Comments on: Have patent, will sue

Acacia CEO Paul Ryan says the bad guys are the ones who don't pay license fees, not those looking for payment.

[qwerty75]

This guy is the epitome of everything that is wrong in business

First of all, to compare thie company of vultures to Edison is not only silly, it is ignorant.

This is exhibit A why software patents are not only not needed, but dangerous. Everything in the software world is built on something else. I have yet to see a valid software patent. Hardware is a bit different, and benefits from some measure of patent protection.

Copyrights offers enough protection for software. They are very much like books. Just like you can't patent a book, or literary genre, software should not be patentable. This way, your work is protected, but dangerous sharks like this greedy idiot would be stopped in his tracks.

Can someone patent a web browser, chat room, or operating system? Of course not.

Imagine if the work of Einstein, Liebniz,Newton, Gauss, ect were pantented. Where would we be now? Yeah, Edison filed a lot of patents and I have no issue with that. He was not only bringing forward ideas, but concrete products. Besides, if Leibniz and Newton can independantly develop calculus, two people can come up with not only the idea of 1-click shopping, but 2 different implementations of it.

It is not a coincidence that the software industry has been seriously stifled since the shortsighted fecision to allow software patents. Look at all the algorithms, theorems and other ideas brought forward from 1950's to 1980's. They are still heavily used today and are constantly being built on and added to, to advance software. If these were patented back then, we would still be in the computing stone ages. Of course, these greedy bastards don't like to admit they invent nothing, or their "intellectual property" is built on others work. Who has time for honesty when there is money to extort?

Knowlege not only needs to be in the open, it thrives on it. Every accomplishment of mankind was built on the sharing of knowlege, not the buying and hoarding of it. Clueless people love to deride open source but it is a similar model that has been used for centuries to great effect. When we talk software patents, we are talking about ideas. Ideas can only live in the open, so others can advance and build onto that idea. That is how we got where we are today.

People like this guy are nothing more then parasites, they prey on others work, while contributing nothing to the world.

[InfiniPete]

Patentable implementations

I have long said that patents should extend ONLY to new physical things. If you can't pick it up, it's not patentable. More than that, it has to be new - it can't be a general purpose processor merely running different code; there's nothing new there (one of my arguments against software patents)

In addition to that, if there is no *new* hardware, it should not be patentable.

Let's face it; all software is mathematical in nature and simply implements algorithms that may be described mathematically. That's not bad on it's own, but no new invention is required to implement it. In the hardware arena, if a chip company devises a new whizbang IO buffer that does amazing things because of it's new physical architecture, then *that's* something new (and patentable).

When these guys talk about all their investment, I laugh. There is no less investment in people and specialised equipment in hardware, but then the hardware can cost 10s or even 100s of millions to make *on top of those costs*. There simply is no comparison.

On software patents, consider this: A general purpose computer (actually the CPU plus whatever else the manufacturer may have put on the die) is merely a grab bag of logic that may be configured as any one of it's elements at any time. Strictly speaking, that means that any possible sequence of instructions is obvious; the mere availability of the instruction makes it obvious it may be used.

Now whether any particular sequence is useful or not is another matter, but numerous different sequences may yield the same result. For that reason, because different approaches will be better for different settings, copyright (protecting the exact implementation of a sequence) is far better suited to software than a patent (protecting against any possible sequence). It goes against the spirit of 'advancing the useful arts' because we are then prevented from finding a better way to do something but using a different sequence.

No - these guys are patent trolls, pure and simple, and software patents are what enables them. The sooner that gets reformed out of the system, the better for the US software industry.

P

[SystemsJunky]

I must agree with you

Qwerty.

Very Well Said.

[qwerty75]

This guy is the epitome of everything that is wrong in business

First of all, to compare thie company of vultures to Edison is not only silly, it is ignorant.

This is exhibit A why software patents are not only not needed, but dangerous. Everything in the software world is built on something else. I have yet to see a valid software patent. Hardware is a bit different, and benefits from some measure of patent protection.

Copyrights offers enough protection for software. They are very much like books. Just like you can't patent a book, or literary genre, software should not be patentable. This way, your work is protected, but dangerous sharks like this greedy idiot would be stopped in his tracks.

Can someone patent a web browser, chat room, or operating system? Of course not.

Imagine if the work of Einstein, Liebniz,Newton, Gauss, ect were pantented. Where would we be now? Yeah, Edison filed a lot of patents and I have no issue with that. He was not only bringing forward ideas, but concrete products. Besides, if Leibniz and Newton can independantly develop calculus, two people can come up with not only the idea of 1-click shopping, but 2 different implementations of it.

It is not a coincidence that the software industry has been seriously stifled since the shortsighted fecision to allow software patents. Look at all the algorithms, theorems and other ideas brought forward from 1950's to 1980's. They are still heavily used today and are constantly being built on and added to, to advance software. If these were patented back then, we would still be in the computing stone ages. Of course, these greedy bastards don't like to admit they invent nothing, or their "intellectual property" is built on others work. Who has time for honesty when there is money to extort?

Knowlege not only needs to be in the open, it thrives on it. Every accomplishment of mankind was built on the sharing of knowlege, not the buying and hoarding of it. Clueless people love to deride open source but it is a similar model that has been used for centuries to great effect. When we talk software patents, we are talking about ideas. Ideas can only live in the open, so others can advance and build onto that idea. That is how we got where we are today.

