[HN Gopher] Stupid Patent of the Month: Selfie Contests
___________________________________________________________________
Stupid Patent of the Month: Selfie Contests
Author : glitcher
Score : 160 points
Date : 2023-12-25 15:51 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| zw123456 wrote:
| Dear eff.org, I am informing you that you are in violation of
| intellectual property laws by having a contest for "The Stupidest
| Patent of the Month" you are infringing on the property rights
| covered by patent No. 8,655,715 which covers all such contests.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Just wait another year and a half, and then you're free:
|
| 2025-08-10 Adjusted expiration
|
| No one's bothered to invest the $500,000 or so for an IPR to
| destroy this patent, which should be easy. Just adding the words
| "on a computer" to a common activity does not make it patentable.
| mort96 wrote:
| > Just adding the words "on a computer" to a common activity
| does not make it patentable.
|
| Someone should tell the patent office
| AlbertCory wrote:
| They did. But that didn't automatically invalidate all the
| old patents.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Honestly, the EFF should be IPR-ing all of these instead of
| complaining about the patent system in general.
|
| It sounds like the lawsuits over this patent are probably for
| minimal amounts of money.
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| I completely disagree, complaining about the patent system is
| a good thing to do, that doesn't preclude doing something
| else too. I also don't see why the amount of money extorted
| matter.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Complaining makes you feel good. Meantime the trolls are
| cashing the checks.
|
| Abolishing software patents would be a very heavy lift, but
| not impossible.
| iamjfu wrote:
| In this case, complaining made me aware of the issue. I've
| known about patent trolling but not this particular kind. So
| complaining is a form of raising awareness which could be a
| good first step if system reform is needed.
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| The legitimicy of whoever approved this patent needs to be
| questioned
| btrettel wrote:
| Former patent examiner here.
|
| Getting angry at the examiner when the patent stinks is
| similar to getting angry at programmers when the application
| stinks. Often, it wasn't the programmer's fault. Management
| didn't give them enough time, for example, so the programmer
| did the best they could given the time constraints.
|
| And that's exactly what happens at the USPTO. Many examiners
| understand that patent quality is a problem, but USPTO
| management simply doesn't give examiners enough time to do a
| quality job. Mistakes will happen.
|
| [I posted this elsewhere:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38765299]
| nfriedly wrote:
| I think it's mostly congress's fault. They told the patent
| office to basically approve anything that didn't have prior
| art in the form of _an existing patent for the exact same
| thing_.
| btrettel wrote:
| That's not how the USPTO operates. I know because I'm a
| former USPTO examiner. Prior art is not restricted to
| existing patents. I've used YouTube videos, webpages,
| academic papers, other patents/applications, and probably
| more.
|
| Also, it doesn't need to be exactly the same thing.
| Obviousness/103 rejections are probably the most common.
| (The legal definition of obviousness doesn't correspond
| exactly to the colloquial definition, by the way.)
|
| The main problem is my view is the very limited time
| examiners get. If it's not found fast, it's probably not
| going to be found.
| smcin wrote:
| > _Prior art is not restricted to existing patents...
| legal definition of obviousness..._
|
| Cough, cough:
|
| WO2006068865A3: "Method and apparatus for making a
| sandwich" (2004/5)
| https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006068865A3/
|
| _Abstract: The present invention relates to a sandwich
| assembly tool and methods of making a sandwich, which may
| be a hot or cold sandwich, quickly by pre-assembly of
| various sandwich components and simultaneous preparation
| of different parts of the same sandwich. The sandwich
| assembly tool is composed of a member preferably having
| one or two cavities for containing a quantity of garnish.
| The cavities are used for the assembly of the sandwich.
| The tool may have a raised ridge adjacent one or both
| cavities for placement against the hinge of a bread
| component. Methods of making a sandwich] are disclosed.
| The methods may include one or more of the use of
| preasseribled sandwich fillings, assembly of garnishes in
| advance of a customer 's order or while ether portions of
| the sandwich are being heated using the sandwich assembly
| tool, the simultaneous heating of a bread component and
| the sandwich filling, placing the bread component over
| the tool containing garnish, and inverting the tool and
| bread combination to deposit the sandwich garnish onto
| the bread component._
|
| And meet the rest of the McCrew:
| https://iptica.com/patent-food-recipe/mcDonalds-patents/
|
| ... and then in 2022, McDonald's applied for 10
| metaverse-related patents to allow it to deliver food
| online and in person, offer entertainment services...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| What do you think you're proving here?
| btrettel wrote:
| The WIPO document you linked to is not a patent. The
| WIPO's opinion (available on Espacenet and elsewhere) is
| that the claims are not novel or non-obvious. There is an
| associated US patent application, but the USPTO rejected
| the application. Looks to me like the international and
| US patent systems worked fine here.
|
| I see people on HN confusing patent applications and
| granted patents too frequently. People can write
| basically whatever they want to in applications, and do.
|
| I don't have time to look at the others, but you should
| check if patents were actually granted, and if they were,
| look at the "Notice of Allowance" in Patent Center to see
| the examiner's reasoning. In my experience, you'll
| usually find a small detail in the claims that the prior
| art lacked.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| As brettel tells you:
|
| that's not how it works. we can find plenty of rejections
| based on non-patent prior art.
