6 ms·
Most of these patent numbers seem to be incorrect; all the numbers except for the first one seem to point to unrelated patents. I was curious about the email o
by kyle-rb 4y ago
Most of these patent numbers seem to be incorrect; all the numbers except for the first one seem to point to unrelated patents.
I was curious about the email one, but "7,536,726" points to a different Microsoft patent (also expired), and I couldn't find a patent with the name "System and method for providing remote access to electronic mail".
- CamperBob2 4y agoI did wonder about the ethics of pasting a list derived from ChatGPT without checking them personally. Thanks for doing the legwork on that. What I'm finding (over the last few minutes of experimentation) is that patent references in ChatGPT are valid, but tend to have the wrong numbers associated with them. If you ask it to summarize the claims in a given patent, it will sometimes pull up the wrong patent. Interestingly, you can correct it with a suitable prompt -- see one example at https://i.imgur.com/EQrhFt8.png https://i.imgur.com/EQrhFt8.png -- at which point it will do the right thing or at least come close to it. Anyway, the point stands: there is only so much Google can do to stand up to Microsoft. Royalties in 2013 reached $2 billion ( https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-pe... ) and it's safe to say they didn't stop filing bullshit patents in 2013.
- breakingcups 4y agoDon't you think it's unethical to spread misinformation like this without doing your due diligence in checking?
- CamperBob2 4y agoYep. But do you care to address the actual point, which is still correct even if a few patent numbers are wrong? Would it have been better not to mention specific patents at all?