4 ms·
Bank of America has won the most patents among U.S. banks in recent years, with an active portfolio of more than 3,000. I really have a problem with the kind o
by thwarted 11y ago
Bank of America has won the most patents among U.S. banks in recent years, with an active portfolio of more than 3,000.
I really have a problem with the kind of terminology used around obtaining a patent. You'll often see things like the above, "won a patent" or "awarded a patent". Late night infomercials seem to prefer saying that something is good/worth having because it was "awarded a patent". As if it is some kind race (despite that the way the patent system is structured, it often actually is a race, sigh), with two, or more, parties going head to head and there's some objective measurement that we'd all agree on that legitimizes the point count and the final outcome, like it's the Superbowl or the World Series. These 3,000 patents that BoA has aren't populated with stuff that someone else was also trying to patent at the same time, 99% of software patents are for things that no one else thinks about patenting (because they didn't think of them because they are highly specific to a business and are just obtained to pad the portfolio; or because others think they are too trivial or non-unique enough to patent (the situations the TFA describes as the banks being in traditionally). The terms "won" and "awarded" implies some level of worthiness beyond just being the first to speak.
No one would claim you'd "won" your drivers license because you went in, filled out some paperwork the right way, and was able to satisfy some minimal testing requirements (both knowledge and skill/experience). And obtaining a patent is almost exactly that same case.
- indus 11y agoTake a look at one of their recent patent application. A cursory look shows that it's a "computer system" for transferring money to someone who does not have a bank account. I'm not an expert in claim analysis, but looks obvious. http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220160027016%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20160027016&RS=DN/20160027016 http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...
- thwarted 11y agoWell, that's partly my point. It's obvious to just about everyone else, including those who submitted the application, so no one else is actually going to patent this. Because no one is going to submit a patent application, especially if you're building of a patent portfolio for defensive purposes it's all speculative and secretive during the phase when you're searching for things to patent. So they actually haven't "won" anything. The "won" and "awarded" terminology, at least in the vernacular and the way these terms are exploited for talking about obtaining patents, implies some kind of objective assessment of worthiness. There's nothing worthy in obviousness. The test of obviousness is set by the patent examiners, which is not a high bar to reach. The reasons patent examiners are not able to meaningful (dis)qualify patent applications on obviousness is frequently discussed (incentives that encourage issuing rather than rejecting; overwork at the patent office; unqualified, not versed in the art, of the area being examined). So in effect, the patent application is "awarded" a patent for "winning" the task of gaming the patent system. These terms attribute meaning to a meaningless process.
- et2o 11y agoWho cares...
- draw_down 11y agoI think that's a bit silly and not really relevant.