6 ms·

> “offers a number of ways to wirelessly share photos online such as through social media.” How was it possible to patent this in 2018? https://patentimages.s

> “offers a number of ways to wirelessly share photos online such as through social media.” How was it possible to patent this in 2018? https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/50/f8/a8e7c12c764d15/US9936086.pdf https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/50/f8/a8e7c12...

raverbashing 4y ago
Seems like the patent office will sign everything that stands still for a certain time, regardless of their merits
- acomjean 4y ago
  Why wouldn't they? They make their moneyy from Patent Fees. If they stopped granting Patents their revenue stream dries up. They have no incentive not to approve patents. I'm wondering why companies don't sue the Patent office when the patent used against them is invalidated (often some companies are still paying fees because they settled. )
  - mcv 4y ago
    > Why wouldn't they? Because they shouldn't be about making money. They should be about encouraging innovation.
azinman2 4y ago
It was filed in 2008, seemed granted in 2018
- coolhoody 4y ago
  > Filed: 2017
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    It's an extension of this (granted) patent which was filed in 2008: https://patents.justia.com/patent/8204437 https://patents.justia.com/patent/8204437
- toolz 4y ago
  Yahoo Photos launched in 2000 - even if it was filed in 2008 that's ridiculous
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    It's likely that Yahoo Photos in 2000 did not do it --== Wirelessly ==-- (imagine Spongebob rainbow meme https://imgflip.com/i/6e8qvo https://imgflip.com/i/6e8qvo there) and thus wouldn't be prior art.
    - Too 4y ago
      Easy solution would be to reject inventions that narrow down their claim in a way that crosses two layers in the OSI stack. That would instantly kill all claims of doing X…on a computer, or doing X…wirelessly. Another way to put it is that integration should not be patentable. Everybody knows images can be serialized to a bitstream and that bitstreams can be sent wirelessly, each on their own is novel, but combining them no. Otherwise I could patent delivery of pepperoni pizza on a electric scooter, even if someone else patented pizzas and scooters already.
    - mcv 4y ago
      "Do a common thing, but wirelessly", is the same level of worthless patent as the old "do a thing, but on a computer/the internet" of the 1990s. I get that the wireless tech itself is patented, but using it for existing applications should not be patentable.
btrettel 4y ago
> How was it possible to patent this in 2018? Easy. I'm a former patent examiner and in my view, the root cause of most bad patents is obviously the lack of time patent examiners get. Most people here don't understand how patents are granted. Patent examiners don't get a lot of time. If I'm an examiner, and I can't find it in the time provided, and the application doesn't have some other issues (101, 112, etc.), the application is likely to be granted. This is not a matter of caring about the quality of the work. I'm confident that few critics of the USPTO would do a better job than current examiners under the same time constraints. The most effective way to eliminate bad patents would be to increase the amount of time patent examiners get. The amount of time is based on some IBM study from the 1960s from what I know. Some adjustments to the time have been made, but it's nowhere near enough. Yes, we now have better search technologies, but we also have at least two orders of magnitude more documents to search. I'm told that the amount of time examiners get probably won't increase without congressional intervention. Right now the USPTO only makes money through user fees. The USPTO receives no tax revenue at all. This situation is actually worse, as the Department of Commerce diverts some of the USPTO's revenues for other projects. At the very least the USPTO should be given control over their own money, and they should also receive tax revenue. Then examiners can be given more time and do a better job. Here's why some other approaches won't work: - Punishing examiners for making bad decisions will just make an already stressful job more stressful. This seems to be the current focus at the USPTO. Fortunately I haven't heard anyone being fired due to poor quality, so I think it's mostly talk. - Adding more ways for companies to kill bad patents after they've been granted favors large corporations who can afford to kill bad patents. Small corporations and individuals are still powerless against bad patents.
- bonzini 4y ago
  Where can patent examiners look for prior art?
  - btrettel 4y ago
    Patent examiners can look basically anywhere a member of the public can and some other places. The internal search tools check a lot of patent databases and are quite good, but take time to learn. The USPTO has a lot of subscription databases as well, including fancy AI/ML-based ones. Many examiners will also search normal search engines like Google, though this can be tricky for legal reasons. If the application was not published yet then examiners are not allowed to get very specific in the search and other search engines as that could release confidential information to the search engine. The USPTO has agreements with the subscription databases to keep the searches confidential but no such agreement exists with Google. In my view making new search tools like https://www.priorartarchive.org/ https://www.priorartarchive.org/ would not help the situation too much. It would be better to integrate more databases into the existing USPTO tools, as they are designed for serious power-searchers, and would make the new databases more visible. The internal search tool is much faster than the alternatives and operates by keyboard. Point-and-click search is much slower by its nature. Speed really is critical when time constrained and I think that is something not appreciated outside of patent organizations.

