7 ms·
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170170984 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170170984 If you cut through the lawyer-speak, claim #1 is basically abou
by paulgb 4y ago
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170170984 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170170984
If you cut through the lawyer-speak, claim #1 is basically about MITM-ing the vehicle's internal message bus. Hardly novel, even in 2007.
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
- Yoofie 4y agoWow. The fact that this patent was even granted tells me we have morons in the patent offices or that there is serious corruption going on.
- KerrAvon 4y agoWe’ve had ex-patent examiners on Hacker News indicate that they’re radically understaffed.
- justapassenger 4y agoPatent offices aren’t full of specialist in every single area, and they don’t pretend to be. You need to meet few fairly simple requirements and patent is granted. If patent is invalid the way to prove that is to challenge that in court. That system, that makes filling patents easy, is a whole reason why patent trolls exists. But it’s not a fault of patent offices, that they’re mandated to work that way.
- oldgradstudent 4y agoMITM, but in a vehicle. And there's also a relay somewhere. What I would like to see is a deposition of the patent examiner who approved this ridiculous patent.
- barelycompetent 4y agoThe above link is a published application rather than a granted patent. US20170170984A1 by itself carries no legal rights whatsoever. In this case it was granted with largely similar claims (as US10027505B2). However, claims typically get significantly revised by the time they are granted, and less than half of applications are granted at all. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10027505B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10027505B2/en