who support the patent system are those who profit from it.
> I'm quite sure you're one of them.

Wellll... yes, but not in the way you probably think. I'm not a patent troll,
and I don't represent trolls. I write patents for inventors. Plain and simple.
And for what it's worth, to my knowledge none of my clients have ever engaged
in patent trolling or sold their patents to a troll.

Patent reform, coming down hard on the trolls, whatever you have in mind... it
would have essentially no influence on my business. Getting rid of software
patents altogether would have a small effect, but it would basically be de
minimis. Certainly not enough to color my opinions about software patents.

~~~
moldbug
> An analogy absolutely draws a comparison.

An analogy illustrates common logical features of two commensurate problems.
Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this analogy to my wife, am I "comparing" her
to a cow?

> So you think it's permissible to condemn a human being while knowing
> essentially nothing about him, just going by what the groupthink tells you.

If the groupthink is right, yes. Groupthink isn't always right. It isn't
always wrong. It's not wrong about Hitler. It's not wrong about patents,
either.

> I write patents for inventors.

In other words, you're a patent lawyer.

I'm quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your
"inventors" the following: yes, I can get this patent issued. But I don't feel
it's genuinely novel or non-obvious, so you'll have to find another advocate.

"The rockets go up - who knows where they come down? That's not my department,
says Wernher von Braun."

> And for what it's worth, to my knowledge none of my clients have ever
> engaged in patent trolling or sold their patents to a troll.

And if they did - you wouldn't want to know, would you? Since you're a patent
lawyer, you probably know the term _mens rea_.

> Patent reform, coming down hard on the trolls, whatever you have in mind...
> it would have essentially no influence on my business. Getting rid of
> software patents altogether would have a small effect, but it would
> basically be de minimis. Certainly not enough to color my opinions about
> software patents.

Since you're a patent lawyer, you know perfectly well that our patent system
does not have the power to distinguish between "inventors" and "trolls." You
also know perfectly well that the controlling legal authorities do not have
the power to identify and bar "software patents," "business method patents,"
etc. Legally there are no software patents in Europe, for instance, but the
patent bar is not to be stopped. Same with the Supremes in Parker v. Flook.

Therefore, the only practical reform of this system is to destroy it entirely.
This would change your life, wouldn't it? And not for the better.

~~~
monochromatic
> Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this analogy to my wife, am I "comparing"
> her to a cow?

Some women might actually take offense at that, but I'd say no. But throwing
Hitler into the analogy really does change its flavor, doesn't it? We're not
talking about bulls and cows here. The analogy

your position:my position::Satan:Jesus

is a little bit more in line with the inflammatory one you actually used
above. And in a case like that, I think reading an analogy as a comparison is
both inevitable and exactly what you intended.

> It's not wrong about Hitler. It's not wrong about patents, either.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But it has nothing to do with
whether people should follow groupthink _without the capacity to determine
whether it's right or wrong._

> I'm quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your
> "inventors" the following: yes, I can get this patent issued. But I don't
> feel it's genuinely novel or non-obvious, so you'll have to find another
> advocate.

I've told inventors that I thought a particular application would be a
challenge to get allowed. I've told inventors that in light of the prior art,
they won't get a patent that's broad enough to be worth anything. And yes, on
more than one occasion, I've told an inventor that I didn't believe he could
get a patent on his idea. (Just a nitpick here, but I've never told an
inventor I _could_ get something patented. Nothing is assured, and sometimes
you get an examiner that simply will not allow a case.)

> And if they did - you wouldn't want to know, would you? Since you're a
> patent lawyer, you probably know the term mens rea.

I certainly wouldn't stick my head in the sand to avoid knowing how they use
their patents. And there's no issue with mens rea here, since patent trolls
aren't doing anything illegal.

> You also know perfectly well that the controlling legal authorities do not
> have the power to identify and bar "software patents," "business method
> patents," etc. Legally there are no software patents in Europe, for
> instance, but the patent bar is not to be stopped. Same with the Supremes in
> Parker v. Flook.

Indeed, this would have to come from Congress. But it could certainly happen.

> Therefore, the only practical reform of this system is to destroy it
> entirely.

