| |||||||||||||
respectful naming of your opponentrespectful naming of your opponentPosted Oct 15, 2007 18:00 UTC (Mon) by zooko (subscriber, #2589)Parent article: A visit from the trolls
I know this is going to sound weird to some folks, but I would appreciate it if we didn't use disrespectful terms like "troll" to denote people whose actions or roles we dislike.
We can argue that they are doing wrong while still referring to them with a word which indicates a normal human being just like the rest of us.
I know that using the word "troll" as a noun like that is funny (at least the first few times), but doesn't mean that we shouldn't switch to something more respectful.
Regards,
Zooko
(Log in to post comments)
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 18:17 UTC (Mon) by johnkarp (subscriber, #39285) [Link] When I first saw the headline, I assumed it was an interview withTrolltech developers. In which case, 'troll' is the proper term... they use it themselves in their own publications.
"Patent troll" is a term of art. Posted Oct 15, 2007 18:25 UTC (Mon) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] "Troll" in this context is a term of art. The phrase "patent troll" has been around for nearly 15 years -- possibly coined by Intel -- and is well understood to describe a company with this sort of business plan.
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 18:32 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] "Troll" is a technical term unrelated to its use to disparage saboteurs of online discussions. It comes from the mythological creature hinding under bridges and demanding a toll to cross. Trolls don't build bridges, they just colonize bridges that are poorly defended. Of course they are symbolic of real bandits who behave the same way.
As such, "patent troll" is not meant to be funny or (particularly) disrespectful. It's simply a very accurately analogical description. These people never create anything, but they make their living by demanding money from others to whom they have never rendered any service and on whose largesse they have no claim; and they enforce their demands by threatening the harm of expensive litigation. The victims know that even winning such litigation might be more expensive than paying the demands. Furthermore, the alice-in-wonderland atmosphere in courtrooms means winning is far from certain, and losing could be disastrous.
"Patent trolls" is, if anything, too favorable a term. "Patent extortionists", "Protection racketeers", or "disgusting slime" would be more appropriate, but we restrain ourselves and say "patent trolls".
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 18:45 UTC (Mon) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] Personally, I would be okay with "racketeers" or "extortionists". This focusses the issue on their actual (non-metaphorical) alleged actions and raises the explicit question of whether those actions are defensible, legal, ethical, etc.. (I might not agree with your answers to those questions, but I would understand your meaning as being respectful of the humanity of your targets, if not respectful of their actions.)
I personally try not to use nouns that denote non-human entities, like "trolls" or "slime" (or "rats" or "animals" or "beasts" or any such) to refer to people.
Of course, I suppose I might do it if I really thought that someone was undeserving of being respected as human, but I wouldn't do it in this case.
Regards,
Zooko
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 16, 2007 10:46 UTC (Tue) by gouyou (guest, #30290) [Link] But using "racketeers" or "extortionists" would mean that you should be able to prove that they are doing racket or extortion not simply that their business practice are like racket or extortion. If you cannot prove it, it is defamation; using the metaphor is a good way to say it looks like it but it might not fit the definition 100%.
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 19:04 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "These people never create anything"
While they don't build anything themselves, the money they provide to inventors or other patent holders who do invent things and the access to inventions that they provide to companies that want to build things embodying those inventions is part of the equation that is used to justify patents.
That is, they didn't "take over a ill-defended bridge", they went out and bought a bridge on the open market.
Patents != innovation Posted Oct 15, 2007 19:44 UTC (Mon) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] That's the theory, but not the practice.In practice, all a patent troll does is purchase a patent from someone ELSE who didn't invent anything either. In practically all cases, the actual INNOVATION occurred many years before the patent application, and/or was obvious to anyone in the art (and thus should never have been granted a patent). Both the original person applying for the patent, as well as the person who bought the patent, have nothing to do with innovation. All algorithms and software were originally barred from patent protection. We have an existing legal system for protecting software (copyright), and there is no evidence that there was a lack of innovation requiring the addition of software patents to the set of legal patents. Sure, the idea behind patents is that we have to pay people to innovate or they wouldn't innovate, but the whole thing is upside-down. But it's "patently" untrue; people innovated in software for years before the patent system was enforced on software. The patent system is just another unnecessary government intrusion into the marketplace. As with most software developers, I think software patents are an egregiously bad idea; they reward people for NOT working (file patents instead of producing useful products). Patents may work in other fields, but they're simply inappropriate for software. Problem is, they'll keep going until a group works to CHANGE THE LAW and GET RID of software patents. There isn't a live group that's working to do that, to my knowledge; much of the anti-patent work recently has been in Europe, not the U.S. The "patent reform" work in the U.S. is primarily funded by large organizations who want to tweak the system, not eliminate it... they tend to be organizations who make money overall from the status quo.
