6 ms·

Stupid Patent of the Month: Selfie Contests

175 points by glitcher 3y ago

zw123456 3y ago
Dear eff.org, I am informing you that you are in violation of intellectual property laws by having a contest for "The Stupidest Patent of the Month" you are infringing on the property rights covered by patent No. 8,655,715 which covers all such contests.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
AlbertCory 3y ago
Just wait another year and a half, and then you're free: 2025-08-10 Adjusted expiration No one's bothered to invest the $500,000 or so for an IPR to destroy this patent, which should be easy. Just adding the words "on a computer" to a common activity does not make it patentable.
- mort96 3y ago
  > Just adding the words "on a computer" to a common activity does not make it patentable. Someone should tell the patent office
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    They did. But that didn't automatically invalidate all the old patents.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  Honestly, the EFF should be IPR-ing all of these instead of complaining about the patent system in general. It sounds like the lawsuits over this patent are probably for minimal amounts of money.
  - monsieurbanana 3y ago
    I completely disagree, complaining about the patent system is a good thing to do, that doesn't preclude doing something else too. I also don't see why the amount of money extorted matter.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      Complaining makes you feel good. Meantime the trolls are cashing the checks. Abolishing software patents would be a very heavy lift, but not impossible.
  - iamjfu 3y ago
    In this case, complaining made me aware of the issue. I've known about patent trolling but not this particular kind. So complaining is a form of raising awareness which could be a good first step if system reform is needed.
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
  The legitimicy of whoever approved this patent needs to be questioned
  - nfriedly 3y ago
    I think it's mostly congress's fault. They told the patent office to basically approve anything that didn't have prior art in the form of an existing patent for the exact same thing.
    - btrettel 3y ago
      That's not how the USPTO operates. I know because I'm a former USPTO examiner. Prior art is not restricted to existing patents. I've used YouTube videos, webpages, academic papers, other patents/applications, and probably more. Also, it doesn't need to be exactly the same thing. Obviousness/103 rejections are probably the most common. (The legal definition of obviousness doesn't correspond exactly to the colloquial definition, by the way.) The main problem is my view is the very limited time examiners get. If it's not found fast, it's probably not going to be found.
      - smcin 3y ago
        > Prior art is not restricted to existing patents... legal definition of obviousness... Cough, cough: WO2006068865A3: "Method and apparatus for making a sandwich" (2004/5) https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006068865A3/ https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006068865A3/ Abstract: The present invention relates to a sandwich assembly tool and methods of making a sandwich, which may be a hot or cold sandwich, quickly by pre-assembly of various sandwich components and simultaneous preparation of different parts of the same sandwich. The sandwich assembly tool is composed of a member preferably having one or two cavities for containing a quantity of garnish. The cavities are used for the assembly of the sandwich. The tool may have a raised ridge adjacent one or both cavities for placement against the hinge of a bread component. Methods of making a sandwich] are disclosed. The methods may include one or more of the use of preasseribled sandwich fillings, assembly of garnishes in advance of a customer's order or while ether portions of the sandwich are being heated using the sandwich assembly tool, the simultaneous heating of a bread component and the sandwich filling, placing the bread component over the tool containing garnish, and inverting the tool and bread combination to deposit the sandwich garnish onto the bread component. And meet the rest of the McCrew: https://iptica.com/patent-food-recipe/mcDonalds-patents/ https://iptica.com/patent-food-recipe/mcDonalds-patents/ ... and then in 2022, McDonald's applied for 10 metaverse-related patents to allow it to deliver food online and in person, offer entertainment services...
- nikanj 3y ago
  Just wait for the next wave of patents where they add ”using AI”
Flux159 3y ago
So how would someone go through the process of invalidating patents like this? I assume that there's no easy or cheap way otherwise the eff would have already done it. Another post mentions spending $500k for an IPR to invalidate - would that be the only way, limiting it to only well funded startups or larger established companies?
- analog31 3y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I have several patents and get involved as an internal technical expert in investigating IP issues with my employer. None of this is actual advice: There are multiple levels of engagement. The simplest is simply to ignore the patent and take the risk. You can get an independent lawyer to write a finding that the patent is invalid for reasons X, Y, and Z. What this does is to insulate you from treble damages. There is a formal process for requesting invalidation, but it requires starting with the confidence that the patent is invalid (or a lot of money to waste, or both), and those things are usually enough to justify either of the two above options. Situations where it makes sense to request formal invalidation seem to be rare. You can wait until you get sued, and counter with an invalidation action. I don't think you can DIY any of this. Especially, the rules for what is "obvious" and what actually counts as prior art, are complicated and it's easy to be wrong.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Being known for filing IPRs makes you a "hard target." The trolls will avoid targeting you until they've built up a war chest by settling with all the soft targets.
