11 ms·
Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet
- mortdeus 13y agoIm going to patent the application of an intellectual idea.
- jivatmanx 13y ago"A man has a right to use a saw, an axe, a plane, separately; may he not combine their uses on the same piece of wood? He has a right to use his knife to cut his meat, a fork to hold it; may a patentee take from him the right to combine their use on the same subject? Such a law, instead of enlarging our conveniences, as was intended, would most fearfully abridge them, and crowd us by monopolies out of the use of the things we have." - Letter to Oliver Evans, (16 January 1814); published in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (1905) Vol. 13, p. 66.
- kn0thing 13y agoIn researching my forthcoming book, Without Their Permission, I found a great letter from Jefferson that went so far as to consider putting limits in the Bill of Rights: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding__years but for no longer term and no other purpose." Letter to James Madison, August 28, 1789 http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2184/default.asp http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2184/default...
- gcb0 13y agoThose letters are quaint and all, but unless ratified in laws are off topic.
- abrichr 13y agoI disagree. As per the HN Guidelines [1]: > On-Topic: ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. [1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- philsmith35 13y agoI think he meant off-topic in a legal discussion because they are merely a lawmakers opinions and not actually law.
- sanderjd 13y agoIt may be off topic in an argument against the propriety of a specific patent within the current system, but is absolutely on topic in an argument favoring reform due to that system having overstepped its initial charter. I think your parent was making the latter argument.
- aptwebapps 13y agoOff topic in a real courtroom, maybe. In the court of public opinion, Jefferson holds some sway.
- dools 13y agoI think perhaps you meant "moot" (I love that word).
- jivatmanx 13y agoJefferson was the U.S.'s first patent examiner, this eventually became one of his most time consuming duties. It's claimed that this indicates he supported patents, which is false, as this letter, written well after his duties, shows[0]. He was simply trying to have them applied as granted as strictly as possible [0]http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.... Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson 13 Aug. 1813 Writings 13:333--35 Jefferson was, of course, an inventor himself, though not as prolific of one as Benjamin Franklin, who also opposed patents.
- throwawaykf02 13y agoActually, he did become quite a convert on the topic of patents. See my comment above to see his change in perspective in a letter dated a scant year after the one you cited: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6118931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6118931
- throwawaykf02 13y agoThis, as with the patent comment, takes quotes out of context. The specific context relevant here is that while Jefferson was initially skeptical of patents, after only two months of being one of the first patent examiners, he became a firm believer. [1] "An act of Congress authorising the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception. Being an instrument in granting the patents, I am acquainted with their discoveries. Many of them indeed are trifling, but there are some of great consequence which have been proved by practice, and others which if they stand the same proof will produce great effect." - Jefferson to Benjamin Vaughan, June 27 1790 [2] [1] http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/patents http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/pate... [2] http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-16-02-0342 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-16-02-03...
- throwawaykf02 13y agoTo give fuller context: Oliver Evans, one of America's earliest prolific inventors, wrote to Jefferson [1] discussing the extent of his patent rights and his concern that they were being misrepresented anonymously [2]. This quote is from Jefferson's response [3] to that letter. (It's worth following the links in the letters above to see the story unfold.) Now, here's where it gets interesting: Evans asserted his patent against Jefferson, and Jefferson did grudgingly pay royalties [4]. It's interesting how the passage years and being at the receiving end of a patent changes one's perspective [5]. [1] http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-0057-0001 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-00... [2] http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-0057-0001#TJ173210_6 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-00... [3] http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-0072 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-00... [4] "He enforced that patent against many mill operators, including Jefferson. From this experience, Jefferson understood the frustration of technology users confronted by activist patent holders. Ironically, it was his Board of Arts that granted Evans the patent." - http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2009/July_Matsuura.html http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2009/July_Ma... [5] "Jefferson's objections to the Evans patent are difficult to reconcile with the fact that his Board of Arts granted the patent in the first place. As much as he might argue, in 1813, that the Evans work was not novel, he and his colleagues had reviewed the Evans work in 1790 and considered it worthy of a patent at that time." - Jefferson Vs. the Patent Trolls: A Populist Vision of Intellectual Property Rights, Jeffrey H. Matsuura (http://books.google.com/books?id=10Tol-c7xH4C&lpg=PT74&ots=bQoi3ykBE8&dq=jefferson%20oliver%20evans&pg=PT76#v=onepage&q=jefferson%20oliver%20evans&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=10Tol-c7xH4C&lpg=PT74&ots=b...)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gesman 13y ago...providing to said reader a preview of said distinctive format comment... Said US Patent system is, said, such a, said, bullshit.
