3 ms·

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 t

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”

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”