  - abduhl 3y ago
    >> What this does is to insulate you from treble damages. This is a dangerous suggestion. Using advice of counsel as a defense to willful infringement is not always successful, and this would be especially true if counsel’s advice is that the patent should be invalidated (rather than your technology not infringing).
    - 3y ago
yieldcrv 3y ago
okay since these arent going to to away, lets try something else: one stop gap solution would be making it more streamlined and standardized to make a license these are antagonistic tolls because the conditions are onerous you do something ambitious and lucrative, patent owner comes out of the woodwork and says “cease doing that”, “pay me this toll” or “cease doing that and pay me this toll” or “pay me this toll and continue doing that” and you’re like “no, thats ridiculous, have fun in court” and then they go have fun in court and you freak out its a state sanctioned monopoly, the state should standardize how the licensing is done. a model uniform patent license, almost like an insurance model that businesses pay into maybe even from existing fees, where patent holders file claims to that insurance pool
m3kw9 3y ago
What about the idiots that allowed this patent?
- btrettel 3y ago
  Former patent examiner here. Getting angry at the examiner when the patent stinks is similar to getting angry at programmers when the application stinks. Often, it wasn't the programmer's fault. Management didn't give them enough time, for example, so the programmer did the best they could given the time constraints. And that's exactly what happens at the USPTO. Many examiners understand that patent quality is a problem, but USPTO management simply doesn't give examiners enough time to do a quality job. Mistakes will happen.
  - ametrau 3y ago
    I think by idiots they mean the org collectively
  - chrismorgan 3y ago
    But also often when the application stinks, it’s because the programmer was incompetent.
  - m3kw9 3y ago
    Yeah for sure, but the system is what I’m questioning.
siliconc0w 3y ago
Shown HN: I made a tool to help visualize patent claims - here is the patent in question https://recurveip.com/claims/8655715 https://recurveip.com/claims/8655715 (tool is still WIP, if you're interested I would love to get your thoughts)
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  The diagram is hard to read and doesn’t add anything over the text of the claim.
  - siliconc0w 3y ago
    Agreed it could use improvement, I'm working on fine-tuning the model to create better diagrams (this is using the latest 3.5 turbo model which typically requires a couple iterations before it gets to a valid diagram).
jacobgorm 3y ago
Friends of mine ran a site called Hotpeople.dk from around 2002 that seems like it would be prior art, see https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article4805511.ece https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article4805511.ece .
- qingcharles 3y ago
  The headline translates amusingly in Google "Undressed young people show themselves online". I was going to say that the original Hot or Not predates your friends' site, but Wikipedia has prior art for that too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_or_Not#Predecessors_and_spin-offs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_or_Not#Predecessors_and_sp...
GuB-42 3y ago
The EFF and similar organizations often voice their opposition against the patent system. But why couldn't the EFF use the flaws of the patent system to their advantage. They could file all kinds of patents for things they oppose. DRM schemes, surveillance and tracking tech, dark patterns, etc... And then patent troll companies that use these techniques. Win/win. If they lose their lawsuit, it creates a precedent against patent trolls. If they win, that's one less of the things they are against.
- dbspin 3y ago
  Think it through - there are a literally infinite number of such potentially patentable non-innovations. And such lawsuits are expensive and time consuming. Meanwhile the bar to entry for patent trolls is extremely low. That would be and endless futile game of whackamole.
  - GuB-42 3y ago
    The idea here is mostly for the EFF to be the patent troll. But unlike most patent trolls who prey on companies producing useful things, the EFF would attack companies making things that shouldn't be done (according to the EFF). For example, let's have the EFF patent ad banners with a close button that is too small to click. If the patent is granted (unlikely but let's imagine it is), the EFF can then threaten sites with such an ad banner with a patent lawsuit. Hopefully discouraging websites from using such tactic.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  Patent trolls definitionally don't produce anything, so aren't going to run afoul of other patents. Squatting on shitty patents might be a good idea to prevent them from ever getting into a troll's portfolio, but it might be a good idea just to put the money towards invalidating patents that the biggest trolls use to extort money out of companies.
rpigab 3y ago
The Fine Bros youtube channel tried to patent reaction videos.