- coldcode 13y agoI wonder if there is a patent on robbing a bank?
- spdy 13y agoSo this is a patent for self payed advertisement for your own comments?
- rch 13y agoOr the comments of others. So I could pay to tag your comment with a clever gif or something.
- escaped_hn 13y agoaka reddit gold.
- voltagex_ 13y agoOr Facebook promoted posts
- t0 13y agoI'm confused about how something like this actually affects us in the startup world. Should I stop trying to innovate because everything I could possibly think of is already patented.. or simply disregard the existence of these patents?
- sillysaurus 13y agoDisregard, then fight it later if you grow big enough to matter. That said, it can seriously screw you over if you get unlucky: http://www.k9ventures.com/blog/2011/04/27/modista/ http://www.k9ventures.com/blog/2011/04/27/modista/
- runn1ng 13y agoIt's important to note that this specific dispute has been resolved and modista is working again.
- stretchydeath 13y agoThat said, Modista is back up!
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- probably_wrong 13y agoOnly tangentially related: from the story, > I told them then that “Whatever you do next, I’m ready to back you anytime.” Except, you know, when it actually requires backing them up? Specially this paragraph: > the lawsuit torpedoed Modista’s financing. And since they didn’t have the money to hire lawyers to defend themselves, they had to accept a default judgment against the company The guy gracefully pushes to the side that the reason they couldn't afford lawyers was because he personally pulled funding from them when his goose that laid the golden eggs turned to be just a very, very good goose.
- kintamanimatt 13y agoOr just be based in a non-US jurisdiction without any US offices or employees!
- linuxhansl 13y agoI should get a patent on "making money by asserting patents". Then I would only grant myself a license and hence have the only patent left that can make money. Seriously. The way out is a blanket "No software patents" statement from congress; or along the line of what Twitter is doing where all inventors have to agree if their patent is used offensively (although lawyers at my company tell me that such a restriction actually has no legal standing).
- shawnz 13y agoDo you realize that a patent on "making money by asserting patents" wouldn't be a software patent? Please realize that the patent system is flawed in more ways than that, and simply disallowing all software patents is not going to fix the problem.
- linuxhansl 13y agoYou're correct. I used the term "Software Patent" in a broader sense to include patents "Business Methods".
- Dylan16807 13y agoIt would fix most of it.
- smutticus 13y ago<sarcasm> Oh yeah! I'm gonna get a patent on making patents on asserting patents. Then when your patent on asserting patents gets tried in court, I'm gonna claim prior art on your patent and get all the monies. Them I'm gonna get a patent on granting patents and sue the patent office and get royalties everytime they grant a patent. </sarcasm>
- thwest 13y agoIBM has one for this: http://www.google.com/patents/US7630915 http://www.google.com/patents/US7630915
- drivingmenuts 13y agoToo late (https://www.google.com/patents/WO2004095226A2?cl=en&dq=%22patent+assertion%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z5f1UZ2VCIv09gTJjIHYCg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA https://www.google.com/patents/WO2004095226A2?cl=en&dq=%22pa...). Dude beat you to it by several years.
- michaelhoffman 13y agoThis is another example of a patent with a specific scope being given an incredibly broad title. This patent is actually on selling web site commenters the ability to have their comment appear in some kind of distinctive format, which might be a different font, or it might be appearing before the other comments.