Patents != innovation Posted Oct 15, 2007 20:02 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I'm reasonably sure that the people who applied for this particular patent were, in fact, doing work that was actual innovation and that they were doing it because the company they worked for (Xerox) was willing to invest a lot in bringing smart people together to generate new ideas.
I generally don't think that that kind of investment is needed today in software, except in very narrow cases. I generally agree that software patents could be eliminated or radically curtailed without affecting innovation.
Patents != innovation Posted Oct 15, 2007 20:48 UTC (Mon) by and (subscriber, #2883) [Link] > I generally agree that software patents could be eliminated or radically> curtailed without affecting innovation.
Their elimination almost certainly would severely affect innovation in the
Patents on completely abstract concepts like software are simply a stupid
Patents != innovation Posted Oct 16, 2007 0:34 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > I'm reasonably sure that the people who applied for this particular patent were, in fact, doing work that was actual innovation and that they were doing it because the company they worked for (Xerox) was willing to invest a lot in bringing smart people together to generate new ideas.
I think you're making it sound a bit too much like "poor old inventors needed protection badly". This "invention" could have been protected by copyright (if they actually bothered to implement it, which would keep them in the job for a lot longer), which in case of software also gives holders a unique ability to ship binary only to the outside world (therefore further delaying what imitators can do). They could have also used contracts to ensure trade secrecy with the licensees.
So, these poor defenseless folks actually had two powerful mechanism to protect their work, none of which are available to say an inventor of a new auto part. Given that and given that software innovation doesn't require huge investment before beginning (a PC?) and also given that the field's landscape changes on a monthly basis, I think affording these people yet another 20 year monopoly (and on something that requires least effort when it comes to software development) is completely counter productive.
Patents != innovation Posted Oct 16, 2007 0:54 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I've already said I think software patents could go away without affecting innovation, so you're basically preaching to the choir. However, (a) they did implement it, (b) the problem with copyright is that it protects only the specific implementation, which is obviously much weaker (if the goal is to provide protection that increases the value of innovations) than patents (c) the problem with trade secrets is it's hard to protect a "secret" that's part of the user interface, and (d) in the mid-1980s the barriers to innovation in the field were significantly higher. These guys, and the rest of the PARC crew, came up with central innovations because they were smart, because they were working together, and because innovating was their full-time job, because their employer wanted to drive innovation (and reap the attendant benefits).
Things are very different today; that rate of change is an obvious reason why the 20-year terms was a mistake.
Not sure what the reference to auto parts is meant to suggest - all of these protections are available to people who invent auto parts (copyright only in a limited number of places). [And note that copyrights last a lot longer than patents and that the non-visibility of trade secrets is the key argument in favor of patents - by forcing inventors to trade disclosure for protection, it enables others to build on top of the patented innovations.]
Patents != innovation Posted Oct 16, 2007 1:25 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] As for (a), well then obviously they were to reap the benefits of copyright protection, right?
Regarding (b), that's not a problem, IMHO, it's a feature. And it is well suited for software, because software is essentially text.
In terms of (c), that's the whole point. The secret would refer to the implementation bit only, which is also protected by copyright.
As for (d), I started high school (year 9) in 1981 and that's when we received a donation of eight used Cromemco computers from UCLA. So, the doors to cheap stuff were opening big time in 1980's. By the time I started my university studies, PCs were everywhere. And I didn't live in a developed country at the time. I would venture a guess many middle class people in the U.S. could afford a PC of some sort in 1980's.
> These guys, and the rest of the PARC crew, came up with central innovations because they were smart, because they were working together, and because innovating was their full-time job, because their employer wanted to drive innovation (and reap the attendant benefits).
I don't doubt that they were smart. I don't doubt they came up with a lot of new stuff. I just think that double-dipping (or triple if you like) is way, way over the top.
> Not sure what the reference to auto parts is meant to suggest
It is meant to suggest that you cannot copyright an implementation of an auto part (you can the blueprints). And once it's out in a car, anyone can see it, so it's no longer a trade secret either. Hence, it's fair inventors gain patent protection for these things, as otherwise anyone could easily imitate without compensation.
On the other hand, if you're in the software business, you get to copyright both the blueprints (source) and the implementation (shall we say binary here), you also get to keep things secret by binary only distribution, obfuscation and trade secrets using contracts with licensees. And you get patent protection (for mathematical algorithms, no less) on top of all that.
