3 ms·

So much patent fraud by huge companies - patenting the unpatentable for the false front; none of it prosecuted, because big companies are teflon. This is compu

So much patent fraud by huge companies - patenting the unpatentable for the false front; none of it prosecuted, because big companies are teflon. This is computer/software-plus-X, the very thing the unanimous Supreme Court Alice decision ruled invalid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Intern...

eridius 10y ago
You're kidding, right? This patent has to do with the design of a robot. That's very much hardware.
- DonHopkins 10y ago
  But the hardware is wrapped in a plush fabric costume, so technically it's a soft wear patent.
  - rl3 10y ago
    Hopefully the debugging functionality has low toxicity.
  - macawfish 10y ago
    i was in a bad mood but now i'm not anymore
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  "The new application describes pliable chambers making up the body of the robot, filled with fluid or air. The robot would be able to sense pressure on each chamber and adjust the amount of air or water, to respond to a child’s hug, or to an accidental collision." This sort of mechanic isn't novel to my mind, pressure sensors aren't, it's all prior art and ordinary mechanic stuff except tossing in the computer/software. If you think it's a breakthrough, then my point fails, of course.
  - eridius 10y ago
    The problem with software patents isn't mixing software and hardware. That's actually a case where patents are reasonable. The problem with software patents is taking an existing process and patenting "do X, but on a computer". The patent as described here doesn't work like that, because what it's doing isn't something that you could previously do without a computer.
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      Actuating limbs 'n stuff did happen without computers, and with them, long ago. Inflating air chambers doesn't require a computer, it's just an obvious application for them. Emphasis on obvious.
tajen 10y ago
If that can delay the adoption of humanoids until the patents time out, the people who hold replaceable jobs will be happy for a few short years.

eridius 10y ago

You're kidding, right? This patent has to do with the design of a robot. That's very much hardware.

DonHopkins 10y ago
But the hardware is wrapped in a plush fabric costume, so technically it's a soft wear patent.
- rl3 10y ago
  Hopefully the debugging functionality has low toxicity.
- macawfish 10y ago
  i was in a bad mood but now i'm not anymore
Nomentatus 10y ago
"The new application describes pliable chambers making up the body of the robot, filled with fluid or air. The robot would be able to sense pressure on each chamber and adjust the amount of air or water, to respond to a child’s hug, or to an accidental collision." This sort of mechanic isn't novel to my mind, pressure sensors aren't, it's all prior art and ordinary mechanic stuff except tossing in the computer/software. If you think it's a breakthrough, then my point fails, of course.
- eridius 10y ago
  The problem with software patents isn't mixing software and hardware. That's actually a case where patents are reasonable. The problem with software patents is taking an existing process and patenting "do X, but on a computer". The patent as described here doesn't work like that, because what it's doing isn't something that you could previously do without a computer.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Actuating limbs 'n stuff did happen without computers, and with them, long ago. Inflating air chambers doesn't require a computer, it's just an obvious application for them. Emphasis on obvious.

tajen 10y ago

If that can delay the adoption of humanoids until the patents time out, the people who hold replaceable jobs will be happy for a few short years.