

Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment. - Unregistered
http://www.pcworld.com/article/241160/kickstarter_faces_patent_suit_over_funding_idea.html

======
spolsky
Kickstarter is lucky that the America Invents Act that Congress just rammed
through includes a porkbarrel clause that Sen. Chuck Schumer stuck in for the
banks, making it much much easier to challenge business method patents in the
finance industry. (Source:
[http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b967fda5...](http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b967fda5-d0a4-4fbd-
aad8-1be025ad172b)) "For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘covered business
method patent’’ means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus
for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
administration, or management of a financial product or service"

------
nickpinkston
This should remind everyone to pressure the White House to respond to the very
successful: "Petition to End Software Patents".

[https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/direct-
pat...](https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/direct-patent-
office-cease-issuing-software-patents/vvNslSTq)

~~~
dangrossman
Not very applicable since this isn't a software patent.

~~~
nickpinkston
Not sure technically, but software patents are a subset of methods patents
(which I'm guessing this is), but at least very similar to the point where I
think it's very applicable to this. The discussion needs to keep going - that
petition was a great success, but I'm doubtful that the administration dares
to talk about it in anything other than platitudes.

~~~
drgath
The definition of "software patent" is about as misused as "impeachment" or
"HTML5". Ending software patents fixes very little with what is wrong with the
patent industry because most of what people assume are software patents,
likely aren't. Take the Lodesys patent debate for example, at least one of
those (#7,222,078) wouldn't be considered a "software patent". PG says
Amazon's 1-click checkout patent isn't a "software patent"
(<http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html>). Software patents are not
the issue.

------
rkalla
I am going to take an unpopular stance here... I think.

When patents are enforced by big legal entities, we all scream foul, "Patents
are meant to protect the little guy, not make lawyers rich!"

Now we have a musician (a "little guy") suing a much loved successful
startup... and we are still screaming, but instead of "Stop the lawyers!" we
are yelling "Stop the hipster artists!" (at least lhnn was).

If this musician was suing Real Player or Rhapsody or some entity we didn't
all love, I wonder how different the response (here in the comments) would
have been?

    
    
      if(!entity.isUnderdog())
        complain();
      else
        support();
    

I may be missing a case in there... :)

~~~
phillmv
I think you may have misunderstood the average complaint.

The complaint isn't about little guy vs big companies, it's about _bullshit
patents_. A big company using a bullshit patent to squeeze out a little guy is
just the most egregious example of bullshit.

In this case, it's less so that it's a "hipster artist", but it's more that
he's a "douchebag artist" with a bullshit patent. Bullshit patents cost all of
us money by distracting people from doing awesome stuff.

~~~
rkalla

      > In this case, it's less so that it's a "hipster artist", 
      but it's more that he's a "douchebag artist" with a 
      bullshit patent. Bullshit patents cost all of us money by 
      distracting people from doing awesome stuff.
    

All you did was validate my point (as annoyed is that is going to make you)...
this sentence is dripping with preconceptions about both the person trying to
assert their patent and the patent itself, neither of which I assume you are
intimately familiar with.

If I took the _identical_ scenario and replaced "douchebag artist" with Sergey
Brin or Steve Jobs and left all other facts the same (the same patent, the
same timeline, the same lawsuit) this discussion looks A LOT different.

Now you have people asserting the patent validity and how it overlaps with X
and infringes on Y, but with some easily dismissable artist at the helm, most
people have the same response you do -- shove him into a socially defined box
and throw it all out the window as bullshit antics of some random douchebag
wearing a hemp necklace.

All of these discussions are _bullshit_ \- they produce nothing except strife
and accomplish nothing.

~~~
phillmv
No. I for one would be comfortable describing those people as douchebags as
well.

Larry Ellison, for instance – widely considered a douchebag.

I can't speak for others, but I'm fairly certain the issue are bullshit
patents.

>All of these discussions are bullshit - they produce nothing except strife
and accomplish nothing.

Complaining is human, and it allows us to get a measure of everyone else's
opinions. If you removed griping from HN you wouldn't have much else left.

------
ScottBurson
if you file a patent, and someone else invents the same thing before the
patent is issued, seems to me that should be prima facie evidence that the
idea was obvious -- since at least in the U. S., patent applications are not
published.

Utopian dreaming aside, I've studied the patent a little, and it looks like
Kickstarter has a problem.

------
meow
But can the people building projects on kickstarter even be called artists ?
They got to be called engineers or entrepreneurs... An awesome site and
resource for funding being roughed up for protection money.

------
mahcode
When will the USPTO put a stop on such BS patents, seriously! One day we will
run out of colors, layouts and "business models" to patent... and then what?

Patents are meant to encourage entrepreneurship... not fund court rooms and
judges' salaries.

~~~
nickolai
>One day we will run out of colors, layouts and "business models" to patent...
_and then what?_

Then a countdown to the expiration of the last patent will start.

And then we will enter an era of freedom of innovation. You will be free to
take any design you like and improve on it without fear of being sued into
oblivion if your design sees any kind of success.

------
mcantelon
Given that the legal system's unlikely to change, as long as IP lobbyists pay
off politicians, I'd like to see Anonymous take on the project of compiling
the personal details of these parasites.

~~~
sixtofour
Personal details lead to personal relationships, which then can lead to
innocents being hurt. Not cool.

~~~
dynamichype
Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period before they learn
that they should avoid relationships with patent trolls for the same
collateral risk reasons they avoid befriending gang members, child-molesters,
and other anti-socials.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period

Oh, well, if we won't be hurting them forever, that's fine then.