The problem with governments in the U.S., Australia and similar countries is that they started equating progress with economic activity (i.e. such and such number of billions of dollars were made in patent trade) - two things that may be correlated, but are not the same.
Patent = disclosure for protection Posted Oct 25, 2007 9:58 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] Guys, remember that a patent was once granted to exchange disclosure of trade secrets for time-limited protection. This is what's IMHO covered with the original idea to "obvious to one skilled in the art". I.e. something that doesn't need a tantamount of reverse engineering is not worth a patent, because disclosing the blue print is not necessary. The current legal interpretation of "obviousness" is rather different, but has recently changed a bit. Neither the old nor the new definition really takes the idea of the patent as such into account (an idea which was there before the industrialization took off at around 1860). A patent is not there to protect innovators, it's there to increase the overall amount of knowledge, by giving an incentive to disclose trade secrets. That's the deal, nothing else. For all things which can be copied without much troubles, there's copyright. The whole ideas of copyright and patents don't fit in well with our modern understanding of state and economy, anyway. A patent is a privilege, granted by the state. Patents as such are a medieval idea; only in the 19th century, this idea was applied to innovations. The whole idea of a privilege is contrary to the idea of a free society. A more appropriate concept for today would be to generally reward disclosure, and punish trade secrets. Free software culture shows that this can be done: not disclosing the source of a software is considered "evil", opening up is rewarded by community feedback. The state, if we need a leviathan to do this kind of stuff, could encourage disclosure with tax reduction. The open-sourcing of some software could be regarded as "charitable", and as consequence, tax-free allowances could be given to the project members (opposed to taxed salary). Same for innovations in other fields. This takes people right at their greed - even Bill Gates would open-source Windows, if he can save lots of taxes by doing so. Many people invest into tax-saving schemes even if it's a total loss.
This is not trolling, but using the patent system for what it was designed. Posted Oct 15, 2007 18:35 UTC (Mon) by ber (subscriber, #2142) [Link] I agree that "troll" is a bad word to use, but not out of respect for the opponents, but because this sort of behaviour wanted by the proponents of the patent system. It is a "troll system" towards innovators.Policymakers get the wrong idea, that there are a few bad sheeps and they just can adjust it a bit and the system would be fine.
descriptive naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 18:42 UTC (Mon) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] Please also understand trolling in the sense of fishing - these 'nets' of patents lie waiting for someone to fall foul of them. It is also descriptive of the fairy-tale troll who jumps out from below a bridge to waylay travelers intent on making use of the bridge it guards (but did not build).
This terminology is not slander - it is descriptive imagery appropriate to the activity described.
descriptive naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 18:59 UTC (Mon) by nowster (subscriber, #67) [Link] The word describing such fishing is usually written as "trawl" in the UK. Like much in computing, the US spelling is taken (eg. program) for the computing term to distinguish it from other senses.
The word could also conceivably have come from the cant slang "Polari".
descriptive naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 19:53 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I believe trolling and trawling are different kinds of fishing - trolling involves dragging a line at very low speed, trawling involves large nets.
descriptive naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 23:14 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Troll is a double meaning. Remember this is english.. the written word is only part of it. It's ment to be spoken also. Troll, trawl, etc. They sound the same.
A troll is a monster under the bridge that eats children. Patent trolls are like that.
A patent troll is some corporation that produces nothing worthwhile. They have no products, they have no software they make themselves.
In the modern U.S. software environment it's virtually impossible to produce software and not infringe on software patents. There are hundreds of new software patents per week. Thousands per month. Tens of thousands per year. Every year the number is growing.
I am not exagerating at all. I am saying there are thousands of new software patents per month. This is the literaly truth.
It's impossible to make software and NOT infringe on patents. You can't avoid it. It's not worth trying. You'd have to have something like 10 expert patent/software/IP attornys per programmer to even come close to avoiding them and even then it's no garrentee.
So what software corporations like Microsoft or Novell have to do is get as many software patents themselves. This way if other corporations sue them for infringement then they can sue back.
So by definition Microsoft or Novell or Sun or IBM can NOT be patent trolls. They produce software and thus are liable to software patents themselves. Their threat is neutered. Microsoft's threats are hollow.
Patent trolls don't produce any software. They don't produce any products that anybody can use. No hardware, no software, nothing. Thusly they are completely immune to counter lawsuits.
Patent trolls are corporations formed around obtaining software patents from failing companies or other sources of patents. Once they obtain these patents then they are free to extract licensing fees out of legitament companies. Most of the time you do not hear about them because most of the time it's cheaper for real software companies to pay them silently, under the table, even.. rather then fight them.
