31–40 of 57 posts
This patent was filed 2007 and granted 2012, so the title should say (2012).
The patent page states it the patent became active 2020-01-01
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Google pay to enforce a patent it doesn't own?
It looks like it's a person (not a company) that owns the patent too, so unless this person is a m/billionaire a court case doesn't even sound that bad.
I’d love to see a charity formed for the sole purpose of challenging these patents in courts. Crowdfunding can go a long way, and strategic legal wins can go a long way in shaping precedence. Many organizations dabble in these challenges, but it needs a singular purpose.
What does this mean for apps like Anki (assuming they’re not the ones who own this patent)?
If I understand correctly this patent is only active in the USA. Anki is based on SuperMemo-2 and they freely admit it. SuperMemo (based in Poland) has pretty liberal licensing: https://www.supermemo.com/en/blog/licensing-and-copyrighting... I can't see this patent holding up unless it's for a very specific flashcard system. There is prior art on flashcards going back to the 19th century.
How brain dead or just checked out are patent office clerks that patents like this are granted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The patent page states it the patent became active 2020-01-01
There seems to be a weird bug on the Google Patents site. I've noticed that the expiration date of a patent is always the day I visit the site, even for patents I know expired a while ago. This may be something like that.
Don't look at the title. At a glance, the claims looks like a very specific implementation of a flashcard application, which does not seem to be relevant to the current flashcard apps. Did I miss something?
IMO, that's still an extremely broad concept to be granted a patent on.
How brain dead or just checked out are patent office clerks that patents like this are granted.
My friend was a patent clerk. She is pretty sharp. She explained that rules make it much more time-consuming to deny an application than to grant it or coach the applicant on changes they need to make in order to win a grant. Something about needing to explicitly refute each claim. Further, clerks are given quotas on how many patents they must review a week. It’s a pretty crushing load, so the system favors grants.
How brain dead or just checked out are patent office clerks that patents like this are granted.
I'd imagine there's an art to making the application wordy and confusing enough to slip through.