Aaaand here's where you go off the deep end. Is there a single industrialized
country that has no patent system whatsoever? That's a serious question... I
don't know of one.

~~~
moldbug
> And there's no issue with mens rea here, since patent trolls aren't doing
> anything illegal.

No. They aren't doing anything illegal. They're doing something _evil_.

 _Mens rea_ is the mental state of doing _evil_. Not everything evil is
illegal - for various reasons, some good and some bad. But the mental state is
the same.

Your enormous shiftiness around this issue demonstrates clear _mens rea_. In
short, you know you're a bad boy.

Mass murder is evil. Graft is evil. Your industry doesn't involve mass murder.
It's just a big graft scheme, that's all. It's not Hitler. But it's still
evil, like Hitler.

> But it has nothing to do with whether people should follow groupthink
> without the capacity to determine whether it's right or wrong.

Anyone is entitled to be right for any reason at all. You're simply trying to
restrict the number of your enemies.

Besides, you're missing something here. You make a living sending rockets up.
We live where the rockets come down.

The existence of rocket impacts is purely conjectural to you - so you can call
it "groupthink." It's a shared reality for us. It's not groupthink that the
sky is blue.

Your profession nominally exists to serve our interests. In fact, it serves to
suck our blood - when it isn't filling up our days with worthless bullshit.
All genuine innovators, at least in our field, despise your rule with a
passion. I'm sure many of them would be quite happy to see the entire patent
bar in prison, or at least collectively disbarred.

> Indeed, this would have to come from Congress. But it could certainly
> happen.

No. You miss my point. Not even Congress could do it. If Congress passed a
law, the patent bar would simply work around it and continue its present
practices.

In other words, the American voter has exactly the same power over the patent
industry that the German voter had over Hitler. Ie, at a first approximation,
none.

> Is there a single industrialized country that has no patent system
> whatsoever? That's a serious question... I don't know of one.

Germany before 1877. China now. (Yes, I know nominally China has a patent
system, but nobody in China gives a shit about US patents.)

There is only one "industrialized country" today, the US, because every other
"country" in the world today unthinkingly adopts whatever comes out of WIPO's
derriere. Alas, ruling the world doesn't mean your turds are made of gold -
though I'm sure it's been quite golden for you.

~~~
monochromatic
> Your enormous shiftiness around this issue demonstrates clear mens rea. In
> short, you know you're a bad boy.

Simply not true. The work I do helps independent inventors protect themselves,
and it helps startups get funding... believe me, I have no qualms about what I
do. It is a net positive for the economy and for people who create things.

> Mass murder is evil. Graft is evil. Your industry doesn't involve mass
> murder. It's just a big graft scheme, that's all. It's not Hitler. But it's
> still evil, like Hitler.

There you go again. I'm done responding to this nonsense though.

> You're simply trying to restrict the number of your enemies.

First of all, people who don't like the patent system are not my enemies. They
simply hold different beliefs than I do. And second, all I'm asking is that
people educate themselves to a very minor level before making asses of
themselves.

> I'm sure many of them would be quite happy to see the entire patent bar in
> prison, or at least collectively disbarred.

I suspect not many people hold your extreme beliefs about imprisonment.
Disbarment... who knows. If one has gotten the short end of the stick in a
patent dispute, I guess it could make him dislike patent attorneys.

> No. You miss my point. Not even Congress could do it. If Congress passed a
> law, the patent bar would simply work around it and continue its present
> practices.

There's simply no reason to believe this. If Congress made a clear law
prohibiting software patents, and it was a well-drafted law, then it would be
followed.

> Germany before 1877. China now. (Yes, I know nominally China has a patent
> system, but nobody in China gives a shit about US patents.)

Nor should they. U.S. patents have no force outside the U.S. Chinese patents,
however...

> There is only one "industrialized country" today, the US, because every
> other "country" in the world today unthinkingly adopts whatever comes out of
> WIPO's derriere.

You know WIPO isn't a U.S. organization, right? It's part of the U.N. It's in
Geneva.

> I wanted to highlight this truly remarkable response, which displays the
> complete prostitution of the patent industry. Imsgine a literary agent
> saying: "on more than one occasion, I've told an author he couldn't get his
> book published."

So we've gone from you being "quite confident that you have never, ever once
told any of your 'inventors'" . . . to "OK, but you don't say it _often
enough_! But there are three things to note here:

1\. _Most_ of the clients who come in my door legitimately have come up with
something that is, as far as I know, novel. But hey, I'm not an expert in
every field, and I don't always do a patent search (it's not a requirement,
and clients often don't want to spend the money).

