Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

patents.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

#41

Post by akersten »

vortico wrote: post #13

As with any patent, read the claims before making statements about what the patent covers. Patent titles are useless. With that said, at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic flashcard method, but there could be something I missed.

> at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic flashcard method

I mean, there is no such thing. It isn't possible to create something like that. Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter how you put them together to do the flashcard thing. Or anything. There's nothing novel to be found. It's just math.

We should not grant artificial exclusivity over categories of functionality that computers were designed to provide.

Destroy all software patents.

Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

#42

Post by gyc »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #35
admax88q wrote: post #9

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.

> Something about needing to explicitly refute each claim

Seems like a wholly reasonable rule, no? We don't want the government to arbitrary grant or deny something without applying the same rules to everyone?

Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

#43

Post by kirrent »

vortico wrote: post #13

As with any patent, read the claims before making statements about what the patent covers. Patent titles are useless. With that said, at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic flashcard method, but there could be something I missed.

And, don't read patent application publications and mistake them for patent publications. The USPTO labels the granted publication with a B after the number. In this case, the granted patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8595637B2/) has seen amendments to the claims during examination before grant.

Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

#45

Post by thetanil »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #4

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.

Not an organization for challenging in court, but "crowdbrain" support for people who do: https://patents.stackexchange.com/

Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

#46

Post by wolfgang42 »

The patent has not “become active;” the reason it says ‘2020-01-01 Application status is Active’ in the timeline is because its current status (as of 2020-01-01) is Active. It actually became active on 2013-11-26 when it was granted and published. (If you look at any active patent it will show the same date, and if you look at this patent tomorrow it will show tomorrow's date instead.)

This comes up every single time someone links to a Google Patents search; it's an incredibly misleading bit of UX design.

[Edit: I'm glad to see that the title has been adjusted to remove the “becomes active” bit. It should probably still have (2013) added on the end, though.]

Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

#47

Post by achow »

akersten wrote: post #41
vortico wrote: post #13

As with any patent, read the claims before making statements about what the patent covers. Patent titles are useless. With that said, at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic flashcard method, but there could be something I missed.

> at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic flashcard method I mean, there is no such thing. It isn't possible to create something like that. Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter how you put them together to do the flashcard thing. Or anything. There's nothing novel to be found. It's just math. We should not grant artificial exclusivity over categories of…

I'm with you on the sentiment. But comment on the rationale behind the sentiment..

> Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter how you put them together..

More or less everything in this world is about understanding how 'elements' work and then how to put them together to invent a new thing.. Medicines (molecules), Design (lines and shapes), Art (colors and mediums), Yoga (Asanas), etc.

Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

#48

Post by [deleted] »

wolfgang42 wrote: post #46

The patent has not “become active;” the reason it says ‘2020-01-01 Application status is Active’ in the timeline is because its current status (as of 2020-01-01) is Active. It actually became active on 2013-11-26 when it was granted and published. (If you look at any active patent it will show the same date, and if you look at this patent tomorrow it will show tomorrow's date instead.) This comes up every single time…

[deleted]

Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

#49

Post by tzs »

save_ferris wrote: post #2

What does this mean for apps like Anki (assuming they’re not the ones who own this patent)?

How much has Anki's handling of flashcards changed since it was first released? Anki was publicly released well before this patent's priority date, and so nothing Anki was doing then can infringe.

It's possible that newer feature of Anki infringe, and so worst case they might have to revert those, but the basic Anki functionality is safe.

Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)

#50

Post by akersten »

achow wrote: post #47
akersten wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic flashcard method I mean, there is no such thing. It isn't possible to create something like that. Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter how you put them together to do the flashcard thing. Or anything. There's nothing novel to be found. It's just math. We should not grant artificial exclusivity over categories of…

I'm with you on the sentiment. But comment on the rationale behind the sentiment.. > Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter how you put them together.. More or less everything in this world is about understanding how 'elements' work and then how to put them together to invent a new thing.. Medicines (molecules), Design (lines and shapes), Art (colors and mediums), Yoga (Asanas), etc.

The nuance with software is that we made up the system in which all of these programs are put together.

Just like in math, we made up the constructs and rules that define what an algorithm or a theorem or a function can be. Because there is a human-defined limited scope of what even constitutes a valid construct (i.e. an "upper limit" of novelty - "this is everything mathematics can do"), anything that exists within this sandbox is therefore less novel. We establish the baseline novelty of the entirety of mathematics as "really powerful, and world changing - and too important to the common good to lock behind a patent." So if that is the upper limit, no individual piece of it can be more novel.

The patent office displays stunning clarity in correctly determining that therefore, any particular instance of maths cannot be patented.

Their failure to apply this same reasoning to software (which is, and always will be, reducible to math) baffles me.

Post reply on HN