4 ms·

I think the federal government would disagree with assertions of private ownership of the GPS system.... Which is why the patent at issue does not claim owners

by rprasad 14y ago

I think the federal government would disagree with assertions of private ownership of the GPS system.... Which is why the patent at issue does not claim ownership of GPS. It claims ownership of a different method of location detection, somewhat similar to the non-GPS system that Google and Apple use. This article has been flagged for being incorrect and linkbaity. Who would have thought that the quality of GigaOm would actually fall below that of PandoDaily?

watty 14y ago
This patent uses GPS: http://www.google.com/patents?id=FKuoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=FKuoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a... "Ownership" is a big stretch but not as big of a stretch as this being a patentable idea.
pjscott 14y ago
Both of the patents mention using GPS as components. For example: http://www.google.com/patents/US7343165 http://www.google.com/patents/US7343165 It covers a system for sharing information about users (e.g. location, how to contact them) who have GPS-equipped phones that transmit location and some other information back to a central server. There's also some tomfoolery in there about how the server needs to store data for different users at different memory locations, but that's not particularly relevant or interesting, and frankly looks like obscurantist padding meant to make the patent seem more specific and novel than it really is. It does seem to cover what Foursquare does. Of course, it does this by being obvious, and not in any way advancing the state of the art. I can't think of any good argument for why the patent system should cover things like this, and yet here it is. EDIT: The other patent is similarly obvious. It's short, so check out the claims: http://www.google.com/patents/US7475057 http://www.google.com/patents/US7475057
rprasad 14y ago
Guys, I clearly said the article does not claim ownership of GPS. It can't, because the federal government was using GPS for that for a decade or two before the system was opened up to the private. What is covered by the patent is other aspects of location tracking, specifically at issue here, the use of a central database to store detected locations and to make use of detected locations for other purposes. In this context, the patent claims any form of geo-location technology which is used to contribute to that database.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  Well, the first patent most certainly does use GPS for location. The server is used to retrieve information about that location. Claims 1. A method, using a personal computer device having a GPS receiver, of populating a database comprising: determining, by the personal computer device using its GPS receiver, a location at which the personal computer device becomes relatively immobile; (rest of claim 1 ommited)

by rprasad 14y ago

watty 14y ago

This patent uses GPS: http://www.google.com/patents?id=FKuoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=FKuoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a... "Ownership" is a big stretch but not as big of a stretch as this being a patentable idea.

pjscott 14y ago

Both of the patents mention using GPS as components. For example: http://www.google.com/patents/US7343165 http://www.google.com/patents/US7343165 It covers a system for sharing information about users (e.g. location, how to contact them) who have GPS-equipped phones that transmit location and some other information back to a central server. There's also some tomfoolery in there about how the server needs to store data for different users at different memory locations, but that's not particularly relevant or interesting, and frankly looks like obscurantist padding meant to make the patent seem more specific and novel than it really is. It does seem to cover what Foursquare does. Of course, it does this by being obvious, and not in any way advancing the state of the art. I can't think of any good argument for why the patent system should cover things like this, and yet here it is. EDIT: The other patent is similarly obvious. It's short, so check out the claims: http://www.google.com/patents/US7475057 http://www.google.com/patents/US7475057

rprasad 14y ago

Guys, I clearly said the article does not claim ownership of GPS. It can't, because the federal government was using GPS for that for a decade or two before the system was opened up to the private. What is covered by the patent is other aspects of location tracking, specifically at issue here, the use of a central database to store detected locations and to make use of detected locations for other purposes. In this context, the patent claims any form of geo-location technology which is used to contribute to that database.

DigitalJack 14y ago
Well, the first patent most certainly does use GPS for location. The server is used to retrieve information about that location. Claims 1. A method, using a personal computer device having a GPS receiver, of populating a database comprising: determining, by the personal computer device using its GPS receiver, a location at which the personal computer device becomes relatively immobile; (rest of claim 1 ommited)