2\. It opens me up to a malpractice suit to tell someone "you cannot get a
patent on that." Because what if I'm wrong? There's a lot of uncertainty
around this question, so this is a phrase reserved for cases where I'm pretty
damn sure.

3\. You don't know how many clients I've served, or what percentage of them
I've turned away. Hell, I dunno either. But I call them like I see them. I
have a duty to my clients not to waste their money on a patent I know will
never issue. In the cases where I'm sure enough to risk the malpractice claim,
I tell them not to bother. I'm not sure what more I could do.

Just so you know, I've enjoyed our discussion today. With the exception of
your Hitler comments, you've been pretty reasonable, and I try listen to
conflicting, but reasonable, opinions with an open mind. I ask that you do the
same. I'm not some demon, and I'm not ashamed of anything I do.

~~~
moldbug
> You know WIPO isn't a U.S. organization, right? It's part of the U.N. It's
> in Geneva.

Yeah, and who created the UN? Denmark? Indonesia? The UN is about as Swiss as
the Warsaw Pact is Polish.

> U.S. patents have no force outside the U.S.

You mean in theory, or in practice?

> First of all, people who don't like the patent system are not my enemies.
> They simply hold different beliefs than I do.

No, they are your enemies - for one simple reason. You're stealing from them.
They may not know this, but I do.

> If one has gotten the short end of the stick in a patent dispute, I guess it
> could make him dislike patent attorneys.

It's not me personally - just my entire community.

> There's simply no reason to believe this. If Congress made a clear law
> prohibiting software patents, and it was a well-drafted law, then it would
> be followed.

Europe has a clear law prohibiting software patents. Parker v. Flook was a
clear decision prohibiting software patents.

> So we've gone from you being "quite confident that you have never, ever once
> told any of your 'inventors'" . . . to "OK, but you don't say it often
> enough!

No, you misread. Intentionally, I imagine. I said: how often do you refuse to
pursue a patent you're confident will issue, just because you don't believe it
is morally worthy? I got my answer, between the lines.

> Just so you know, I've enjoyed our discussion today.

I have as well. I think you've been as frank and reasonable as is possible for
someone in your profession.

~~~
monochromatic
> Parker v. Flook was a clear decision prohibiting software patents

Supreme Court jurisprudence about software patents has never been very clear.
In any case, Diamond v. Diehr came out just a few years after Flook and made
such a cut-and-dried reading untenable. And then there was the whole Bilski
mess of an opinion...

This is what I mean when I say it'd have to come from Congress, and it'd have
to be clear. If you want to prohibit software patents, you don't want 80 pages
of Supreme Court justices all writing their own opinions concurring in part
and dissenting in part. You want a statute no more than, say, a third of a
page long, clearly defining what's meant by "software" (and maybe also
"business method") and prohibiting patents on it. That would be damn hard to
argue about. Supreme Court decisions are notoriously easy to argue about.

> No, you misread. Intentionally, I imagine. I said: how often do you refuse
> to pursue a patent you're confident will issue, just because you don't
> believe it is morally worthy? I got my answer, between the lines.

Ah, I did misread. It was not intentional. But the answer you read between the
lines was correct--I have never done that. Maybe when I'm the head of a law
firm I can make decisions about turning away money because of a moral
objection... but for now, that's a little above my pay grade.

------
cs702
This title is unnecessarily sensational. Why not use the actual title of the
post ("Yahoo! Crosses the Line")?

~~~
barrynolan
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.

~~~
cs702
barrynolan,

Thanks. Now that I understand your reasoning, I have no problem with the
title. FWIW, I wish I could delete my comment, but unfortunately that's no
longer possible.

------
PaulHoule
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.

------
tzaman
Their actions just show how desperate they are. Bye bye Yahoo! and thanks for
the fish.

------
zyb09
Well I hope he doesn't use any Apple products then. That would be pretty
hypocritical.

~~~
funkah
Good point, Apple is literally the only other company that has ever filed a
patent lawsuit.

~~~
tmuir
Apple sits diametrically opposed to Yahoo in the overall internet zeitgeist.
Apple is the hot girl everyone gives a pass to, and Yahoo is the band nerd
that everyone laughs at.

~~~
meric
It used to be the other way around, say, circa 1997.

------
bergie
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?