- DennisP 13y agoFwiw, one of my relatives built a press release site. You could post press releases for free, and pay to put stars next to them. The more stars you buy, the higher it sorts. He sold the business for seven figures. It's a little different from this patent because the "comments" aren't related to particular articles.
- danmaz74 13y agoAre you trying to imply that claim 1 has anything, and I mean anything, inventive? BTW this was filed in 2011, not in 1996...
- michaelhoffman 13y agoNot at all, only that it's not what people are going to think it is by looking at the title.
- danmaz74 13y agoI assumed that nobody could think that the title could be what was patented ;)
- Andrenid 13y agoAs someone not familiar with how patenting really works, that's exactly what I thought at first, and reading patents isn't exactly a clear way to understand what is "actually patented" either. In this case when I read it I understood, but sometimes reading them leaves me MORE confuses.
- danmaz74 13y agoSo, the incredibly ridiculously generic claim 1 has been granted? I really have no more words to express what I think about software patents.
- smartician 13y agoClaim 1 is fairly specific. All points (a) through (d) have to apply.
- axman6 13y agoHey man, you can't start speaking the truth in the middle of a HN anti-patent circlejerk!
- andrew_k 13y agoFor me the most interesting part in this patent was a "PATENT CITATIONS" section. Most of the patents in this section are quite obvious as well. Like Amazon's "Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network" basically describes every E-Commerce site on the internet.
- dutchbrit 13y agoGoogle his name... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=pts&ei=HaH1UffJBMqf0QXJ94GIBg&q=Roddy+McKee+Bullock&oq=Roddy+McKee+Bullock http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=pts&ei=HaH1UffJBMqf0Q...
- lcedp 13y agoIs there a patent of patent system yet?
- sergiotapia 13y agoQuestion: If I build a start up here in Bolivia, it gets big among Latinamerican users - can I take a huge giant shit on the US patent system? Or does the patent system apply if my website application code is hosted on US servers?
- Andrenid 13y agoI'm curious about this too. Do patents only apply to US owned/registered companies or can companies/people from other countries get in trouble for hosting patent-infringing code on Amazon/etc
- WildUtah 13y agoFrom Title 35 US Code section 271 (35 USC 271) >>>>> (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. (b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer. (c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. <<<< So host your site abroad and don't induce US customers to use your software within the USA. Running your software abroad and soliciting US customers to run your software on your servers abroad would seem not to be covered. Check with your lawyer; laws are often interpreted to mean the opposite of the plain meaning of the text.
- arbuge 13y agoGood question. And if I'm running a small startup in the US that gets sued by a troll, can I disband my corporation and set up shop under a foreign corporation outside the US (if that's feasible in my personal circumstances)?
- 13y ago
- forman00 13y agoFYI, if you want to learn more about a specific patent, you can read the examiner's reasons for allowance at the public pair website (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair) Looking at that site, the reasons for allowance are the claimed features of: "...displaying to a reader, who can leave a reader comment in response to said online information, an offer associated with said online information, said offer being an offer to alter a reader comment from said free default format to a distinctive format for a fee" *with a priority date of 6/6/2009
- akadien 13y agoI see a broadly titled patent like this one as a mechanism scaring small companies into settling. I wonder if it is worth building systems anymore.
- axman6 13y agoThe title of a patent has absolutely nothing at all to do with it's scope. Any company who was sued would surely consult a lawyer and they would tell them the scope of the patent is defined in the claims.
- area51org 13y agoSometimes I think that obviously ridiculous patents like this are a good thing. They're so absurd that they're nearly satire, and satire is often an excellent critical weapon. How out-of-control does the system get before judges and lawmakers clearly see that it's not operating as intended? Not much further.
- bkruse 13y agoThe title's of patents are often misleading. Also, prior art allows this patent to be easily (and cheaply) fought in a lawsuit
- thyrsus 13y agoWhat does "cheaply" mean? One could still buy ramen?
- realrocker 13y agoBollocks! Ok, if one has to defend against this patent, how to go about it?
