5 ms·
I understand that it's not single claims that lead to a violation but a match against many of the claims. Still, if the component claims are things like "using
by PetrolMan 15y ago
I understand that it's not single claims that lead to a violation but a match against many of the claims. Still, if the component claims are things like "using regular expressions to create links" and "using an output device to present data" then matching becomes a lot easier.
- tptacek 15y agoThis isn't even a single claim! It's one element of the body of a claim extracted without context. Geeks have lacerating ignorance of how patents actually work. And fine, why should they understand them? Except that now we get to have our BiMonPatentFreakoutCon on HN about them.
- speckledjim 15y agoAt the end of the day though all software patents are bogus, trivial, and stupid. (And I'm listed as inventor on a dozen). We should spend energy abolishing them rather than debating how they work. just my 2c
- tptacek 15y agoI agree with this, but, as a nerd, I have a hard time letting go of people who construct arguments like the one that roots this comment thread.
- CamperBob 15y agoYou can start by just saying "No, thanks," to those $1000 patent bonuses at your company.
- tptacek 15y agoThat's nice. You'll be out the $1000, and with some likelihood you'll still be forced to help file a patent; the boilerplate IP clause in many (most?) California employment contracts requires patent support, as I found out the hard way 11 years ago.
- monochromatic 15y agoI feel for you dude. Keep fighting the good fight, but you're probably wasting your breath. This is a continuing source of confusion for me, how a group of people who generally can't rest until they understand something can be so willfully ignorant about patents.
- hn_decay 15y agoGood fight? I'm fairly sure at this point Ptacek realizes that he was wrong. So wrong that Apple's own self-serving explanation of the patent is identical to the root explanation that caused so much of this discussion. You insult this community while offering absolutely nothing to counter any complaints about this patent except for, as others have tried, vagaries. Patents are public, so if you've actually got something, let's see it. Otherwise it's just noise.
- monochromatic 15y agoWait, where did he say anything that was wrong? He's the only one in this clusterfuck that seems to know what he's talking about.
- hn_decay 15y agoWhere he suggested that people who were accurately describing the patent were wrong because they were...you know....missing a claim or something. Yet those interpretations were entirely right, and are mirrored by Apple's own interpretation of their patent. Simply responding to every patent comment with vagaries and innuendo is not enlightened or helpful. It's unhelpful noise meant to short-circuit discussions about the very, very broken patent system.
- monochromatic 15y agoDo you have a link to a specific comment? Because all I remember is people saying "this patent covers x", where "x" is only a single element of a claim. He was right to tell them that they were missing something. If you don't have every element of a claim, you don't infringe the claim.
- kragen 15y agoYou understand incorrectly. Infringing a single claim is an infringement. However, you must have all the elements of that claim to infringe. The claims are not things like "using an output device to present data".