~~~
logic
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.

~~~
bergie
I was looking at the API, and it seems that import would be quite easy. But
since they lack tagging and some other Flickr-like features, the import would
have to be slightly lossy.

------
joering2
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".

~~~
guard-of-terra
No it should not. It's as if you said, if Yahoo has a gun, it should fire at
Facebook.

Tech companies do not make their living by exploiting their patents directly
(as e.g. pharma companies do). They make living from advertising to their
userbase. They do patent some things they use to keep and monetize that
usebase, but there is no direct relation.

So: Of course they should not sue "by default". It just isn't a winning
strategy for them.

~~~
joering2
so as long as I do a business in tech, I should not care about anyones patents
(or IP in that matter) -- just open the patent book and look what I can steal
(sorry: take) from others and use it to build my own tech company.

Okay then.

~~~
guard-of-terra
You don't need to open the patent book for that. Patents are written in such
horrible language that you should not bother. The signal to noise ratio is
pathetic.

Instead - yes, you just open the HN and look what you cak take from others and
use it to build your own tech company. That's what you do. Are you new?

~~~
joering2
yes I am new. Today I learnt that HN society hates patents and everything
related to it (which kind of make sense). Lost 10% of my karma in couple
minutes over 3 posts I wrote.

------
lrobb
OP: "Yahoo! thinks they can bully Internet newcomers ..."

Wait... Is he still talking about the facebook lawsuit?

------
pagehub
Totally agree, compete on innovation - not by patent troling! Goodbye Yahoo!,
shame you decided to disgrace yourself in such a way.

~~~
polymatter
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.

------
michaelw
I'm in the mood to pick nits this morning.

The article links to the description of the patents
[http://paidcontent.org/article/419-meet-the-10-patents-
yahoo...](http://paidcontent.org/article/419-meet-the-10-patents-yahoo-is-
using-to-sue-facebook/) 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
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.

------
mrgreenfur
Facebook isn't a 'newcomer' and Yahoo! wouldn't bother suing anyone that
wasn't already a giant.

------
barrynolan
US Patent 7406501 ... "Conversion of an instant message to an e-mail message"
WTF...Is that it?

~~~
IgorPartola
Google does that! Quick Yahoo! sue them!

~~~
Andrex
Google vs. Yahoo! would be even bloodier than Google vs. Oracle has been.

------
Teef
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.

------
Hoff
Fred Being Fred aside...

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.

~~~
wavephorm
But this really isn't the way to make any friends.

I'd be surprised if anyone wants to do business with people like this ever
again.

~~~
tmuir
Who manufactures the memory in Apple iOS devices? Samsung.

------
shapeshed
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.

------
polshaw
I disagree with the patent situation as much as anyone, but that was massively
melodramatic (and almost completely lacking any substance).

~~~
fredwilson
it was a rant. you are right.

------
joshuahedlund
My new hobby: googling abstract website techniques to see what kind of patents
I'm violating on a regular basis. Did you know about the patent on mouseover
(but not mouseclick!) dropdown menus?

[http://www.m-cam.com/patently-obvious/intellectual-
property-...](http://www.m-cam.com/patently-obvious/intellectual-property-
analysis-webvention-llcs-us-pat-no-5251294)

~~~
CamperBob
With treble damages, that could turn into an expensive hobby.

------
laconian
The engineering soul of the company is being evicted from the body, and now
this. They're like the zombie Husks from Mass Effect. :)

------
jpdoctor
I'd love to hear Fred talk about how Twitter is preparing, because it's a good
guess that they're next.

Probably the reason for this post in fact.

------
JVIDEL
TBH it would be a true douche move if we were in say 2006, but right now FB is
worth almost ten times more than Yahoo, so who cares? they can either buy
Yahoo or even sue it into oblivion.

Is not that crazy to assume this may actually be a last-resort strategy to
sell Yahoo once and for all. Most agree Yang dropped the ball when he refused
MSFT's offer.

~~~
edanm
The reason for the timing is because of the IPO. Yahoo! is using this as a way
to make Facebook desperate to settle, so that their pricing is higher during
the IPO.