- michaelolenick 13y agoIf these weren't depressing they'd be funny. For those who don't know the patent & trademark office (PTO) defines "obvious" as described in a prior patent or, sometimes, an academic paper. Even if everybody in the field has been doing the same thing for years it isn't "non obvious" unless somebody wrote to the PTO about it. But since it's obvious in reality those nobody except crooks bother to. The whole system is rigged in favor of "people" who write up patentable junk -- those who have the time to write it into patents -- whereas people who actually build things are busy perfecting the trade skills the patent system was made to protect. OK - tirade over. Back to my new app. My wife dreamed it up and we're writing it together. When finished and released, if it does well, some fat slob -- who never wrote or programmed anything useful in his life -- will show up to shake us down.
- axman6 13y agoThat's not at all how the prior art base of the USPTO, nor any other patent office, is defined. The problem is that these are the most easily searchable bases of prior art because their fields necessitate it: academics are required to find everything piece of related are on what they're researching when producing works like a PhD thesis, and as such huge databases of academic work exist which are easily searchable; patents in the US are also required to disclose all know prior art (I believe, US patent law isn't where my experience comes from), and as such, the larger patent offices (the European and US particularly) have had to develop tools for effectively searching patents. Patents are also usually a good source for prior art because they like to disclose things as broadly as possible so they can claim as broadly as they're allowed. If you find a document which describes something within the scope of the claim you're looking at, then you've got a great novelty citation. The reason sometimes known things are allowed through is because the patent offices can find no proof that it is well known in the form of a single document before something can be called not novel. In some other juristrictions, common general knowledge in the art is more often used when it's known that something is already routine. even if there's nothing that clearly shows is, simply because it's so common.
- chii 13y agoimho, i say that the claims of the patent has to first be examined by a person skilled in the arts, without first reading the actual patent. If the person skilled in the arts is able to discern the inner workings of the patent _without_ having read the patent itself, then the patent can be deemed obvious and thus cannot be valid.
- zarify 13y agoSo essentially like VIP membership of any dating site out there. Or advertising in general. On the other hand, if we implemented this across the board, we could do away with these cumbersome comment voting systems!
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- md224 13y agoInteresting how much of the commentary here is on the patent being silly, rather than the implications of the monetization technique that the patent describes. We are allowing people to pay a fee to have their expression privileged over others. We are monetizing the salience of information, a betrayal of the very spirit of the Internet (or, at the least, the techno-utopian ideal of the Internet). So yeah, patents are silly. But perhaps what's in the patent is equally troubling.
- dangrossman 13y agoIf you're troubled by the idea of some private website ranking comments by payment, something they can do whether this patent exists or not, you should be happy that patenting one process for doing so makes it more (difficult|expensive) for future sites to do that.
- trg2 13y agoIs this funny or sad? I'm more confused after actually reading it.
- tomrod 13y agoQuestion: why doesn't prior art entirely rule these out?
- noonespecial 13y agoIt does. It only costs $1mil to go to court and prove it.
- axman6 13y agoDo you have some prior art? People on HN love to use terms like prior art without knowing what they mean. You actually have to show that a) it's been done before, or at least something similar enough existed that the difference is not inventive and b) the document(s) was available publicly before the priority date of the application.
- tomrod 13y agoI don't personally, but I reckon a day with way-back machine may be enough to establish prior art. That's the problem with overly general patents, unfortunately. Also good to know I've finally become one of the "people on HN" though for having a bit of common sense! It's good folks here, and I'm glad to be part of the community.
- axman6 13y agoGive it a go, see what you can find. There are some problems with the wayback machine when it comes to patents. One of which is that if their robots are blocked using robots.txt, they will remove all previous content that would also have been blocked (or at least, the content can be removed by the author though some means). This is pretty shitty when the best citation is something from the inventor themselves, and they go and delete all history of the content.
- smartician 13y agoWhat I find confusing: This is not a technical invention. It's not a device or process. And where is the "inventive step"? It's a monetization strategy, and not a particularly clever one at that. Since when is the idea of charging money for something a patentable invention? Absurd.
