5 ms·

Have you guys looked at the patents in this case? They look thick and serious, but if you actually read the claims, you will soon realize that it's nothing but

by x0054 12y ago

Have you guys looked at the patents in this case? They look thick and serious, but if you actually read the claims, you will soon realize that it's nothing but an obvious and straightforward procedure for deciding when and with whom to establish a VPN. None of these patents make sure that a VPN connection is more secure, more reliable, or in any way better. Majority of the patent is explanation on how a VPN works, different mathematical explanations on how to generate random numbers, the theory behind secure communications. But none of that stuff is actually covered by the patent, so don't be impressed by it. What is covered is basically the straightforward and logical application of the explained VPN concepts, but the VPN concepts them selves are not patented. I am not sure if the patent examiner of this patent was dazzled by the 50+ pages of VPN theory and just granted this thing. To me it's stunning! It's like filing a patent that in intricate detail explains how an automobile works and than sneaking in a claim that you invented that an automobile can be used to move personal belonging from place to place.

ScottBurson 12y ago
Okay, I'm looking at 6502135... Claim 1 is a joke. How does this not apply to HTTPS? I would toss it and all its dependents. Claim 13 is almost as obvious, but in this case I am not sure about the dependent claims. Some of them sound to me like they might be inventions. Claim 10 seems stronger to me. Networking is not my field, so I am not at all sure there is not prior art, but at least it seems to contain an actual idea. I'm not going to read the whole description, but a quick scan seems to support your contention that there is a lot of material here that is not referenced by the claims.
- analog31 12y ago
  IANAL, but Including material that is not referenced by the claims, gives you the chance to submit amended claims at a later date if your original claims are invalidated.
piyush_soni 12y ago
You mean they are just a little less baseless than the patent for 'rounded corners'?
- nicky0 12y ago
  Who has a patent for rounded corners?
  - ljf 12y ago
    Apple. They have a design patent on a rectangle with rounded corners. http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-r...
- stephenr 12y ago
  Apple doesn’t have a patent for rounded corners. They have a design patent for the ornamental design of the iPad. Just like Google has design patents for the ornamental design of a smiley face, a usb cable, a “computer icon” etc etc. Just like Samsung has a design patent for the ornamental design of a "Terminal for portable mobile communication”, which based on the images looks like a tablet. In 1981 some company got a design patent for the ornamental design of a briefcase, with rounded corners. Please stop talking shit.
  - JohnTHaller 12y ago
    D670,286 is, quite literally, a design patent on a rectangle with rounded corners (it's about the solid lines in the drawing). And they sued Samsung over it and Samsung was forced to make the rounded corners on the top and bottom of their phone different sizes. Despite the fact that multiple phones and tablets predated the iPad and iPhone and were rectangles with rounded corners.
    - stephenr 12y ago
      They sued samsung over a number of combined similarities: "Closely comparing Apple's patented design with Samsung's products reinforces the conclusion of substantial similarity. Samsung copied every major element of Apple's patented design: * a flat, clear, black-colored, rectangular front surface with four evenly rounded corners [emphasis mine]; * an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the display screen and substantial borders above and below the display screen; and * a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front surface above the display screen, * where the rectangular front surface is otherwise substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional button area centrally located below the display."
ttctciyf 12y ago
Reminds me of http://www.google.com/patents/US20070258329 http://www.google.com/patents/US20070258329 : "Method and apparatus for the exploitation of piezoelectric and other effects in carbon-based life forms." Despite the huge prolegomena which would in fact work as a crash course in fringe geometry and pseudoscience, it turns out to be a patent for a golf club (I think.) The point being, how does stuff like this even get past USPTO? Don't they employ people to weed out the nonsense?
- jonyt 12y ago
  It's possible that people employ weed to come up with this nonsense.
cLeEOGPw 12y ago
It seems that patent examiners have way too much power and way too little understanding of what are they doing. Shouldn't there be some procedure to throw away such invalid patents?

by x0054 12y ago

ScottBurson 12y ago

Okay, I'm looking at 6502135... Claim 1 is a joke. How does this not apply to HTTPS? I would toss it and all its dependents. Claim 13 is almost as obvious, but in this case I am not sure about the dependent claims. Some of them sound to me like they might be inventions. Claim 10 seems stronger to me. Networking is not my field, so I am not at all sure there is not prior art, but at least it seems to contain an actual idea. I'm not going to read the whole description, but a quick scan seems to support your contention that there is a lot of material here that is not referenced by the claims.

analog31 12y ago
IANAL, but Including material that is not referenced by the claims, gives you the chance to submit amended claims at a later date if your original claims are invalidated.

piyush_soni 12y ago

You mean they are just a little less baseless than the patent for 'rounded corners'?

nicky0 12y ago
Who has a patent for rounded corners?
- ljf 12y ago
  Apple. They have a design patent on a rectangle with rounded corners. http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-r...
stephenr 12y ago
Apple doesn’t have a patent for rounded corners. They have a design patent for the ornamental design of the iPad. Just like Google has design patents for the ornamental design of a smiley face, a usb cable, a “computer icon” etc etc. Just like Samsung has a design patent for the ornamental design of a "Terminal for portable mobile communication”, which based on the images looks like a tablet. In 1981 some company got a design patent for the ornamental design of a briefcase, with rounded corners. Please stop talking shit.
- JohnTHaller 12y ago
  D670,286 is, quite literally, a design patent on a rectangle with rounded corners (it's about the solid lines in the drawing). And they sued Samsung over it and Samsung was forced to make the rounded corners on the top and bottom of their phone different sizes. Despite the fact that multiple phones and tablets predated the iPad and iPhone and were rectangles with rounded corners.
  - stephenr 12y ago
    They sued samsung over a number of combined similarities: "Closely comparing Apple's patented design with Samsung's products reinforces the conclusion of substantial similarity. Samsung copied every major element of Apple's patented design: * a flat, clear, black-colored, rectangular front surface with four evenly rounded corners [emphasis mine]; * an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the display screen and substantial borders above and below the display screen; and * a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front surface above the display screen, * where the rectangular front surface is otherwise substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional button area centrally located below the display."

ttctciyf 12y ago

Reminds me of http://www.google.com/patents/US20070258329 http://www.google.com/patents/US20070258329 : "Method and apparatus for the exploitation of piezoelectric and other effects in carbon-based life forms." Despite the huge prolegomena which would in fact work as a crash course in fringe geometry and pseudoscience, it turns out to be a patent for a golf club (I think.) The point being, how does stuff like this even get past USPTO? Don't they employ people to weed out the nonsense?

jonyt 12y ago
It's possible that people employ weed to come up with this nonsense.

cLeEOGPw 12y ago

It seems that patent examiners have way too much power and way too little understanding of what are they doing. Shouldn't there be some procedure to throw away such invalid patents?