What is the recourse here? Would it be reasonable to contact the person that approved the patent with information showing that plenty flashcard systems precede this patent? I imagine there is some more formal system.
[deleted]
Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)
21–30 of 57 posts
Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)
#22What is the recourse here? Would it be reasonable to contact the person that approved the patent with information showing that plenty flashcard systems precede this patent? I imagine there is some more formal system.
> What is the recourse here? If you want to make a flashcard program, pray to gods Google will take pity on you and not enforce their patent. Otherwise, you better had set aside a couple of million dollars for the patent fight with Google. I mean, the patent will eventually get invalidated, but not before a decade in courts and millions of dollars in costs. EDIT: Ignore everything I said. I got confused. I apologize.…
Why would Google pay to enforce a patent it doesn't own?
Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)
#23What is the recourse here? Would it be reasonable to contact the person that approved the patent with information showing that plenty flashcard systems precede this patent? I imagine there is some more formal system.
> What is the recourse here? If you want to make a flashcard program, pray to gods Google will take pity on you and not enforce their patent. Otherwise, you better had set aside a couple of million dollars for the patent fight with Google. I mean, the patent will eventually get invalidated, but not before a decade in courts and millions of dollars in costs. EDIT: Ignore everything I said. I got confused. I apologize.…
[deleted]
Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)
#24What is the recourse here? Would it be reasonable to contact the person that approved the patent with information showing that plenty flashcard systems precede this patent? I imagine there is some more formal system.
> What is the recourse here? If you want to make a flashcard program, pray to gods Google will take pity on you and not enforce their patent. Otherwise, you better had set aside a couple of million dollars for the patent fight with Google. I mean, the patent will eventually get invalidated, but not before a decade in courts and millions of dollars in costs. EDIT: Ignore everything I said. I got confused. I apologize.…
It's not a Google patent. The article link is just a link to patents.google.com, which is a Google search engine for patents not a list of patents owned by Google.
Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the recourse here? If you want to make a flashcard program, pray to gods Google will take pity on you and not enforce their patent. Otherwise, you better had set aside a couple of million dollars for the patent fight with Google. I mean, the patent will eventually get invalidated, but not before a decade in courts and millions of dollars in costs. EDIT: Ignore everything I said. I got confused. I apologize.…
Why would Google pay to enforce a patent it doesn't own?
Somebody confused (Google's (patents search)) with ((Google's patents) search)
Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the recourse here? If you want to make a flashcard program, pray to gods Google will take pity on you and not enforce their patent. Otherwise, you better had set aside a couple of million dollars for the patent fight with Google. I mean, the patent will eventually get invalidated, but not before a decade in courts and millions of dollars in costs. EDIT: Ignore everything I said. I got confused. I apologize.…
Why would Google pay to enforce a patent it doesn't own?
It looks like it's a person (not a company) that owns the patent too, so unless this person is a m/billionaire a court case doesn't even sound that bad.
Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)
#27This patent was filed 2007 and granted 2012, so the title should say (2012).
The patent page states it the patent became active 2020-01-01
Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd imagine there's an art to making the application wordy and confusing enough to slip through.
If a patent clerk is confused by the patent, then it should be rejected not granted. The whole premise of the patent process it that you disclose your invention for the good of the population and in return you are granted a temporary monopoly over your invention. I would never, ever, reference a software patent in order to implement a patented invention. They do not serve as any usable guide for the so called "invent…
> If a patent clerk is confused by the patent, then it should be rejected not granted.
I think GP means so confused they don't know they're confused.
Re: Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013)
#29This patent was filed 2007 and granted 2012, so the title should say (2012).
The patent page states it the patent became active 2020-01-01
The patent issued November 26, 2013 (see http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...).