6 ms·

This should not be permitted that someone files a patent of something so common. That's not what patents should be. I'm disgusted by how corrupt the system is

• whatshisface 6y ago
  New proposed rule: All patents must be accompanied by a working prototype that encompasses all claims. Anything not implemented in the prototype is not in the patent.
  • webmaven 6y ago
    > New proposed rule: All patents must be accompanied by a working prototype that encompasses all claims. Anything not implemented in the prototype is not in the patent. Interesting rule. I'm not sure that a single prototype per patent is reasonable, though, given that claims may cover mutually exclusive claims and divergent use-cases. A set of prototypes that collectively cover all claims (though not all possible combinations of claims) might work, except that the hard part might still be reducing to practice a particular combination of claims not in any of the prototypes. Eg. A patent that has claims for electronic storage and playback of music and claims for a handheld data storage device (each claim embodied separately in prototypes) as well as the combination of a handheld device for electronic storage and playback of music (claim not embodied in a prototype). I'm not sure how to construct the rules in such a way that you aren't either saddling inventors with the need to produce a huge number of prototypes representing a combinatorial explosion of claims and their combinations, nor allowing patent holders to extort subsequent inventors for inventions that they could never have reduced to practice themselves. Leaving the determination of which combinations of claims to allow as "reducing to practice is left as an exercise for the engineer" up to the patent examiner still leaves in place the existing misalignment of incentives that the current system has, except it makes applying for patents more expensive.
• curation 6y ago
  The system is not corrupt. The system is authoritarian capitalism controlled by international capital. We can keep asking the wrong questions or act.
• asddubs 6y ago
  patents just shouldn't exist at all
• pnw_hazor 6y ago
  The claims define the protected inventions. In this example, claim 1 recites a very specific way to implement a chat bot. "A method for creating a conversational chat bot of a specific entity, the method comprising: receiving a request associated with a specific entity; accessing social data associated with the specific entity, the social data comprising at least one of: images of the specific entity, voice data for the specific entity, conversational data associated with the specific entity, and publicly available information about the specific entity; processing the social data using at least one of machine learning techniques and one or more rule sets, wherein processing the social data comprises: identifying conversation data collected for the specific entity; identifying conversation data collected for one or more entities similar to the specific entity; and determining similarities between the one or more entities and the specific entity using at least one of expression analysis techniques, approval indicators, and characteristics comparisons; using the social data to create a personality index, wherein the personality index comprises personality information for the specific entity; and using the personality index to train a chat bot to interact conversationally using the personality information of the specific entity" Is this really common?
  • cwkoss 6y ago
    Everything except the personality index step seems like obvious boilerplate for how one would accomplish implementing a chatbot that tries to replicate a particular training corpus. And not very clear what personality index means in this context.