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

Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 87 posts

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#2

Post by lotsofmangos »

The fact this patent was granted in the first place seems completely absurd. But then again, we live in a world where Boeing has a patent on certain trajectories that use the moon's gravity (http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6116545), so it shouldn't really surprise me.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#5

Post by iwwr »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #2

The fact this patent was granted in the first place seems completely absurd. But then again, we live in a world where Boeing has a patent on certain trajectories that use the moon's gravity ( http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6116545 ), so it shouldn't really surprise me.

There's a whole batch of patents related to space trajectories. Edward Belbruno also holds a few patents on low-energy transfers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Belbruno

Belbruno has been an innovative researcher otherwise, but it's hardly an excuse to monopolize math theorems or their computational applications.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#6

Post by jbuzbee »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #2

The fact this patent was granted in the first place seems completely absurd. But then again, we live in a world where Boeing has a patent on certain trajectories that use the moon's gravity ( http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6116545 ), so it shouldn't really surprise me.

I recall a story a while back about a satellite that ended up in the wrong orbit after launch. The engineers knew how to correct it using various orbital maneuvers, but alas those maneuvers were patented and it was too expensive to license them. So the decision was made to splash the satellite and let the insurance companies pay out. At least that's my recollection...

Edit : Here's a description of the issue, which is a bit different than my recollection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC-14#Launch_anomaly

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#8

Post by savanaly »

jbuzbee wrote: post #6
lotsofmangos wrote: post #2

The fact this patent was granted in the first place seems completely absurd. But then again, we live in a world where Boeing has a patent on certain trajectories that use the moon's gravity ( http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6116545 ), so it shouldn't really surprise me.

I recall a story a while back about a satellite that ended up in the wrong orbit after launch. The engineers knew how to correct it using various orbital maneuvers, but alas those maneuvers were patented and it was too expensive to license them. So the decision was made to splash the satellite and let the insurance companies pay out. At least that's my recollection... Edit : Here's a description of the issue, which i…

Surely this is a cases where the Coase theorem could have been of some use. But alas, transaction costs...

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#9

Post by AlexandrB »

iwwr wrote: post #5
lotsofmangos wrote: post #2

The fact this patent was granted in the first place seems completely absurd. But then again, we live in a world where Boeing has a patent on certain trajectories that use the moon's gravity ( http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6116545 ), so it shouldn't really surprise me.

There's a whole batch of patents related to space trajectories. Edward Belbruno also holds a few patents on low-energy transfers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Belbruno Belbruno has been an innovative researcher otherwise, but it's hardly an excuse to monopolize math theorems or their computational applications.

The patent system as it exists encourages this kind of behaviour. It's hardly surprising that people would take advantage of it. If he didn't do it, someone else would and a patent case to prove prior art gets expensive.
Post reply on HN