33 ms·

No need to downvote a comment that exposes an opinion you disagree with (and I disagree too). The patent is clearly a joke: "A method for transferring an electr

No need to downvote a comment that exposes an opinion you disagree with (and I disagree too). The patent is clearly a joke: "A method for transferring an electronic payment between a purchaser and a merchant etc...". Instead of downvote, send a letter to your congressmen to stop this ludicrous software patent thing, it will be more useful.

coldpie 11y ago
Nothing wrong with sending a clear message to someone actively trying to do harm to innovation. That kind of behavior should not be welcome in our industry.
- thinkcomp 11y ago
  Your message's clarity gets muddied by your overzealousness I'm afraid. It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. Smart people can disagree on this topic. I understand that a lot of people don't think there should be software patents, or patents at all. I don't think it's that simple.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    > It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. You sued Square, right? Square benefited in no way from your work or from your patent, but now you're either expecting payment from them for no services rendered, or forcing them to waste their resources fighting your shakedown attempt. In what worldview is that not harming innovation?
    - thinkcomp 11y ago
      Based on your response, I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the complaint. And why bother when you can spew factually incorrect vitriol at someone over the internet? Not to mention that Square's fundamental innovation, its credit card reader, is premised on intellectual property theft. See http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-squares-start-up-story/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-s.... So in addition to holding a hundred more patents than my company, Square isn't even being honest about who deserves credit for theirs. Yet you argue that they're the pro-innovation good guys, and non-VC backed independent inventors are actively destroying innovation, because they hold patents? I have to disagree.
      - Zikes 11y ago
        The idea of facial recognition as a form of security has been around significantly longer than the technology itself. It's in sci-fi and spy movies dating back to the 80s. The idea to use it as a means of authorizing payment should have been considered obvious by the clerk that granted your patent, but it wasn't, and that's where software patents are failing hardest today. I think a lot of folks would agree that face-based payment authorization as an option would have come along eventually, just as every other biometric and security device will eventually get applied to everything anyone might want to secure.
        throwawaykf05 11y ago
        The patent itself is not about facial recognition. It's actually broader than that.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        > Based on your response, I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the complaint. You were right at the time, but I just flipped through it now (the meat seems to be in attachments 4 and 5 at the bottom of the original link) and it doesn't change my argument. What service did you render to Square to earn the payment you claim to deserve? Did they get the idea for their product from your patent? Did they learn how to implement their process from patent? Are you just trying to get a slice of the pie because of some childish "I thought of it first" garbage, and because our broken patent system allows it? I suspect it's that last one. > Yet you argue that they're the pro-innovation good guys I never argued that. I argued that you are trying to extort money out of Square despite providing them with no real service or benefit, and that this does real harm to innovation.
        thinkcomp 11y ago
        The "'I thought of it first' garbage" is part of the U.S. Constitution, and if you don't agree with it, that's fine, but generally speaking reactionary and incendiary (and often libertarian) arguments like yours are part of the problem. Like it or not, the system is run by patent lawyers, both inside and outside of government, who are not receptive to that kind of language (e.g. "extort"). What they are responsive to is carefully constructed, specific reasons why the system needs to be improved. If you have any of those, I'd encourage you to file a public comment with USPTO, as I have repeatedly. Otherwise, yeah, in this case I thought of it first, and I filed a patent on it, and I added a number of important limitations, and it was granted.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. I think the people here are challenging the "novel processes" part of your patent. I can't look at it myself currently, but based on the replies, I'm a bit skeptical myself on the "novel" part of it. Unless the replies are misrepresenting what your patent is about. Which is totally possible.
monochromatic 11y ago
A patent does not cover what its title describes. Titles are routinely extremely vague, just a few words. You have to look at the claims if you want to know what the patent is actually about.

coldpie 11y ago

Nothing wrong with sending a clear message to someone actively trying to do harm to innovation. That kind of behavior should not be welcome in our industry.

thinkcomp 11y ago
Your message's clarity gets muddied by your overzealousness I'm afraid. It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. Smart people can disagree on this topic. I understand that a lot of people don't think there should be software patents, or patents at all. I don't think it's that simple.
- coldpie 11y ago
  > It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. You sued Square, right? Square benefited in no way from your work or from your patent, but now you're either expecting payment from them for no services rendered, or forcing them to waste their resources fighting your shakedown attempt. In what worldview is that not harming innovation?
  - thinkcomp 11y ago
    Based on your response, I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the complaint. And why bother when you can spew factually incorrect vitriol at someone over the internet? Not to mention that Square's fundamental innovation, its credit card reader, is premised on intellectual property theft. See http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-squares-start-up-story/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-s.... So in addition to holding a hundred more patents than my company, Square isn't even being honest about who deserves credit for theirs. Yet you argue that they're the pro-innovation good guys, and non-VC backed independent inventors are actively destroying innovation, because they hold patents? I have to disagree.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      The idea of facial recognition as a form of security has been around significantly longer than the technology itself. It's in sci-fi and spy movies dating back to the 80s. The idea to use it as a means of authorizing payment should have been considered obvious by the clerk that granted your patent, but it wasn't, and that's where software patents are failing hardest today. I think a lot of folks would agree that face-based payment authorization as an option would have come along eventually, just as every other biometric and security device will eventually get applied to everything anyone might want to secure.
      - throwawaykf05 11y ago
        The patent itself is not about facial recognition. It's actually broader than that.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      > Based on your response, I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the complaint. You were right at the time, but I just flipped through it now (the meat seems to be in attachments 4 and 5 at the bottom of the original link) and it doesn't change my argument. What service did you render to Square to earn the payment you claim to deserve? Did they get the idea for their product from your patent? Did they learn how to implement their process from patent? Are you just trying to get a slice of the pie because of some childish "I thought of it first" garbage, and because our broken patent system allows it? I suspect it's that last one. > Yet you argue that they're the pro-innovation good guys I never argued that. I argued that you are trying to extort money out of Square despite providing them with no real service or benefit, and that this does real harm to innovation.
      - thinkcomp 11y ago
        The "'I thought of it first' garbage" is part of the U.S. Constitution, and if you don't agree with it, that's fine, but generally speaking reactionary and incendiary (and often libertarian) arguments like yours are part of the problem. Like it or not, the system is run by patent lawyers, both inside and outside of government, who are not receptive to that kind of language (e.g. "extort"). What they are responsive to is carefully constructed, specific reasons why the system needs to be improved. If you have any of those, I'd encourage you to file a public comment with USPTO, as I have repeatedly. Otherwise, yeah, in this case I thought of it first, and I filed a patent on it, and I added a number of important limitations, and it was granted.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. I think the people here are challenging the "novel processes" part of your patent. I can't look at it myself currently, but based on the replies, I'm a bit skeptical myself on the "novel" part of it. Unless the replies are misrepresenting what your patent is about. Which is totally possible.

monochromatic 11y ago

A patent does not cover what its title describes. Titles are routinely extremely vague, just a few words. You have to look at the claims if you want to know what the patent is actually about.