People like this guy are nothing more then parasites, they prey on others work, while contributing nothing to the world.

[InfiniPete]

Patentable implementations

I have long said that patents should extend ONLY to new physical things. If you can't pick it up, it's not patentable. More than that, it has to be new - it can't be a general purpose processor merely running different code; there's nothing new there (one of my arguments against software patents)

In addition to that, if there is no *new* hardware, it should not be patentable.

Let's face it; all software is mathematical in nature and simply implements algorithms that may be described mathematically. That's not bad on it's own, but no new invention is required to implement it. In the hardware arena, if a chip company devises a new whizbang IO buffer that does amazing things because of it's new physical architecture, then *that's* something new (and patentable).

When these guys talk about all their investment, I laugh. There is no less investment in people and specialised equipment in hardware, but then the hardware can cost 10s or even 100s of millions to make *on top of those costs*. There simply is no comparison.

On software patents, consider this: A general purpose computer (actually the CPU plus whatever else the manufacturer may have put on the die) is merely a grab bag of logic that may be configured as any one of it's elements at any time. Strictly speaking, that means that any possible sequence of instructions is obvious; the mere availability of the instruction makes it obvious it may be used.

Now whether any particular sequence is useful or not is another matter, but numerous different sequences may yield the same result. For that reason, because different approaches will be better for different settings, copyright (protecting the exact implementation of a sequence) is far better suited to software than a patent (protecting against any possible sequence). It goes against the spirit of 'advancing the useful arts' because we are then prevented from finding a better way to do something but using a different sequence.

No - these guys are patent trolls, pure and simple, and software patents are what enables them. The sooner that gets reformed out of the system, the better for the US software industry.

P

[SystemsJunky]

I must agree with you

Qwerty.

Very Well Said.

[ZeroJCF]

This guy is either a liar or an idiot...

One quote tells it all. "I think the patent system has worked pretty well for 200 years and the court system works very effectively"

1. I wonder if the Patent Market Place is any different now, then it was in the 1800's and even most of the 1900's

2. Effectively? Well in general, they don't. Especially when it comes to Tech Patents. Saying that the courts understand these tech patents, is like saying your 80 year old grandmother can program your PC.

3. Almost every patent authority, including our own, agress that the US Patent system is out of control.

If anyone reads this story and thinks these guys are being unfairly judged are drinking whatever Acacia is.

Now excuse me, because I have 15 patents that I need Acacia to license for me.......

[ZeroJCF]

This guy is either a liar or an idiot...

One quote tells it all. "I think the patent system has worked pretty well for 200 years and the court system works very effectively"

1. I wonder if the Patent Market Place is any different now, then it was in the 1800's and even most of the 1900's

2. Effectively? Well in general, they don't. Especially when it comes to Tech Patents. Saying that the courts understand these tech patents, is like saying your 80 year old grandmother can program your PC.

3. Almost every patent authority, including our own, agress that the US Patent system is out of control.

If anyone reads this story and thinks these guys are being unfairly judged are drinking whatever Acacia is.

Now excuse me, because I have 15 patents that I need Acacia to license for me.......

[Seaspray0]

Ideas are great but not worthy of patents

People have lots of ideas, like flying around with jet powered boots, but they don't provide the specifics to accomplish it. Is this worthy of a patent simply because it's an idea? Unfortunately, the patent office gives out patents for ideas that are broad spectrum and don't provide details on how to accomplish the goal provided by the idea. I place the blame on the patent office for issuing patents like this in the first place. I place the blame on companies like the one in this article for abusing the patent office in this manner or buying patents that do. Perhaps their actions will finally bring about patent reforms that will put them out of business.

[Seaspray0]

Ideas are great but not worthy of patents

People have lots of ideas, like flying around with jet powered boots, but they don't provide the specifics to accomplish it. Is this worthy of a patent simply because it's an idea? Unfortunately, the patent office gives out patents for ideas that are broad spectrum and don't provide details on how to accomplish the goal provided by the idea. I place the blame on the patent office for issuing patents like this in the first place. I place the blame on companies like the one in this article for abusing the patent office in this manner or buying patents that do. Perhaps their actions will finally bring about patent reforms that will put them out of business.

[US_Patent_6,324,586]

A NEEDED SERVICE - More companies like Acacia Technologies are NEEDED!!

GROW UP, you people!! Acacia Technologies provides a valuable service that is very much needed by the individual inventor who doesn't have the resources to protect his ass(ets) from all of the big, corrupt corporate theives.

CHEERS and KUDOS to Paul Ryan for standing steadfast against all of your childish name-calling, and PIONEERING this CRUCIAL new industry.

I'd love to have him working for ME any day!!

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT have any relationship whatsoever to Paul Ryan or anyone at Acacia or any of its subsidiaries. I just work for an individual inventor who could greatly benefit from this type of service.

[US_Patent_6,324,586]

A NEEDED SERVICE - More companies like Acacia Technologies are NEEDED!!

GROW UP, you people!! Acacia Technologies provides a valuable service that is very much needed by the individual inventor who doesn't have the resources to protect his ass(ets) from all of the big, corrupt corporate theives.

CHEERS and KUDOS to Paul Ryan for standing steadfast against all of your childish name-calling, and PIONEERING this CRUCIAL new industry.

I'd love to have him working for ME any day!!

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT have any relationship whatsoever to Paul Ryan or anyone at Acacia or any of its subsidiaries. I just work for an individual inventor who could greatly benefit from this type of service.