7 ms·

Just had a browse through and although these particular patent examiners are obviously smart, software is not their area. If you are looking for answers as to

Just had a browse through and although these particular patent examiners are obviously smart, software is not their area. If you are looking for answers as to how some of the ridiculous patents manage to get through the patent office (including patents for software concepts that engineers are likely to consider "obvious" or for which there is likely "prior art"), you are unlikely to find the answers here.

chime 14y ago
I agree. While he is doing his best to answer the hard questions (instead of avoiding them outright), his answers are not very satisfactory. See this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_examiner_i_want_to_answer_questions/c5h0r4x http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_e... Whenever someone defends software patents, I bring up Amazon's one-click patent. It's so obvious! I use the one-click-checkout feature on Amazon all the time and dearly miss it on every other website out there. Imagine if Pizza Delivery sites or Flower Delivery sites had that feature. People would order things a lot more if they didn't have to go through extra screens to confirm things every single time. The funnel gets smaller as the number of steps rise. And now one company has a patent on short funnels.
- ceol 14y ago
  I think he did a decent job answering. However, /r/Android is being needlessly confrontational and cynical. For instance, this question from your linked thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_examiner_i_want_to_answer_questions/c5h21br?context=3 http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_e... was answered satisfactory. There is a difference between "a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm" and "searching different sources of data wherein you search each with a method that makes sense for its contents" But the replies from random commenters and vote totals would have you believe the opposite.
  - doomslice 14y ago
    I wonder how important the actual wording is vs what appears to be the intent on what the patent covers. To me (and I know I'm simplifying just like the random commenters you speak of), the patent is _intended_ to cover 1. performing heuristic searches on multiple areas (modules) 2. using a different search on each area However, it uses the word "predetermined" when defining the heuristic algorithm to use for each area. If my code randomly picks between two slightly different heuristics (even with a very low probability), would it still be covered under the patent? Also it says "heuristic algorithm" meaning singular algorithm. If I ran 2 algorithms in parallel (even one that always returns no results) and then chose the "better" of the two, would that get around the patent too? Are patents vulnerable to this sort of work-around due to subtle interpretations of wording, or is it really the intent of the patent that matters?
    - ceol 14y ago
      I'm not sure if you remember the whole thing where John Carmack had to change some 3D shader code in Doom 3 because of a patent dispute. The change was adding four lines of code and changing two.[0] So I would say choosing between two similar algorithms, running two algorithms in parallel, or running an additional algorithm that always returned empty would be a valid workaround. [0]: https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/137189212519792640 https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/137189212519792640
    - jedbrown 14y ago
      I can think of very few algorithms that don't have sub-algorithms. Isn't any composition of existing algorithms also an algorithm? I can't think of any restriction that algorithm (singular) makes relative to the plural.
    - sparkie 14y ago
      The method of choosing the best of two algorithms is itself, a heuristic, so I can't see how that would get around it.
    - joe_the_user 14y ago
      How important is the wording: You can't normally just claim an obvious extension without evidence. We have to provide prior art for every limitation in a claim, and every word must be considered within a claim. It seem every last adjective counts. "In order to jump to an obvious argument, you'd have to prove this device reads on all the limitations minus the unlock image that is slid. Then you'd have to show something else that uses an image to unlock something. Then you'd have to provide rationale why the combination between the two things would have been obvious at the time of the invention, in this case 2005." In other words, obviousness might seem, uh obvious as a defense for most this stuff. But actuality it's categorically dismissed with the "you can't prove it" argument. Plus the "but was it obvious in 2005, with phone!" (lovely to see those so-and-so's trying to wiggle out of that one but essentially coming back to it).
- ry0ohki 14y ago
  Are you saying Amazon actually enforces that patent? I doubt the Flower Delivery sites are purposely adding clicks to the process because of the Amazon patent.
  - chime 14y ago
    Do you know of even one US-based site with one-click ordering?
    - Pent 14y ago
      Valve's Steam games checkout. Does iTunes qualify as well?
      - jonknee 14y ago
        Apple pays Amazon for a One-Click license. I imagine Jobs was really in love with the simplicity and just had to have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Apple_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Apple_Inc.
      - AntiRush 14y ago
        On Steam, you click add to cart (which takes you to a checkout page), and then you have to check an "I agree..." box before hitting the actual purchase button. I don't think this qualifies as one-click.
danmaz74 14y ago
The problems, according to them (and I have no reason not to believe them), is that right now the burden of proof of the obviousness of a patent application is on the patent office, not the other way around. And that this obviousness can only be proved by either citing an older patent or a certain type of publication, or a combination of those, not what the examiner "just knows" - or what it looks obvious to him/her or any other technically skilled practitioner, as the basic law says. According to them this "presumption of patentability" (as I would call it) was a policy change that happened not very long ago, as before the policy was to reject as many patents as possible. I would also make a wild guess: That this change was lobbied for by the IP law firms, because they are the only ones which really benefit from it.