| nikanj wrote:
| Just wait for the next wave of patents where they add "using
| AI"
| Flux159 wrote:
| So how would someone go through the process of invalidating
| patents like this? I assume that there's no easy or cheap way
| otherwise the eff would have already done it.
|
| Another post mentions spending $500k for an IPR to invalidate -
| would that be the only way, limiting it to only well funded
| startups or larger established companies?
| analog31 wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, but I have several patents and get involved
| as an internal technical expert in investigating IP issues with
| my employer. None of this is actual advice:
|
| There are multiple levels of engagement. The simplest is simply
| to ignore the patent and take the risk.
|
| You can get an independent lawyer to write a finding that the
| patent is invalid for reasons X, Y, and Z. What this does is to
| insulate you from treble damages.
|
| There is a formal process for requesting invalidation, but it
| requires starting with the confidence that the patent is
| invalid (or a lot of money to waste, or both), and those things
| are usually enough to justify either of the two above options.
|
| Situations where it makes sense to request formal invalidation
| seem to be rare.
|
| You can wait until you get sued, and counter with an
| invalidation action.
|
| I don't think you can DIY any of this. Especially, the rules
| for what is "obvious" and what actually counts as prior art,
| are complicated and it's easy to be wrong.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Being known for filing IPRs makes you a "hard target." The
| trolls will avoid targeting you until they've built up a war
| chest by settling with all the soft targets.
| abduhl wrote:
| >> What this does is to insulate you from treble damages.
|
| This is a dangerous suggestion. Using advice of counsel as a
| defense to willful infringement is not always successful, and
| this would be especially true if counsel's advice is that the
| patent should be invalidated (rather than your technology not
| infringing).
| analog31 wrote:
| Yes, thanks for that comment. As a relative layperson, I
| would describe all of this as dangerous territory.
| barapa wrote:
| Thanks for the advice!
| AlbertCory wrote:
| that's the standard defense we used at Google. It's like a
| trial but without a courtroom. Briefs and answering briefs. Not
| for amateurs.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| okay since these arent going to to away, lets try something else:
|
| one stop gap solution would be making it more streamlined and
| standardized to make a license
|
| these are antagonistic tolls because the conditions are onerous
|
| you do something ambitious and lucrative, patent owner comes out
| of the woodwork and says "cease doing that", "pay me this toll"
| or "cease doing that and pay me this toll" or "pay me this toll
| and continue doing that"
|
| and you're like "no, thats ridiculous, have fun in court" and
| then they go have fun in court and you freak out
|
| its a state sanctioned monopoly, the state should standardize how
| the licensing is done. a model uniform patent license, almost
| like an insurance model that businesses pay into maybe even from
| existing fees, where patent holders file claims to that insurance
| pool
| m3kw9 wrote:
| What about the idiots that allowed this patent?
| btrettel wrote:
| Former patent examiner here.
|
| Getting angry at the examiner when the patent stinks is similar
| to getting angry at programmers when the application stinks.
| Often, it wasn't the programmer's fault. Management didn't give
| them enough time, for example, so the programmer did the best
| they could given the time constraints.
|
| And that's exactly what happens at the USPTO. Many examiners
| understand that patent quality is a problem, but USPTO
| management simply doesn't give examiners enough time to do a
| quality job. Mistakes will happen.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| Shown HN: I made a tool to help visualize patent claims - here is
| the patent in question https://recurveip.com/claims/8655715
|
| (tool is still WIP, if you're interested I would love to get your
| thoughts)
| Kwpolska wrote:
| The diagram is hard to read and doesn't add anything over the
| text of the claim.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| Agreed it could use improvement, I'm working on fine-tuning
| the model to create better diagrams (this is using the latest
| 3.5 turbo model which typically requires a couple iterations
| before it gets to a valid diagram).
| jacobgorm wrote:
| Friends of mine ran a site called Hotpeople.dk from around 2002
| that seems like it would be prior art, see
| https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article4805511.ece .
| qingcharles wrote:
| The headline translates amusingly in Google "Undressed young
| people show themselves online".
|
| I was going to say that the original Hot or Not predates your
| friends' site, but Wikipedia has prior art for that too:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_or_Not#Predecessors_and_sp...
| GuB-42 wrote:
| The EFF and similar organizations often voice their opposition
| against the patent system.
|
| But why couldn't the EFF use the flaws of the patent system to
| their advantage.
|
| They could file all kinds of patents for things they oppose. DRM
| schemes, surveillance and tracking tech, dark patterns, etc...
| And then patent troll companies that use these techniques.
|
| Win/win. If they lose their lawsuit, it creates a precedent
| against patent trolls. If they win, that's one less of the things
| they are against.
| dbspin wrote:
| Think it through - there are a literally infinite number of
| such potentially patentable non-innovations. And such lawsuits
| are expensive and time consuming. Meanwhile the bar to entry
| for patent trolls is extremely low. That would be and endless
| futile game of whackamole.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Patent trolls definitionally don't produce anything, so aren't
| going to run afoul of other patents. Squatting on shitty
| patents might be a good idea to prevent them from ever getting
| into a troll's portfolio, but it might be a good idea just to
| put the money towards invalidating patents that the biggest
| trolls use to extort money out of companies.
| rpigab wrote:
| The Fine Bros youtube channel tried to patent reaction videos.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-25 23:02 UTC)