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

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: YogaGlo Update

#51

Post by throwawaykf03 »

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 significance to what once was a highly specialized field of tremendous importance to the competitors immediately involved but not to average people.

Since (AFAIAK) you're an attorney but not a patent attorney, I'm curious, are you speaking from experience, or basing this opinion on a certain Ars Technica article?

Re: YogaGlo Update

#52

Post by mcintyre1994 »

throwawaykf03 wrote: post #44
jaunkst wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

less than 20 seconds of youtube searching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOt35-GQ_8w

That looks pretty close (although I can't tell if the camera is at a height of 3 feet), but it was uploaded in 2011. This patent has a priority date of 27 Aug 2010, so to invalidate this patent, any videos like this from before that date would be needed.

The patent says "about 3 feet" instead of 3 feet, and while that's vague enough to be stupid they've helpfully provided images of their classes that represent a camera at that height in the post. Skimming that video it looks to be a very close match.

I'd be interested to know whether arguments used defending against prior art are legally binding afterward. For example if they said "nope, the camera looks to be 1m, not 3ft", would they be unable to consider something at 1m infringement forever?

Re: YogaGlo Update

#53

Post by throwawaykf03 »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #52
throwawaykf03 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks pretty close (although I can't tell if the camera is at a height of 3 feet), but it was uploaded in 2011. This patent has a priority date of 27 Aug 2010, so to invalidate this patent, any videos like this from before that date would be needed.

The patent says "about 3 feet" instead of 3 feet, and while that's vague enough to be stupid they've helpfully provided images of their classes that represent a camera at that height in the post. Skimming that video it looks to be a very close match. I'd be interested to know whether arguments used defending against prior art are legally binding afterward. For example if they said "nope, the camera looks to be 1m, no…

> I'd be interested to know whether arguments used defending against prior art are legally binding afterward. For example if they said "nope, the camera looks to be 1m, not 3ft", would they be unable to consider something at 1m infringement forever?

Yes, it's called estoppel [1] which, amongst other things, basically means, "whatever you say can and will be used against you". This includes whatever comments and arguments they made during prosecution of the patent.

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

Re: YogaGlo Update

#54

Post by jacobquick »

You can't patent or copyright a film technique, this thing would never stand up in a court. Unless they had discovered a new kind of camera that was the only way to take the shot, it is not an invention.

Re: YogaGlo Update

#55

Post by mhartl »

r0h1n wrote: post #11

> Below are a few visual examples of what our patent protects. Note, there are many other ways companies and teachers can create yoga classes that do not look anything like YogaGlo’s classes: I discounted every single word they said after seeing the pictures! I cannot believe any sane person, much less a patent official, can believe that those ought to be patentable. What came to mind was a Sanskrit proverb many Indi…

NBA broadcasters sometimes describe a play using phrases like "his patented turn-around jump-shot". Imagine if you really could patent such a thing? The YogaGlo patent seems to be in the same vein.

Re: YogaGlo Update

#56

Post by pessimizer »

throwawaykf03 wrote: post #50
imsofuture wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your business being easily copyable is not a 'wrong' that should be righted by the legal system. That's a really, really nutty notion.

If a business is easily copyable and no-one will finance it for that reason, that business may never come to exist, which is clearly a net loss to society. Of course, this does not apply to yoga videos, but a lot of startups that venture into unproven technologies or markets are very risky investments.

>business may never come to exist, which is clearly a net loss to society

That is not at all clear.

Re: YogaGlo Update

#57

Post by praptak »

PaulHoule wrote: post #40
r0h1n wrote: post #11

> Below are a few visual examples of what our patent protects. Note, there are many other ways companies and teachers can create yoga classes that do not look anything like YogaGlo’s classes: I discounted every single word they said after seeing the pictures! I cannot believe any sane person, much less a patent official, can believe that those ought to be patentable. What came to mind was a Sanskrit proverb many Indi…

Did these guys go to the Rap Genius school of P.R.? This kind of "apology" is just pouring gasoline on the fire.

Their style reminds me of the expertsexchange guys after it had gotten obvious that StackOverflow pwned their asses. They sounded genuinely offended about their own asshole behavior biting them back.

They seem to have taken down their post - its HN discussion is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224305 and the original is on web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120424061749/http://www.expert...

Re: YogaGlo Update

#58

Post by samplonius »

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 arguments to cut out most of the crap out of patent cases, making the process cheaper and faster for both sides.

So, if you have an iffy patent, and you want to have the best odds of winning, don't file in east Texas. But expect to pay a lot more.

I guess the east Texas model is bad for lawyers who file thousands of pages of "supporting material", and then get paid $200/hr to read it. But how much of this supporting material was actually relevant? Not much, which is why the judge in east Texas was able to enforce page limits.

The east Texas model is the right way to rule on patent cases. But the patent system needs to be supported by better laws.

Re: YogaGlo Update

#59

Post by jbail »

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…

Sorry, but I don't think you're right. The data shows that in east Texas, patent holders win injunctions or damages nearly 2x of the time. That's why they go to trial there.

Since you didn't provide data to back up your assertion, I will provide a link to mine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/19...

Re: YogaGlo Update

#60

Post by ThinkBeat »

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. (There are diligent engineers in India working to scan every single page of these books as so people can claim it as prior art.

In Forrest yoga though they have made slight different in some of the poses to justify it.

More importantly its the morality of feeling like as a teacher with maybe 40 years or less experience that you have mastered Yoga enough to own it.

So, now in the US there is a lot of money in Yoga, and Americans at every level are trying to create patents to protect their "business" Be it in Yoga itself, in the teaching of Yoga, in the franchises, and apparently the filming of Yoga.

I feel we need a rule that will punish an organization or person filing or a patent that is objectively illegitimate. I suppose the punishment would have to be based on a percentage of the gross earnings of the company.

Post reply on HN