4 ms·

As with any patent, read the claims before making statements about what the patent covers. Patent titles are useless. With that said, at a quick glance it does

As with any patent, read the claims before making statements about what the patent covers. Patent titles are useless. With that said, at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic flashcard method, but there could be something I missed.

akersten 7y ago
> at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic flashcard method I mean, there is no such thing. It isn't possible to create something like that. Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter how you put them together to do the flashcard thing. Or anything. There's nothing novel to be found. It's just math. We should not grant artificial exclusivity over categories of functionality that computers were designed to provide. Destroy all software patents.
- achow 7y ago
  I'm with you on the sentiment. But comment on the rationale behind the sentiment.. > Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter how you put them together.. More or less everything in this world is about understanding how 'elements' work and then how to put them together to invent a new thing.. Medicines (molecules), Design (lines and shapes), Art (colors and mediums), Yoga (Asanas), etc.
  - akersten 7y ago
    The nuance with software is that we made up the system in which all of these programs are put together. Just like in math, we made up the constructs and rules that define what an algorithm or a theorem or a function can be. Because there is a human-defined limited scope of what even constitutes a valid construct (i.e. an "upper limit" of novelty - "this is everything mathematics can do"), anything that exists within this sandbox is therefore less novel. We establish the baseline novelty of the entirety of mathematics as "really powerful, and world changing - and too important to the common good to lock behind a patent." So if that is the upper limit, no individual piece of it can be more novel. The patent office displays stunning clarity in correctly determining that therefore, any particular instance of maths cannot be patented. Their failure to apply this same reasoning to software (which is, and always will be, reducible to math) baffles me.
kirrent 7y ago
And, don't read patent application publications and mistake them for patent publications. The USPTO labels the granted publication with a B after the number. In this case, the granted patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8595637B2/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US8595637B2/) has seen amendments to the claims during examination before grant.

akersten 7y ago

> at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic flashcard method I mean, there is no such thing. It isn't possible to create something like that. Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter how you put them together to do the flashcard thing. Or anything. There's nothing novel to be found. It's just math. We should not grant artificial exclusivity over categories of functionality that computers were designed to provide. Destroy all software patents.

achow 7y ago
I'm with you on the sentiment. But comment on the rationale behind the sentiment.. > Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter how you put them together.. More or less everything in this world is about understanding how 'elements' work and then how to put them together to invent a new thing.. Medicines (molecules), Design (lines and shapes), Art (colors and mediums), Yoga (Asanas), etc.
- akersten 7y ago
  The nuance with software is that we made up the system in which all of these programs are put together. Just like in math, we made up the constructs and rules that define what an algorithm or a theorem or a function can be. Because there is a human-defined limited scope of what even constitutes a valid construct (i.e. an "upper limit" of novelty - "this is everything mathematics can do"), anything that exists within this sandbox is therefore less novel. We establish the baseline novelty of the entirety of mathematics as "really powerful, and world changing - and too important to the common good to lock behind a patent." So if that is the upper limit, no individual piece of it can be more novel. The patent office displays stunning clarity in correctly determining that therefore, any particular instance of maths cannot be patented. Their failure to apply this same reasoning to software (which is, and always will be, reducible to math) baffles me.

kirrent 7y ago

And, don't read patent application publications and mistake them for patent publications. The USPTO labels the granted publication with a B after the number. In this case, the granted patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8595637B2/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US8595637B2/) has seen amendments to the claims during examination before grant.