- sytelus 13y agoCouple of years back I'd proposed a cure for patent trolls: Large tech companies form a non-profit group and preemptively attack patent portfolio of companies that they mutually agree to be trolls. The entire business model of trolls hang on a fact that they will be the first attacker so their litigation expenses are small. If a patent troll gets spammed with 100s of lawsuits for bad patent grants at the same time, they will go out of business just from the expense of litigation or at least trolling would not be as much lucrative. Obviously this plan has its own risk: this non-profit group can start attacking legitimate patent holders to keep them out of the game. But even bigger issue is that lot of large companies are already in bed with largest trolls themselves such as IV. I don't see other great ways to curb trolling. The effort like Ask Patent can prevent some bad future patents but it would be very hard to get law in place that cancels bad patents that have already been granted.
- smartician 13y agoPart of the definition of "patent troll" is that the troll undertakes no economic activity other than launching lawsuits. Therefore, a troll cannot be sued preemptively.
- sytelus 13y agoOne can certainly file preemptive law suits to seek declaratory judgement that any granted patents are invalid and/or unenforceable. This had been done by some companies who felt there was risk to their business from certain patent owners. A troll typically holds 100s of patents and always on look out for opportunity to cash them out. If they are preemtively slammed with 100s of lawsuits for each patent they hold, their legal resources would be overwhelmed without possibility of huge rewards. It would be hard to imagine that they would be able to keep shop open for long time when everybody is attacking them for no apparent reason.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- zaidf 13y agoSeems like its easy to find shitty patents. How about we link to ones we think are well-deserved? Are there any well-deserved patents relating to the web?
- x0054 13y agoI would like to patent a method for making money by filing completely obvious and trivial patents, pushing it through the PTO, and then suing everyone in sight. I am almost certain there is no prior art for this, right?
- pajop 13y agodiscussion can be started here: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/US8296192 http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/US8296192
- FollowSteph3 13y agoWhat about a patent to use patent litigation to make money? The you can sue the trolls ;)
- clientbiller 13y agoOkay, so they own a patent... It takes $ to enforce, protect, and win a litigation for. Once won, they then have to collect... Taken voice - "Good Luck"
- ronreiter 13y agoCmon guys, this is not a patent on making money on the internet, it's just ONE method of doing it, and to be honest it's a good idea. Don't think it's a good idea, but I bet the 138 upvotes here aren't from readers who understood that.
- pla3rhat3r 13y agoThat's it! I'm going to finally file that patent on how gas passes through a butthole!
- rdixit 13y agoI honestly couldn't tell if this was a troll or not
- stedaniels 13y agoSo this is a patent for sponsored comments?
- DavidSJ 13y agoI was expecting John von Neumann to be listed as the inventor: The system also includes a processor for executing the computer executable instructions, and a memory for storing at least the computer executable instructions.
- rotskoff 13y agoThe title is obviously overreaching, but the content of the patent seems to be extremely broad, as well. I won't claim to have read more than the brief description, but it appears that this patents paid, user-specific formatting for any type of web content.
- codeboost 13y agoSo they are patenting the 'just my 2 cents' ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_two_cents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_two_cents Although I didn't properly RTFA, there are may ways in which one can hook narcissistic gamblers in forums or news sites. The price of the comment can be set in a bid-like fashion with people raising their bids and paying more and more to keep their comment first. They can also pay to upvote or downvote comments or plain remove them. You can have comment wars with real money in no time :). Bitcoin sounds like a perfect fit for such a system, allowing anonymous comments as well. But haven't I seen something like this somewhere already - reddit tips , for instance ?
- jroseattle 13y agoThis is hilarious, actually. I like that the same guy also has pending action on the lucrative "methods for making slip resistant file folders" market. https://www.google.com/patents/US20120217211 https://www.google.com/patents/US20120217211
- mcgwiz 13y agoTo spell it out, the precise problem with this specific patent is the ambiguity of the terms used in the claims. "Online information" and "reader comment" can describe the content of any one-to-many data relationship presented on the web.