3 ms·
Still doesn't seem like a very novel idea worthy of a patent.
by charonn0 13y ago
Still doesn't seem like a very novel idea worthy of a patent.
- gcb0 13y agoIt's not. Prior art is newspaper advertisement. You can't patent something as new just because it's done with a computer, as everyone knows. I bet this will be invalidated as soon as someone tries to enforce it. Easily. But this viral market attempt suggest they will try to get money from some sucker troll before, which I'm all for.
- axman6 13y agoThis is not equivalent to a newspaper advertisment because a newspaper isn't online content (though it's close enough that an argument could be made on the inventive step). However, there is definitely potential that this is novel. I was going to say that there is also no method of changing a user comment on a newspaper after it has been created, but on a second inspection of the claim, there's no requirement for this within the claim. And based on that, I think you may well be right that there is a good chance of invalidation, because the system boils down to a system where one can place advertisments on specific parts of a piece of online content and being able to pay more for a better looking ad.
- saraid216 13y agoI think the novel part of it is the on-posting-comment payment. Which I certainly haven't seen implemented anywhere.
- axman6 13y agoNovelty requires proof through a single disclosue (read document) which discloses all the features of the claim. It is not, as with most things in the law, left up to a weak oppinion or a feeling of "Hmm, I'm sure someone must've done that before!"