Live data from Hacker News

Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

google.com

121–130 of 137 posts

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

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed that nobody could think that the title could be what was patented ;)

As someone not familiar with how patenting really works, that's exactly what I thought at first, and reading patents isn't exactly a clear way to understand what is "actually patented" either. In this case when I read it I understood, but sometimes reading them leaves me MORE confuses.

Dan Shapiro has written a good post on this: http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-...

To summarize, he says:

1. Skip the title

2. Skip the drawings

3. Skip the abstract

4. Skip the specification

5. Find the independent claims, and read them

6. Back to skipping – toss the dependent claims (any claim that starts with “The _____ of claim _____” is essentially a refinement or detail of the parent claim).

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

#123
post #101

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…

> That's not at all how the prior art base of the USPTO, nor any other patent office, is defined.

Prior art isn't the issue.

To be patentable, an invention has to be: 1) non-obvious (to someone skilled in the art); 2) novel; 3) (other things).

Prior art addresses the novelty side of things. Not the non-obviousness side.

The requirement of non-obviousness sounds great in theory, but is in reality a joke, since the only test used is that of prior art.

It is possible for an invention to be obvious and yet for no prior art to exist. In technology one (non-obvious, novel, patentable) invention often enables a big pile of (novel but now obvious, and therefore not patentable) inventions. Using prior art as the only test for obviousness ignores this case entirely.

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

#124
post #78

Couple of years back I'd proposed a cure for patent trolls: Large tech companies form a non-profit group and preemptively attack patent portfolio of companies that they mutually agree to be trolls. The entire business model of trolls hang on a fact that they will be the first attacker so their litigation expenses are small. If a patent troll gets spammed with 100s of lawsuits for bad patent grants at the same time, t…

Part of the definition of "patent troll" is that the troll undertakes no economic activity other than launching lawsuits. Therefore, a troll cannot be sued preemptively.

[deleted]

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

#125
The title is obviously overreaching, but the content of the patent seems to be extremely broad, as well. I won't claim to have read more than the brief description, but it appears that this patents paid, user-specific formatting for any type of web content.

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

#126
So they are patenting the 'just my 2 cents' ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_two_cents

Although I didn't properly RTFA, there are may ways in which one can hook narcissistic gamblers in forums or news sites. The price of the comment can be set in a bid-like fashion with people raising their bids and paying more and more to keep their comment first. They can also pay to upvote or downvote comments or plain remove them. You can have comment wars with real money in no time :).

Bitcoin sounds like a perfect fit for such a system, allowing anonymous comments as well. But haven't I seen something like this somewhere already - reddit tips , for instance ?

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

#127
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone not familiar with how patenting really works, that's exactly what I thought at first, and reading patents isn't exactly a clear way to understand what is "actually patented" either. In this case when I read it I understood, but sometimes reading them leaves me MORE confuses.

Dan Shapiro has written a good post on this: http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-... To summarize, he says: 1. Skip the title 2. Skip the drawings 3. Skip the abstract 4. Skip the specification 5. Find the independent claims, and read them 6. Back to skipping – toss the dependent claims (any claim that starts with “The _____ of claim _____” is essentially a refinement or detail of the parent c…

2. Skip the drawings

Except if they are flowcharts !

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

#128
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In researching my forthcoming book, Without Their Permission, I found a great letter from Jefferson that went so far as to consider putting limits in the Bill of Rights: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding__years but for no longer term and no other purpose." Letter to James Madison, August 28, 1789 http://www.found…

Those letters are quaint and all, but unless ratified in laws are off topic.

I think perhaps you meant "moot" (I love that word).

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

#130
post #104
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does. 1.b.i.
Post reply on HN