175 points by glitcher 3y ago

Dear eff.org, I am informing you that you are in violation of intellectual property laws by having a contest for "The Stupidest Patent of the Month" you are infringing on the property rights covered by patent No. 8,655,715 which covers all such contests.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

AlbertCory 3y ago

Just wait another year and a half, and then you're free: 2025-08-10 Adjusted expiration No one's bothered to invest the $500,000 or so for an IPR to destroy this patent, which should be easy. Just adding the words "on a computer" to a common activity does not make it patentable.

mort96 3y ago
> Just adding the words "on a computer" to a common activity does not make it patentable. Someone should tell the patent office
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  They did. But that didn't automatically invalidate all the old patents.
pclmulqdq 3y ago
Honestly, the EFF should be IPR-ing all of these instead of complaining about the patent system in general. It sounds like the lawsuits over this patent are probably for minimal amounts of money.
- monsieurbanana 3y ago
  I completely disagree, complaining about the patent system is a good thing to do, that doesn't preclude doing something else too. I also don't see why the amount of money extorted matter.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Complaining makes you feel good. Meantime the trolls are cashing the checks. Abolishing software patents would be a very heavy lift, but not impossible.
- iamjfu 3y ago
  In this case, complaining made me aware of the issue. I've known about patent trolling but not this particular kind. So complaining is a form of raising awareness which could be a good first step if system reform is needed.
ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
The legitimicy of whoever approved this patent needs to be questioned
- nfriedly 3y ago
  I think it's mostly congress's fault. They told the patent office to basically approve anything that didn't have prior art in the form of an existing patent for the exact same thing.
  - btrettel 3y ago
    That's not how the USPTO operates. I know because I'm a former USPTO examiner. Prior art is not restricted to existing patents. I've used YouTube videos, webpages, academic papers, other patents/applications, and probably more. Also, it doesn't need to be exactly the same thing. Obviousness/103 rejections are probably the most common. (The legal definition of obviousness doesn't correspond exactly to the colloquial definition, by the way.) The main problem is my view is the very limited time examiners get. If it's not found fast, it's probably not going to be found.
    - smcin 3y ago
      > Prior art is not restricted to existing patents... legal definition of obviousness... Cough, cough: WO2006068865A3: "Method and apparatus for making a sandwich" (2004/5) https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006068865A3/ https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006068865A3/ Abstract: The present invention relates to a sandwich assembly tool and methods of making a sandwich, which may be a hot or cold sandwich, quickly by pre-assembly of various sandwich components and simultaneous preparation of different parts of the same sandwich. The sandwich assembly tool is composed of a member preferably having one or two cavities for containing a quantity of garnish. The cavities are used for the assembly of the sandwich. The tool may have a raised ridge adjacent one or both cavities for placement against the hinge of a bread component. Methods of making a sandwich] are disclosed. The methods may include one or more of the use of preasseribled sandwich fillings, assembly of garnishes in advance of a customer's order or while ether portions of the sandwich are being heated using the sandwich assembly tool, the simultaneous heating of a bread component and the sandwich filling, placing the bread component over the tool containing garnish, and inverting the tool and bread combination to deposit the sandwich garnish onto the bread component. And meet the rest of the McCrew: https://iptica.com/patent-food-recipe/mcDonalds-patents/ https://iptica.com/patent-food-recipe/mcDonalds-patents/ ... and then in 2022, McDonald's applied for 10 metaverse-related patents to allow it to deliver food online and in person, offer entertainment services...
nikanj 3y ago
Just wait for the next wave of patents where they add ”using AI”

Flux159 3y ago

So how would someone go through the process of invalidating patents like this? I assume that there's no easy or cheap way otherwise the eff would have already done it. Another post mentions spending $500k for an IPR to invalidate - would that be the only way, limiting it to only well funded startups or larger established companies?

