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

Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#101

Post by axman6 »

michaelolenick wrote: post #51

If these weren't depressing they'd be funny. For those who don't know the patent & trademark office (PTO) defines "obvious" as described in a prior patent or, sometimes, an academic paper. Even if everybody in the field has been doing the same thing for years it isn't "non obvious" unless somebody wrote to the PTO about it. But since it's obvious in reality those nobody except crooks bother to. The whole system is ri…

That's not at all how the prior art base of the USPTO, nor any other patent office, is defined. The problem is that these are the most easily searchable bases of prior art because their fields necessitate it: academics are required to find everything piece of related are on what they're researching when producing works like a PhD thesis, and as such huge databases of academic work exist which are easily searchable; patents in the US are also required to disclose all know prior art (I believe, US patent law isn't where my experience comes from), and as such, the larger patent offices (the European and US particularly) have had to develop tools for effectively searching patents. Patents are also usually a good source for prior art because they like to disclose things as broadly as possible so they can claim as broadly as they're allowed. If you find a document which describes something within the scope of the claim you're looking at, then you've got a great novelty citation.

The reason sometimes known things are allowed through is because the patent offices can find no proof that it is well known in the form of a single document before something can be called not novel. In some other juristrictions, common general knowledge in the art is more often used when it's known that something is already routine. even if there's nothing that clearly shows is, simply because it's so common.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#102

Post by axman6 »

ricardobeat wrote: post #96
sergiotapia wrote: post #38

Question: If I build a start up here in Bolivia, it gets big among Latinamerican users - can I take a huge giant shit on the US patent system? Or does the patent system apply if my website application code is hosted on US servers?

From what I learned from a WIPO course a decade ago, every country that signed the Paris Convention[1] (like the Berne Convention, but for patents) must treat patents filed in another signing country as valid in their own. when an applicant files an application for a patent or a trademark in a foreign country [...] the owner benefits from the same protection and the same legal remedy against any infringement as if th…

The PCT relates mostly to claims for priority of patents, so if a document is files in say the US, the applicant may then later (within a specified time period) file an application in another PCT country and claim the same priority date as the US application (ie, the date of filing). All patents are applicable within a single nation only, so just because company X has patent Y in country Z down not mean you can't use the invention in country W unless X has a patent to the same invention in country W as well. However, if they've filed using the PCT they will by default designate they wish for all member countries to examine the patent, so until that patent has lapsed in each country, there is a possibility that the inventor may persue protection and you may then be infringing that patent. Fun stuff.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#103

Post by axman6 »

smartician wrote: post #62
danmaz74 wrote: post #7

So, the incredibly ridiculously generic claim 1 has been granted? I really have no more words to express what I think about software patents.

Claim 1 is fairly specific. All points (a) through (d) have to apply.

Hey man, you can't start speaking the truth in the middle of a HN anti-patent circlejerk!

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#104

Post by axman6 »

Vivtek wrote: post #95
voltagex_ wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Facebook promoted posts

Neither of which has a dynamically generated price, and thus neither of which would be subject to this patent.

Claim 1, the broadest claim, doesn't require that.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#105

Post by axman6 »

voltagex_ wrote: post #21
escaped_hn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aka reddit gold.

Or Facebook promoted posts

Did both reddit gold, or Facebook promoted posts exist before the priority date? If not, they're irrelevant (except to the applicant as a target for infringement).

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#106

Post by axman6 »

akadien wrote: post #41

I see a broadly titled patent like this one as a mechanism scaring small companies into settling. I wonder if it is worth building systems anymore.

The title of a patent has absolutely nothing at all to do with it's scope. Any company who was sued would surely consult a lawyer and they would tell them the scope of the patent is defined in the claims.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#107

Post by axman6 »

tomrod wrote: post #59

Question: why doesn't prior art entirely rule these out?

Do you have some prior art? People on HN love to use terms like prior art without knowing what they mean. You actually have to show that a) it's been done before, or at least something similar enough existed that the difference is not inventive and b) the document(s) was available publicly before the priority date of the application.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#108

Post by axman6 »

beedogs wrote: post #77
michaelhoffman wrote: post #6

This is another example of a patent with a specific scope being given an incredibly broad title. This patent is actually on selling web site commenters the ability to have their comment appear in some kind of distinctive format, which might be a different font, or it might be appearing before the other comments.

...which still should never have been granted a fucking patent. That is absolutely block-headedly idiotic.

Prove it then. find some prior art which discloses all the features of the claim and then there's some weight to your comment, but currently, I've seen no prior art which gives any weight to circlejerk going on here that this is junk. The law requires proof, not misinformed comment and oppinion.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#109

Post by chii »

axman6 wrote: post #101
michaelolenick wrote: post #51

If these weren't depressing they'd be funny. For those who don't know the patent & trademark office (PTO) defines "obvious" as described in a prior patent or, sometimes, an academic paper. Even if everybody in the field has been doing the same thing for years it isn't "non obvious" unless somebody wrote to the PTO about it. But since it's obvious in reality those nobody except crooks bother to. The whole system is ri…

That's not at all how the prior art base of the USPTO, nor any other patent office, is defined. The problem is that these are the most easily searchable bases of prior art because their fields necessitate it: academics are required to find everything piece of related are on what they're researching when producing works like a PhD thesis, and as such huge databases of academic work exist which are easily searchable; p…

imho, i say that the claims of the patent has to first be examined by a person skilled in the arts, without first reading the actual patent. If the person skilled in the arts is able to discern the inner workings of the patent _without_ having read the patent itself, then the patent can be deemed obvious and thus cannot be valid.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#110

Post by tomrod »

axman6 wrote: post #107
tomrod wrote: post #59

Question: why doesn't prior art entirely rule these out?

Do you have some prior art? People on HN love to use terms like prior art without knowing what they mean. You actually have to show that a) it's been done before, or at least something similar enough existed that the difference is not inventive and b) the document(s) was available publicly before the priority date of the application.

I don't personally, but I reckon a day with way-back machine may be enough to establish prior art. That's the problem with overly general patents, unfortunately.

Also good to know I've finally become one of the "people on HN" though for having a bit of common sense! It's good folks here, and I'm glad to be part of the community.

Post reply on HN