chime 14y ago

I agree. While he is doing his best to answer the hard questions (instead of avoiding them outright), his answers are not very satisfactory. See this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_examiner_i_want_to_answer_questions/c5h0r4x http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_e... Whenever someone defends software patents, I bring up Amazon's one-click patent. It's so obvious! I use the one-click-checkout feature on Amazon all the time and dearly miss it on every other website out there. Imagine if Pizza Delivery sites or Flower Delivery sites had that feature. People would order things a lot more if they didn't have to go through extra screens to confirm things every single time. The funnel gets smaller as the number of steps rise. And now one company has a patent on short funnels.

ceol 14y ago
I think he did a decent job answering. However, /r/Android is being needlessly confrontational and cynical. For instance, this question from your linked thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_examiner_i_want_to_answer_questions/c5h21br?context=3 http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_e... was answered satisfactory. There is a difference between "a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm" and "searching different sources of data wherein you search each with a method that makes sense for its contents" But the replies from random commenters and vote totals would have you believe the opposite.
- doomslice 14y ago
  I wonder how important the actual wording is vs what appears to be the intent on what the patent covers. To me (and I know I'm simplifying just like the random commenters you speak of), the patent is _intended_ to cover 1. performing heuristic searches on multiple areas (modules) 2. using a different search on each area However, it uses the word "predetermined" when defining the heuristic algorithm to use for each area. If my code randomly picks between two slightly different heuristics (even with a very low probability), would it still be covered under the patent? Also it says "heuristic algorithm" meaning singular algorithm. If I ran 2 algorithms in parallel (even one that always returns no results) and then chose the "better" of the two, would that get around the patent too? Are patents vulnerable to this sort of work-around due to subtle interpretations of wording, or is it really the intent of the patent that matters?
  - ceol 14y ago
    I'm not sure if you remember the whole thing where John Carmack had to change some 3D shader code in Doom 3 because of a patent dispute. The change was adding four lines of code and changing two.[0] So I would say choosing between two similar algorithms, running two algorithms in parallel, or running an additional algorithm that always returned empty would be a valid workaround. [0]: https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/137189212519792640 https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/137189212519792640
  - jedbrown 14y ago
    I can think of very few algorithms that don't have sub-algorithms. Isn't any composition of existing algorithms also an algorithm? I can't think of any restriction that algorithm (singular) makes relative to the plural.
  - sparkie 14y ago
    The method of choosing the best of two algorithms is itself, a heuristic, so I can't see how that would get around it.
  - joe_the_user 14y ago
    How important is the wording: You can't normally just claim an obvious extension without evidence. We have to provide prior art for every limitation in a claim, and every word must be considered within a claim. It seem every last adjective counts. "In order to jump to an obvious argument, you'd have to prove this device reads on all the limitations minus the unlock image that is slid. Then you'd have to show something else that uses an image to unlock something. Then you'd have to provide rationale why the combination between the two things would have been obvious at the time of the invention, in this case 2005." In other words, obviousness might seem, uh obvious as a defense for most this stuff. But actuality it's categorically dismissed with the "you can't prove it" argument. Plus the "but was it obvious in 2005, with phone!" (lovely to see those so-and-so's trying to wiggle out of that one but essentially coming back to it).
ry0ohki 14y ago
Are you saying Amazon actually enforces that patent? I doubt the Flower Delivery sites are purposely adding clicks to the process because of the Amazon patent.
- chime 14y ago
  Do you know of even one US-based site with one-click ordering?
  - Pent 14y ago
    Valve's Steam games checkout. Does iTunes qualify as well?
    - jonknee 14y ago
      Apple pays Amazon for a One-Click license. I imagine Jobs was really in love with the simplicity and just had to have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Apple_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Apple_Inc.
    - AntiRush 14y ago
      On Steam, you click add to cart (which takes you to a checkout page), and then you have to check an "I agree..." box before hitting the actual purchase button. I don't think this qualifies as one-click.

danmaz74 14y ago

The problems, according to them (and I have no reason not to believe them), is that right now the burden of proof of the obviousness of a patent application is on the patent office, not the other way around. And that this obviousness can only be proved by either citing an older patent or a certain type of publication, or a combination of those, not what the examiner "just knows" - or what it looks obvious to him/her or any other technically skilled practitioner, as the basic law says. According to them this "presumption of patentability" (as I would call it) was a policy change that happened not very long ago, as before the policy was to reject as many patents as possible. I would also make a wild guess: That this change was lobbied for by the IP law firms, because they are the only ones which really benefit from it.