~~~
dynamichype
One of the arguments made against repealing Jim Crow laws was the harm that
would come to business owners in terms of infrastructure and other spending.
There were many such businesses whose owners were not racist but who had
invested in locations and buildings out of innocent compliance with the law
and the demographic business climate it created. The judicial system makes
accomodations for parenthood but it does not refuse to punish parents despite
the fact that it is absolutely certain that such punishments will be
detrimental to the child. By definition, disruptive social change is
disruptive and punishment is punative. Surely that no collatoral innocents be
harmed ever is too high a standard that favors both the status quo and
protects bad actors?

~~~
sixtofour
"Surely that no collatoral innocents be harmed ever is too high a standard
..."

When we're talking about independent outlaw actors, as opposed to the law and
justice that you invoke in your response, then no, I don't think it's too high
a standard.

~~~
dynamichype
Just to have you elaborate then: you are against all forms of civil
disobedience that cause harm? Is it that you believe movements can succeed
without such tactics (e.g. that the civil rights movement would have succeeded
without the race riots and that the earlier mill rights movements would have
succeeded without violence) or that you are against all such social change?

~~~
sixtofour
"you are against all forms of civil disobedience that cause harm?"

Mostly, but not absolutely. Unnecessarily exposing the existence and
whereabouts of someone's kids for what amounts to little more than vandalism
and tagging, yes.

------
jschuur
'a former musician'. That tells you pretty much all you need to know about
this guy and his motives.

------
lhnn
What a damned foolish patent.

"Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work"

<http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MNgFAQAAEBAJ>

Some hipster artist ("hipster" being an appropriate word here) sues a
successful implementation of an offshoot of an idea he had 8 years ago, and
then says,

"As an artist myself, I feel that KickStarter may be hurting artist by
focusing on 'donating money' rather than celebrating the artist for what they
do. Their model does not build fan relationships but just continually asks for
handouts."

What a jerk. It's been said here before, but it's worth hitting again: "Ideas
are a dime a dozen."

~~~
iamdave
I'm sure this is going to be a very unpopular stance, because it's been
unpopular almost every time I've asked it:

Why do artists assume that every instance of something that doesn't involve
the typical exchange of work for money is somehow harming their industry? The
most vocal of these people are those 'No-Spec' who thinks sites like 99designs
are invariably killing everything they stand for. It reeks of that same
mentality and resistance to new revenue models that's turning so many people
off to the music and movie industries.

Passion for the rhyme can be cheapened by feedback, and I think that's exactly
what's happening with these 'artists'. They're looking at what other people
are doing, seeing that it doesn't line up with how they think the industry
should work, and then pull these statements out of their arses that it's
killing their livelihood.

~~~
farlington
I don't know if I can answer your question, but I could maybe clarify what I
think are a few misconceptions.

The first misconception is that artists are generally opposed to new revenue
models. Artists, designers, craftspeople have absolutely embraced new revenue
models, and the number of artists, graphic designers, fashion designers, video
artists, industrial designers, et al. using sites like kickstarter and etsy,
or selling digital work like templates or themes, is staggering. And many of
these don't involve the 'typical exchange of work for money,' but are on one
level or another creatively or professionally fulfilling.

The second is about the 'no spec' argument. There are huge differences between
new revenue models—they're not all equal, and they're not all fair. Design
professionals find spec work exploitative because they're exchanging their
services to a client without any guarantee of payment. Most people in most
industries find this unfair. Programmers are no exception. Nobody likes to do
a lot of work for someone else to only earn a chance of getting paid.

Working for spec is fundamentally different from working for free for
yourself—to design and manufacture a product, for example.

And as a sidenote, while few designers are comfortable with the proliferation
of spec-driven websites, most designers I know don't feel particularly
threatened by them anymore. At their best, they provide an outlet for
students, unemployed, and self-taught designers to build their portfolios. But
the work that comes out of them isn't generally great, and the clients that
use them are generally the kind of clients nobody wants: fussy, demanding,
unimaginative and cheap. Clients who probably wouldn't be paying for design
services otherwise. It still costs money to get good work. That's what it's
really about: protecting the value of the work you do professionally.

~~~
iamdave
Thanks for the response, some viewpoints there that I did not consider (mainly
due to my own ignorance as someone not entirely connected to the design and
art communities). One thing you mentioned I've never really been able to wrap
my head around:

 _But the work that comes out of them isn't generally great, and the clients
that use them are generally the kind of clients nobody wants: fussy,
demanding, unimaginative and cheap. Clients who probably wouldn't be paying
for design services otherwise. It still costs money to get good work. That's
what it's really about: protecting the value of the work you do
professionally._

Why is this the concern of anyone but the person doing the work and the client
receiving it? Granted, on the whole, by-and-large it's not anything that's
going to destroy the creative design industry or invalidate a beautifully
composed ad campaign (for example) but it is something that I've heard before.

"Well the work produced isn't that great, these designs sometimes suck".

At the end of the day, if the end goal is to please the client, and the client
is pleased with what they have, does it matter if it came from 99designs or if
it were produced by Sterling-Cooper?

I suppose the same can be said for spec-work. If the producer of a
product/service/design understands that they are working potentially for free
to win a contract, who's business is that but their own and the clients? It
seems like there might be a disconnect in that if your goal is to maximize
output and bring in a respectable wage-say as a freelancer-that you'll go for
clients who _are_ willing to negotiate fair terms, and compensate you a decent
wage. Instead, what I see (and this is just anecdotal observation) is people
vilifying designers who choose to work on spec.

I might be missing the point entirely, so take what I'm saying here with a
grain of salt.

~~~
Hyena
Why do people on Hacker News routinely complain about business models,
management pilosophy or funding methods in technology? Is it perhaps because
they realize that their industry, at least, is an ecosystem of concepts and
social pressures that will make it either worthwhile or worthless?