~~~
JVIDEL
That too

------
pedalpete
I tried to find an example where Google sued a company for infringing on
PageRank, but it doesn't appear that has ever happened.

If everyone really just uses patents for the threat of a possible lawsuit, is
it still worth having them, even if you hope to never use one?

~~~
sopooneo
Many others have already pointed it out, but how closely it parallels nuclear
weapons philosophy is startling.

------
eroach
SCO tried this crap to the tune of 45 million. What a stupid use of time and
effort.

------
larrys
The title of this changed from:

"They are dead to me. Dead and gone. I hate them now"

to:

"Yahoo Crosses The Line"

Curious about the reason this was done.

~~~
duck
Yeah, I just noticed that as well. Once something goes live you have the right
to change it, but I would leave an update on why.

------
law
Thomas Jefferson's 1788 quote, in a way, portends this: "the natural progress
of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." The
dictionary definition of government ("authoritative direction or control")
ostensibly extends this to encompass corporations. Patents are merely one of
many tactics for corporations gain control; it's nothing new, and it ought to
be expected.

Notwithstanding the foreseeability of patent warfare, I remain despondent
toward "unwritten rules" in American law. Yes, they exist; it's no surprise
that defendants in criminal cases who assert their 6th Amendment rights to a
speedy trial that they subsequently lose will suffer a heightened penalty. The
seminal case on this subject, Bordenkircher v. Hayes, specifically endorses
threats of stiffer sentences to entice criminal defendants to waive their
right to trial and plead guilty to a lesser offense. One can model this as a
game of imperfect information, with society reaping the rewards.

So the author's reliance on this de facto "rule not to litigate" is flawed.
The real problem arises when companies exclude others from practicing a
technology in which that company's property interest is a mere subterfuge.
Rarely do companies practice the technologies for which they've secured patent
protection, and that brings me to my last Thomas Jefferson quote:

    
    
      A man has a right to use a saw, an axe, 
      a plane, separately; may he not combine 
      their uses on the same piece of wood? 
      He has a right to use his knife to cut 
      his meat, a fork to hold it; may a 
      patentee take from him the right to 
      combine their use on the same subject? 
      Such a law, instead of enlarging our 
      conveniences, as was intended, would 
      most fearfully abridge them, and crowd 
      us by monopolies out of the use of the 
      things we have.
    

However, we should be careful not to criticize the managers of these companies
too much: they have a fiduciary duty of care to the corporation. Is there
another "unwritten rule" that shareholders of a (struggling) corporation won't
launch a derivative suit against the board of directors for failure to assert
the corporation's patent rights against an infringing third party?

So in my view, the solution isn't at the corporate level; it's at the national
level. As such, patent reform should be a _national_ issue addressed by
politicians. Patent term length [c|sh]ould be proportional to the research
expenses actually incurred. Alternatively, we might want want a "patent
abandonment doctrine" that moves to public domain those patents whose rights
haven't been enforced (almost like in trademark law). Even still, we might
want to wholly abandon the right to transfer or sell patents (and for that
matter, all intellectual property) entirely. I haven't researched the
ramifications of these potential solutions, so they're offered merely as
points for discussion.

~~~
Steko
"So the author's reliance on this de facto "rule not to litigate" is flawed."

And also historically ignorant. Yahoo did the same thing to Google when they
went public in 2004. Somehow the world didn't end.

~~~
dodedo
No, they didn't. Your memory of history is incorrect.

Overture, a completely different company, sued Google in 2002, two years
before their IPO.

Yahoo purchased Overture in 2003. After this, Google settled.

Google's IPO wasn't until 2004.

~~~
Steko
Thx for correction.

Google reveals that Y! did sue X-fire apparently over a buddy list patent in
2005 which would also make the same point though.

~~~
dodedo
Absolutely. I should make it clear: I am not defending Yahoo's behavior here.
Just trying to keep the facts factual.

------
rdl
Sounds like it is finally time to migrate off flickr. I wonder what the best
options are -- self hosting of full res, plus FB Photos for social? Is Picasa
worthwhile?

~~~
pullo
same sentiment here. I've been using y! mail for a decade. Y! 'wall streetish'
behavior is a good incentive to sever all ties. I am also certain , lot of
their portal traffic comes when users are redirected to the portal home page
when users sign off their ymail accnts.