analog31 3y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I have several patents and get involved as an internal technical expert in investigating IP issues with my employer. None of this is actual advice: There are multiple levels of engagement. The simplest is simply to ignore the patent and take the risk. You can get an independent lawyer to write a finding that the patent is invalid for reasons X, Y, and Z. What this does is to insulate you from treble damages. There is a formal process for requesting invalidation, but it requires starting with the confidence that the patent is invalid (or a lot of money to waste, or both), and those things are usually enough to justify either of the two above options. Situations where it makes sense to request formal invalidation seem to be rare. You can wait until you get sued, and counter with an invalidation action. I don't think you can DIY any of this. Especially, the rules for what is "obvious" and what actually counts as prior art, are complicated and it's easy to be wrong.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Being known for filing IPRs makes you a "hard target." The trolls will avoid targeting you until they've built up a war chest by settling with all the soft targets.
- abduhl 3y ago
  >> What this does is to insulate you from treble damages. This is a dangerous suggestion. Using advice of counsel as a defense to willful infringement is not always successful, and this would be especially true if counsel’s advice is that the patent should be invalidated (rather than your technology not infringing).
  - 3y ago

yieldcrv 3y ago

okay since these arent going to to away, lets try something else: one stop gap solution would be making it more streamlined and standardized to make a license these are antagonistic tolls because the conditions are onerous you do something ambitious and lucrative, patent owner comes out of the woodwork and says “cease doing that”, “pay me this toll” or “cease doing that and pay me this toll” or “pay me this toll and continue doing that” and you’re like “no, thats ridiculous, have fun in court” and then they go have fun in court and you freak out its a state sanctioned monopoly, the state should standardize how the licensing is done. a model uniform patent license, almost like an insurance model that businesses pay into maybe even from existing fees, where patent holders file claims to that insurance pool

m3kw9 3y ago

What about the idiots that allowed this patent?

btrettel 3y ago
Former patent examiner here. Getting angry at the examiner when the patent stinks is similar to getting angry at programmers when the application stinks. Often, it wasn't the programmer's fault. Management didn't give them enough time, for example, so the programmer did the best they could given the time constraints. And that's exactly what happens at the USPTO. Many examiners understand that patent quality is a problem, but USPTO management simply doesn't give examiners enough time to do a quality job. Mistakes will happen.
- ametrau 3y ago
  I think by idiots they mean the org collectively
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  But also often when the application stinks, it’s because the programmer was incompetent.
- m3kw9 3y ago
  Yeah for sure, but the system is what I’m questioning.

siliconc0w 3y ago

Shown HN: I made a tool to help visualize patent claims - here is the patent in question https://recurveip.com/claims/8655715 https://recurveip.com/claims/8655715 (tool is still WIP, if you're interested I would love to get your thoughts)

Kwpolska 3y ago
The diagram is hard to read and doesn’t add anything over the text of the claim.
- siliconc0w 3y ago
  Agreed it could use improvement, I'm working on fine-tuning the model to create better diagrams (this is using the latest 3.5 turbo model which typically requires a couple iterations before it gets to a valid diagram).

jacobgorm 3y ago

Friends of mine ran a site called Hotpeople.dk from around 2002 that seems like it would be prior art, see https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article4805511.ece https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article4805511.ece .

qingcharles 3y ago
The headline translates amusingly in Google "Undressed young people show themselves online". I was going to say that the original Hot or Not predates your friends' site, but Wikipedia has prior art for that too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_or_Not#Predecessors_and_spin-offs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_or_Not#Predecessors_and_sp...

GuB-42 3y ago

The EFF and similar organizations often voice their opposition against the patent system. But why couldn't the EFF use the flaws of the patent system to their advantage. They could file all kinds of patents for things they oppose. DRM schemes, surveillance and tracking tech, dark patterns, etc... And then patent troll companies that use these techniques. Win/win. If they lose their lawsuit, it creates a precedent against patent trolls. If they win, that's one less of the things they are against.

dbspin 3y ago
Think it through - there are a literally infinite number of such potentially patentable non-innovations. And such lawsuits are expensive and time consuming. Meanwhile the bar to entry for patent trolls is extremely low. That would be and endless futile game of whackamole.
- GuB-42 3y ago
  The idea here is mostly for the EFF to be the patent troll. But unlike most patent trolls who prey on companies producing useful things, the EFF would attack companies making things that shouldn't be done (according to the EFF). For example, let's have the EFF patent ad banners with a close button that is too small to click. If the patent is granted (unlikely but let's imagine it is), the EFF can then threaten sites with such an ad banner with a patent lawsuit. Hopefully discouraging websites from using such tactic.
oh_sigh 3y ago
Patent trolls definitionally don't produce anything, so aren't going to run afoul of other patents. Squatting on shitty patents might be a good idea to prevent them from ever getting into a troll's portfolio, but it might be a good idea just to put the money towards invalidating patents that the biggest trolls use to extort money out of companies.

rpigab 3y ago

The Fine Bros youtube channel tried to patent reaction videos.