3 ms·
This is very clever! Also, take a look at Claim 2 of this patent[1]. Do you think these are similar enough to constitute infringement? [1]: https://patents.goo
by akersten 6y ago
This is very clever! Also, take a look at Claim 2 of this patent[1]. Do you think these are similar enough to constitute infringement?
[1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9881516B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9881516B1/en
(Software patents should be abolished. I just like to point out their absurdity and how it's easy to independently develop a technique (steganography in a search engine result) that someone has already grubbed a "patent" on.)
- jcranmer 6y agoIf it's not implemented in PHP, it's not infringing! The patent claim requires the program to "load available PHP server header information"
- akersten 6y agoThat is just so bizarre to me too. That one would be able to copy the exact core of the idea, but write it in a different language, and suddenly it's not infringing, even though it causes the computer to do the same thing. How these patents even pass the sniff test, I'll never understand.
- efreak 6y agoThis bit at the end is the best part, I think: > while particular embodiments and applications have been illustrated and described, it is to be understood that the disclosed embodiments are not limited to the precise construction and components disclosed herein. _Various modifications, changes and variations, which will be apparent to those skilled in the art, may be made in the arrangement, operation and details of the method and apparatus disclosed herein without departing from the spirit and scope defined in the appended claims._ If I'm reading this correctly, this patent is claiming things that are "apparent" (obvious?) to those "in the know". Computer or not, how did this get granted?