~~~
rdl
I feel slightly more disgusted than usual because I bought YHOO stock a while
ago, because it was cheap (when factoring in Asian assets, etc.).

I had hopes the new CEO would try to turn Yahoo around. I don't believe in
shitty display advertising long-term, but it could be viable for another 5
years. At least, I had confidence he could fire enough Directors and VPs to
make Yahoo at least as innovative as eBay (also not a particular paragon in
Silicon Valley), and I was hoping Yahoo's boardmembers would start actually
acting in the interests of shareholders.

I guess I was wrong.

------
huhtenberg
NB: Yahoo Mail is still an excellent source of widely-accepted disposable
_anonymous_ email addresses. If not the only one left.

------
Rawgawd
Well, I'd simply say that:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh4jvDsNtEE>

------
iamgopal
I wish I would have choose law instead of software.

------
badclient
Today it's Yahoo, tomorrow Facebook.

------
nileshtrivedi
What about Amazon then?

------
marizmelo
yawho?

------
CPlatypus
The OP wouldn't seem quite so hypocritical if VCs didn't put _immense_
pressure on startups to generate patents. Don't tell me those patents are
supposed to be purely defensive, either. They were supposed to stake out a bit
of technical turf, just like Yahoo's doing. I'm not saying it's right, but I
don't think much of demanding patent generation on one hand and then
complaining about their use on the other.

If you want to oppose software patents - and you should - then be consistent
about it. Either forego them entirely, or _require_ via contract that they be
used only defensively. The latter is the approach taken by my employer, BTW,
who also spends more money than anyone else fighting software patents. As
schizophrenic as that strategy might seem, I believe it's the right one for
the crazy world we live in.

~~~
fredwilson
we don't do that at USV and never have. i agree that the VC industry is guilty
of that practice, but we are not.

~~~
brudgers
I don't think that in general the practice is something over which the VC
industry should feel guilty. Venture Capital has historically and continues to
fund industries where patents are appropriate, e.g. semiconductors.

Software patents are problematic, but only because of the general features of
the patent process and the fiduciary responsibilities of boards of directors
to their shareholders.

------
smeg
Yep. I don't even use/like Facebook, but I just deleted my 10 year old Yahoo
account in protest (in truth it was only a secondary account after Google, but
still).

~~~
IgorPartola
This is why I use my own domain for my primary email address. If Google
decides to pull some kind of crap on me, I can always ditch them without
having to write that silly "My new email is" message to all my contacts.

~~~
maximveksler
I use a personal email domain on gmail[1] as well.

But for a different reason: It allows a "catch all" email, so I register on
every site as <sitedomain.com>@vekslers.org and have my account act as a catch
all sink. This allows me to both filter out spamming sources and trace back
who leaked my email address to 3rd party sources. This approach is a pivot on
the name+tag@domain.com email tagging which most js form validations devs are
unaware of it being a legal email syntax and thus do not allow.

This relives me of the need to worry to post my email address, which is
news.ycombinator.com_3698017@vekslers.org out in the open (true emails are
very much welcome).

[1] <http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html>

~~~
gizzlon
I wonder how hard this is to set up if you run your own mail server.. _should_
be pretty easy..

Do you get a lot of spam to addresses like admin@domain ?

~~~
wpietri
I used to run a catchall and the problem wasn't addresses like admin@; it was
popular names. Turns out some spammers just take a list of common email local
parts and email those names at every domain they can find.

There's a silver lining, though. When I took down my catchall I took the 100
most popular guessed addresses and routed them all to my Bayesian trainer. It
was a big help with certain sorts of spam.

------
shareme
And how many worthless patents doe USV firms have?

And where was Fred when MS started its shit?

Oh effing come one now, lets have a honest conversation Fred instead of some
lame miss-direction..

~~~
fredwilson
i've been pretty loud and vocal on the anti-software patent thing for quite a
while now

------
Porter_423
The only reason for taking such decision is the money.We have noticed the same
thing in the past.

------
justmyopinion
I have no problem with someone being down on ridiculous patents. And think it
is great that Joel stood up for Fred to say Fred isn't being hypocritical.
However, i think that Fred should have dialed it back a bit before posting. He
was trying to get noticed and Yahoo is an easy target as it has been sinking
like the Titanic for a few years. But just because it is an easy target
doesn't mean you should shoot at it.