raverbashing 4y ago

Seems like the patent office will sign everything that stands still for a certain time, regardless of their merits

acomjean 4y ago
Why wouldn't they? They make their moneyy from Patent Fees. If they stopped granting Patents their revenue stream dries up. They have no incentive not to approve patents. I'm wondering why companies don't sue the Patent office when the patent used against them is invalidated (often some companies are still paying fees because they settled. )
- mcv 4y ago
  > Why wouldn't they? Because they shouldn't be about making money. They should be about encouraging innovation.

azinman2 4y ago

It was filed in 2008, seemed granted in 2018

coolhoody 4y ago
> Filed: 2017
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  It's an extension of this (granted) patent which was filed in 2008: https://patents.justia.com/patent/8204437 https://patents.justia.com/patent/8204437
toolz 4y ago
Yahoo Photos launched in 2000 - even if it was filed in 2008 that's ridiculous
- PeterisP 4y ago
  It's likely that Yahoo Photos in 2000 did not do it --== Wirelessly ==-- (imagine Spongebob rainbow meme https://imgflip.com/i/6e8qvo https://imgflip.com/i/6e8qvo there) and thus wouldn't be prior art.
  - Too 4y ago
    Easy solution would be to reject inventions that narrow down their claim in a way that crosses two layers in the OSI stack. That would instantly kill all claims of doing X…on a computer, or doing X…wirelessly. Another way to put it is that integration should not be patentable. Everybody knows images can be serialized to a bitstream and that bitstreams can be sent wirelessly, each on their own is novel, but combining them no. Otherwise I could patent delivery of pepperoni pizza on a electric scooter, even if someone else patented pizzas and scooters already.
  - mcv 4y ago
    "Do a common thing, but wirelessly", is the same level of worthless patent as the old "do a thing, but on a computer/the internet" of the 1990s. I get that the wireless tech itself is patented, but using it for existing applications should not be patentable.

btrettel 4y ago

> How was it possible to patent this in 2018? Easy. I'm a former patent examiner and in my view, the root cause of most bad patents is obviously the lack of time patent examiners get. Most people here don't understand how patents are granted. Patent examiners don't get a lot of time. If I'm an examiner, and I can't find it in the time provided, and the application doesn't have some other issues (101, 112, etc.), the application is likely to be granted. This is not a matter of caring about the quality of the work. I'm confident that few critics of the USPTO would do a better job than current examiners under the same time constraints. The most effective way to eliminate bad patents would be to increase the amount of time patent examiners get. The amount of time is based on some IBM study from the 1960s from what I know. Some adjustments to the time have been made, but it's nowhere near enough. Yes, we now have better search technologies, but we also have at least two orders of magnitude more documents to search. I'm told that the amount of time examiners get probably won't increase without congressional intervention. Right now the USPTO only makes money through user fees. The USPTO receives no tax revenue at all. This situation is actually worse, as the Department of Commerce diverts some of the USPTO's revenues for other projects. At the very least the USPTO should be given control over their own money, and they should also receive tax revenue. Then examiners can be given more time and do a better job. Here's why some other approaches won't work: - Punishing examiners for making bad decisions will just make an already stressful job more stressful. This seems to be the current focus at the USPTO. Fortunately I haven't heard anyone being fired due to poor quality, so I think it's mostly talk. - Adding more ways for companies to kill bad patents after they've been granted favors large corporations who can afford to kill bad patents. Small corporations and individuals are still powerless against bad patents.

bonzini 4y ago
Where can patent examiners look for prior art?
- btrettel 4y ago
  Patent examiners can look basically anywhere a member of the public can and some other places. The internal search tools check a lot of patent databases and are quite good, but take time to learn. The USPTO has a lot of subscription databases as well, including fancy AI/ML-based ones. Many examiners will also search normal search engines like Google, though this can be tricky for legal reasons. If the application was not published yet then examiners are not allowed to get very specific in the search and other search engines as that could release confidential information to the search engine. The USPTO has agreements with the subscription databases to keep the searches confidential but no such agreement exists with Google. In my view making new search tools like https://www.priorartarchive.org/ https://www.priorartarchive.org/ would not help the situation too much. It would be better to integrate more databases into the existing USPTO tools, as they are designed for serious power-searchers, and would make the new databases more visible. The internal search tool is much faster than the alternatives and operates by keyboard. Point-and-click search is much slower by its nature. Speed really is critical when time constrained and I think that is something not appreciated outside of patent organizations.