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

The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

patents.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

#51

Post by IAmEveryone »

eitland wrote: post #23
simonh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any publication is fine as long as you can provide evidence. In fact the only thing special about publication is that it is a convenient way to demonstrate evidence of the prior art. What could be tricky about e.g. a personal blog post is proving that it was published when you say it was and that time stamps are genuine.

For those who are interested and doesn't know already[0] this is one of the places where blockchains and similar, older technoologies are actually useful: to provide irrefutable proof of knowledge at a given time. Note however that similar services has been done for years[1] before Bitcoins and blockchains became a thing but since they neither need multi-Gigawatt-Proof-of-Work [2] nor any kind of "Coin" that can be p…

I'm somewhat sure that prior art requires publication, and not just knowledge.

The internet archive has long been used as evidence for such publication-at-time claims, and they even have a paid service allowing you to trigger snapshots IIRC. There's a FAQ regarding the use of their data in court cases that is somewhat interesting to read.

I know the cryptocurrency community has this absurd notion that nothing without cryptographic proof could or should ever be regarded as evidence. That trusting institutions, people, or processes marks you as a gullible fool, and that the Federal Reserve is conspiracy by private banks to keep the gentile from the levers of power[0].

So this is the not entirely novel situation of crypto being proposed to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and failing due to the lack of (usually: active hostility to) subject matter expertise.

[0] last point unrelated to this specific situation and just included for completeness

Re: The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

#52

Post by derivagral »

black_puppydog wrote: post #49
MobileVet wrote: post #43

Evolution Robotics (later acquired by iRobot) was the first licensee of this patent for robotics applications. It was very cutting edge for the time and allowed our robots the ability to recognize real world objects. Having the robot follow a book that you carried in front of it was trippy in 2002. Later we applied it to loss prevention in grocery retail with cameras at ground level watching under the cart. If we rec…

wait... the concept was to have video cameras on the ground point upward in a supermarket setting? Did anyone involved in this ever stop to think "what would a person wearing a skirt say to this?" It's not exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to be able to explain away with "oh no but we really don't use it for that" no?

A more charitable reading is that the cameras are at ground level and stay aimed at ground level. I got the impression he's not talking about the main basket of the shopping cart, but the storage right above the wheels where you might forget pet food or bulk paper goods.

Re: The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

#53

Post by donohoe »

rkangel wrote: post #37
donohoe wrote: post #35

2020-03-09 Application status is Active Not anymore

I don't understand what this means. US Patents are 20 years, right? And it was applied for in 1999, so it must be expiring?

Perhaps. I'm just pointing out (badly) that when this was posted (March 8th depending on Timezone) to HN that new status may not have been there. That latest status updated just happened March 9th.

Re: The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

#54

Post by coredog64 »

black_puppydog wrote: post #49
MobileVet wrote: post #43

Evolution Robotics (later acquired by iRobot) was the first licensee of this patent for robotics applications. It was very cutting edge for the time and allowed our robots the ability to recognize real world objects. Having the robot follow a book that you carried in front of it was trippy in 2002. Later we applied it to loss prevention in grocery retail with cameras at ground level watching under the cart. If we rec…

wait... the concept was to have video cameras on the ground point upward in a supermarket setting? Did anyone involved in this ever stop to think "what would a person wearing a skirt say to this?" It's not exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to be able to explain away with "oh no but we really don't use it for that" no?

Horizontally aligned, pointing into the space where your cart goes when you check out. Unless we’re worried about blurry pix of well-turned ankles showing up on the web, I don’t think there’s cause for concern.

Re: The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

#56

Post by JoeAltmaier »

coredog64 wrote: post #54
black_puppydog wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait... the concept was to have video cameras on the ground point upward in a supermarket setting? Did anyone involved in this ever stop to think "what would a person wearing a skirt say to this?" It's not exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to be able to explain away with "oh no but we really don't use it for that" no?

Horizontally aligned, pointing into the space where your cart goes when you check out. Unless we’re worried about blurry pix of well-turned ankles showing up on the web, I don’t think there’s cause for concern.

Until the first horny teen working a station gets an idea into their head.

Re: The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

#57

Post by karlkatzke »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #56
coredog64 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horizontally aligned, pointing into the space where your cart goes when you check out. Unless we’re worried about blurry pix of well-turned ankles showing up on the web, I don’t think there’s cause for concern.

Until the first horny teen working a station gets an idea into their head.

The cashier can’t see the camera. The camera is watched by object recognition software that can talk to the point of sale.

If object recognition algorithms develop the ability to be aroused by human underwear, we have -other- problems.

Re: The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

#58

Post by vortico »

donohoe wrote: post #35

2020-03-09 Application status is Active Not anymore

Google Patent's interface is dumb. This means "Today (on 2020-03-09), the patent application is not in a state of pending to be filed." The fact they put this in the Events section is horrible UI. It's not an event, it's a current status as of the date the webpage was loaded. And it does mean that the patent is expired or not, it's a boolean specifying that the patent is filed (active) or pending filing. A better UI would be the text "Filed: yes" somewhere.

Re: The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

#59

Post by vortico »

exikyut wrote: post #10

More info about what this actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-invariant_feature_transf... --- Also, reading the listing, I see 2020-03-06 - Anticipated expiration 2020-03-08 - Application status is Active Is "active" some kind of obscure reference with a nonintuitive meaning, or did the patent owner reapply for the patent?

See my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22525533

Re: The patent on SIFT expired yesterday

#60

Post by eitland »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #51
eitland wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who are interested and doesn't know already[0] this is one of the places where blockchains and similar, older technoologies are actually useful: to provide irrefutable proof of knowledge at a given time. Note however that similar services has been done for years[1] before Bitcoins and blockchains became a thing but since they neither need multi-Gigawatt-Proof-of-Work [2] nor any kind of "Coin" that can be p…

I'm somewhat sure that prior art requires publication , and not just knowledge . The internet archive has long been used as evidence for such publication-at-time claims, and they even have a paid service allowing you to trigger snapshots IIRC. There's a FAQ regarding the use of their data in court cases that is somewhat interesting to read. I know the cryptocurrency community has this absurd notion that nothing witho…

> I know the cryptocurrency community has this absurd notion that nothing without cryptographic proof could or should ever be regarded as evidence. That trusting institutions, people, or processes marks you as a gullible fool, and that the Federal Reserve is conspiracy by private banks to keep the gentile from the levers of power[0]. So this is the not entirely novel situation of crypto being proposed to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and failing due to the lack of (usually: active hostility to) subject matter expertise.

It reads like you count me in with the cryptocurrency community.

If anyone else does: don't.

I'm pointing out one single place were blockchain can be useful and then immediately pointing out that it isn't strictly necessary.

Post reply on HN