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

YogaGlo Update

yogaglo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: YogaGlo Update

#61

Post by dnautics »

throwawaykf03 wrote: post #49
mbesto wrote: post #29

Since this is relevant to the tech community let me paint a picture before people start sharpening the pitchforks... I've been meeting with investors recently and one of the most common questions/comments has been - "Why can't someone else just do the same thing? Can a group of Stanford grads build this in a weekend?" This line of questioning is relevant to pretty much all startups today. The reality is, from what I…

Your experience may be anecdotal, but it's also supported by data: 1. The 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049 ), finding that while only 25% of all software startups file patents, about 67% of venture-funded startups do. 2. "Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?", Ronald J. Mann, 2005, ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103…

well wait a second, whether or not they do facilitate is not the same thing as whether or not they are necessary for it to happen. Clearly, the latter is true since there's that other 33%

Re: YogaGlo Update

#62

Post by dnautics »

xacaxulu wrote: post #36

As if yuppies didn't make yoga horrible enough already...what else can we appropriate from Eastern religion and patent for profit?

desktop zen rock gardens. I was looking for an authentic full size zen rake, and I couldn't find one, at all, since the search only yielded those kitchy things you find on some people's desks.

Re: YogaGlo Update

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

samplonius wrote: post #58
grellas wrote: post #42

A few thoughts: 1. Junk patents abound in today's digital world, where "method" and "computer" have been endlessly linked to suggest that something is innovative when it is not. YogaGlo's patent is a bit different but in the same spirit of method madness. 2. For much of this, we can thank the loosening standards imposed over the past two decades by a specialized patent appeals court that has given overblown significa…

> 2. For much of this, we can thank the loosening standards imposed over the past two decades by a specialized patent appeals court that has given overblown... No, this is just a common misconception. If you look at the history of rulings from east Texas, you will see they invalidate a higher percentage of patents than other courts in the US. East Texas just implemented rules on length of filings and length of argume…

> > 2. For much of this, we can thank the loosening standards imposed over the past two decades by a specialized patent appeals court that has given overblown...

> No, this is just a common misconception. If you look at the history of rulings from east Texas, you will see they invalidate a higher percentage of patents than other courts in the US.

The "specialized patent appeals court" that GP is referring to as having imposed "loosening standards" over the past two decades is certainly the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, not the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for the following reasons:

1. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is a trial court, not an appeals court,

2. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is a regular federal court, not a specialized patent court (even if it may have attracted some attention because of patent litigation that has gravitated there),

3. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is an appeals court, not a trial court,

4. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is unique among the Circuit Courts of Appeals in that it has national jurisdiction for appeals of certain classes of cases (including, notably, patent cases) based on subject matter.

So, however interesting your essay on the merits of the patent procedures of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas might be, it really is completely irrelevant to the post you are responding to, which wasn't talking about that court at all.

Re: YogaGlo Update

#65

Post by jplarson »

Here’s a lovely bit of nasty hypocrisy:

"Yoga International could keep the videos on its website until it had a chance to re-film the classes using a different style."

So they say they're not using the patent as a weapon, but then describe themselves harassing another organization with it. Their patience is generous only if we can assume it's no trouble at all to re-film those classes (ugh).

And doesn't the existence of videos they "felt were very close to ours" imply a bit of prior art and/or lack of originality on the so-called patented style? Or perhaps are they are insinuating that Yoga International willfully "stole" or "reverse engineered" their style before the patent was issued?

Re: YogaGlo Update

#66

Post by qwertyboy »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #60

As an American and a Yogi I have to say America has to be the only country where "entrepreneurial" teachers of Yoga feel the right to patent Yoga. Exactly when Yoga started is a matter of debate but most will grant it a couple of thousand years at least and most much farther back. As an example is [Forrest Yoga]( http://www.forrestyoga.com/ ) where prior art is technically in illustratiosn and text in ancient books.…

While the usage of the word "Yoga" to describe spiritual practices is certainly quite old (the Yoga Sutras were apparently compiled a bit before Jesus), Hatha Yoga is only a few centuries old, and the gymnastic practice that is common today (asanas) is pretty modern (~150 years).

Doesn't make patents any less ridiculous, of course.

Re: YogaGlo Update

#68

Post by MaggieL »

qwertyboy wrote: post #66
ThinkBeat wrote: post #60

As an American and a Yogi I have to say America has to be the only country where "entrepreneurial" teachers of Yoga feel the right to patent Yoga. Exactly when Yoga started is a matter of debate but most will grant it a couple of thousand years at least and most much farther back. As an example is [Forrest Yoga]( http://www.forrestyoga.com/ ) where prior art is technically in illustratiosn and text in ancient books.…

While the usage of the word "Yoga" to describe spiritual practices is certainly quite old (the Yoga Sutras were apparently compiled a bit before Jesus), Hatha Yoga is only a few centuries old, and the gymnastic practice that is common today (asanas) is pretty modern (~150 years). Doesn't make patents any less ridiculous, of course.

Jesus wasn't compiled, he's dynamically interpreted. :-)

Re: YogaGlo Update

#69

Post by ntharani »

Translation: "We exercised common sense in taking a video and have patented this." Prior art, I would have hoped, amounts to framing and take a video of anything and capturing essential attributes to deliver a valuable online experience. I'm a subscriber to yogoglo, and I'm ashamed. Any alternatives without scummy patent tactics you can recommend?

Re: YogaGlo Update

#70

Post by throwawaykf03 »

dnautics wrote: post #61
throwawaykf03 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your experience may be anecdotal, but it's also supported by data: 1. The 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049 ), finding that while only 25% of all software startups file patents, about 67% of venture-funded startups do. 2. "Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?", Ronald J. Mann, 2005, ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103…

well wait a second, whether or not they do facilitate is not the same thing as whether or not they are necessary for it to happen. Clearly, the latter is true since there's that other 33%

Yes, they're clearly not necessary, and you'll find many entrepreneurs right here who'll be living proof of it. But if VCs ask for them, having at least one patent does make it easier to secure financing.

And there are other, less obvious, reasons VCs may be interested in patents. The second study (and other studies) showed that having at least one patent is correlated with significantly higher chances of a startup having a successful exit.

The reasons behind this correlation is not clear, but if it presents such a powerful signal, VCs have a good reason to look for patents.

Post reply on HN