I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented. An implementation of this clearly requires at least level 4 autonomy[0], which AFAIK, nobody has demonstrated. This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining, never mind commercial viability. Mind you, I don't consider that a bad thing; this is pret…
> This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining
I think we actually have a better idea of how to mine an asteroid.
I work in security and anti-fraud is the use case of last resort for terrible ideas. When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you. A technology like this means that the vehicle still belongs to Ford, which means if something goes wrong with it, or if you get sciatica from their shitty seats, you can class action sue them into oblivion. The reason we have laws is so that peo…
> When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you Is it not correct that the lending entity you use to purchase a vehicle is the party that legally owns it? The borrower has possession and right to use the vehicle, but the lender holds the title. That's why you get the title transferred over to your name once the balance of the load is repaid.
No. When you finance a car the lender gets a lien on the title. The title is still in your name. Usually one of the stipulations the lender places in their contract is that they hold the title for you in what is effectively "escrow" until the loan is paid off. Then they release the lien and send you your title.
The reason they do that is because a lien gives them the ability to, within a particular legal framework, get ownership of the car if you don't pay your loan, prevent the title from being transferred to someone they don't trust, etc. It's basically just risk mitigation.
I work in security and anti-fraud is the use case of last resort for terrible ideas. When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you. A technology like this means that the vehicle still belongs to Ford, which means if something goes wrong with it, or if you get sciatica from their shitty seats, you can class action sue them into oblivion. The reason we have laws is so that peo…
> When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you Is it not correct that the lending entity you use to purchase a vehicle is the party that legally owns it? The borrower has possession and right to use the vehicle, but the lender holds the title. That's why you get the title transferred over to your name once the balance of the load is repaid.
That's what I thought too. I got pulled over once and the cop asked me "Is this your car?". I replied "Well, no... the bank owns it, but they let me drive it". He was not amused, but I was not being snarky -- I took the question to mean: "Do you own this car?", and the honest answer was no - at least, as I understood it, because the owner name on the title was the bank, not mine.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see this as particularly evil. It's just a more efficient of what already happens in terms of care repossession. What needs to happen is better consumer protection to prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford.
This. I anecdotally seen this happen to my wife's friends. Long story short, their credit is shot so they are forced to either purchase car by cash ( they seemingly can't ) or go to one of those places that will give them a car loan at ridiculous rate and installed with gizmos to allow easy repossession once payment is missed. I think you would have everyone and their mother fighting against this saying you need free…
The solution is probably to work on that very last part
I work in security and anti-fraud is the use case of last resort for terrible ideas. When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you. A technology like this means that the vehicle still belongs to Ford, which means if something goes wrong with it, or if you get sciatica from their shitty seats, you can class action sue them into oblivion. The reason we have laws is so that peo…
> When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you. The title stays with the lender until all the payments are made per the loan agreement. I would not say the vehicle legally belongs to a borrower until they have possession of the title. > The reason we have laws is so that people have recourse to principle, whereas when you implement something like this in hardware (a car), i…
If the cost of repossession is low it also means that riskier buyers are more likely to get financed.
Not quite true. They will stop you from patenting a perpetual motion machine (typically by saying that you have not provided enough detail for someone to replicate your work).
Except they can only do that if a patent clerk (who is usually not a physicist or engineer) can TELL it's a perpetual motion machine. After millions and millions of patents, there are bound to be a bunch that should not have been granted, even if those patent clerks are 99.9% good at their job
Patent examiners (the modern term for patent clerks) have at least a bachelors degree in a technical field relevant to the subject they review. That might be physics, engineer, chemistry, or something else. Examiners are assigned to specific art unit (e.g. an examiner with a degree in chemistry might be assigned to art unit 1710 and spend their entire career examining patents for chemicals involved in "Coating, Etching, Cleaning, and Single Crystal Growth").
I'm sure some things do get through on occasion, but examiners are most certainly subject matter experts.
FWIW, this was the number one comment yesterday on the Reddit thread about this.
When I read the parent comment, I thought “Am I on Reddit?”. HN used to bury Reddit-like comments a while back, but it seems the Reddit influence is becoming more and more accepted on HN these days, as I’m starting to see them more at the top vs. the bottom of threads.
I agree. I was not sure if it was just me making this up, but I have been browsing hacker news for 2 years now, and yet I do noticed some kind of regime shift where reddit-like comments are more prominent. I dont like this development, as HN used to be a safe-space from the reddit hivemind, I wish HN moderation would more heavily moderate them.
I hope they defend it with a vengeance so nobody can copy it
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see this as particularly evil. It's just a more efficient of what already happens in terms of care repossession. What needs to happen is better consumer protection to prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford.
I'd rather a human was involved in the process. With this all you get is "computer says no" and poof your car is gone.
With a human tasked with the repo, at the very least even if "computer says no" to them, they have some leeway (even if it's slim-to-none) in talking to you about it.
> When you finance a car, the vehicle becomes collateral for a loan, but it belongs to you. The title stays with the lender until all the payments are made per the loan agreement. I would not say the vehicle legally belongs to a borrower until they have possession of the title. > The reason we have laws is so that people have recourse to principle, whereas when you implement something like this in hardware (a car), i…
If the cost of repossession is low it also means that riskier buyers are more likely to get financed.