They are usually lawyers and such that form patent troll companies. So they know how much a lawsuit would cost a company. So they make sure that the licensing fees for a patent are less then what it would cost to defeat their patent.
So say they have a weak patent and they figure it would take a court case and a couple of appeals to have their patent destroyed. Say that would cost a software company 40-50 thousand dollars to win. So they charge 30 thousand dollars. They sue one company after another, make them sign NDAs so that nobody knows how much they realy paid and it's off to find another target.
THAT is what a patent troll is.
They don't make anything. They don't produce anything. They don't innovate, they don't have any innovation to offer to other people. They simply purchase the remnents of failed companies and extract licensing fees from real working people. It doesn't realy f-ing matter if the people that made the patent originally did anything innovative. The people that are doing the innovating and the people that are doing the sueing are not the same people.
If you don't like 'Troll' then call them:
People call them 'Patent Trolls' because that's the NICE term. They are actually being very very nice in using that term.
So don't put down the term. There are ones that are much much worse.
Most people that do end up supporting patent trolls are, ironicly, academic sorts and institutions. Those folks are not happy with the taxation and other fees that extracted from corporations and working people to fund their schools. They sometimes feel that they produce some sort of innovation in software-land and that patents and licensing fees are a effective way to get secondary source of financial support. They are just blinded by the $$$$. Since they, themselves, rarely produce anything of value they are mostly isolated from the reality of patents. Ivory towers are nice, I guess.
(that's not to say that all academics are like that, of course! Many are very valuable people)
descriptive naming of your opponent Posted Oct 16, 2007 0:27 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] One minor point: the trawl-versus-troll discussion was in reference to theUK, where those words would invariably be pronounced quite differently, to the degree that it's hard to imagine confusing them.
descriptive naming of your opponent Posted Oct 16, 2007 0:58 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] The words are pronounced very differently in the US, too.
descriptive naming of your opponent Posted Oct 16, 2007 1:09 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Note (a) that the monetary numbers cited are ludicrously underestimated. A patent defense against an issued patent held by a company serious about pursuing it would typically cost multiple millions. When you're paying lawyers >$500/hour and disclosure is likely to provide you with tens of thousands of documents you have to pay lawyers to read, it adds up quickly.
Note (b) again, even though the trolls don't innovate on their own behalf, their existence makes the patents valuable, and that residual value figures in companies' decisions to invest in developing new technologies.
As I said, terms are way too long and the barriers have fallen enough that software patents don't make a lot of sense anymore. But trashing the trolls because their only stake in the game is money is silly - money is the same thing IBM or Microsoft or the Linux Foundation bring to the table - money drives large-scale innovation. As I said, I don't think the protection is needed anymore, for software, but in the mid-80s, it made a big difference.
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 19:31 UTC (Mon) by moxfyre (subscriber, #13847) [Link] > I know this is going to sound weird to some folks, but I would appreciate it if we didn't use disrespectful terms like "troll" to denote people whose actions or roles we dislike.
> We can argue that they are doing wrong while still referring to them with a word which indicates a normal human being just like the rest of us.
I understand your sentiment, but I think the history of the term "patent troll" actually shows that it's not meant to be offensive, but rather descriptive.
I believe it comes from the folk tale of a troll who hides under a bridge for a long time. People use the bridge to get about and do their business. One day the troll pops up and demands some fee to cross the bridge, causing problems for everyone who was using it.
In the same way, patent trolls wait until a particular technology becomes popular and widely used, and then "pop up" and start demanding money to use it. Many of them own dozens of patents and just selectively enforce the ones that pan out.
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 15, 2007 22:18 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link] So patent law needs a change, to ensure a company has to actively protectits patent - if it's used for say a year already, and pretty widespread, and they knew or should have known about it, it should be rendered invalid. And I believe such is the case in the Netherlands, but I'm not sure...
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 16, 2007 1:18 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] In the US, patent examination is supposed to eliminate applications that already in wide use or that should be obvious to a practitioner. Inventions that have been shipped (or otherwise disclosed) for more than a year are not eligible for patents.
If the law required that patents be actively used by the patent holder wouldn't work because the patent holder would be able to create products that were not competitive in the market (say, costing 10 times the cost of competitive products) and existed only to prove that the technology was being used.
Mandatory licensing for statutory fees could be an interesting approach. So could basing the duration of the patent on the cost/complexity of the invention process, the difficulty of the productization process, and how important the innovation is, but the difficulty of running such a process is unimaginable.
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 16, 2007 13:04 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] In this context, it's amusing to note that a judge in (of course) East Texas has forbidden the use of the term "patent troll" in his courtroom.
|
|||||||||||||