Hacker News Reader

Comment by empressplay | Hacker News Reader

It's an interesting patent. I'm not sure how defendable it is though, since there seems to be prior art in existing network switching and routing mechanisms, but it might keep competition away initially, and allow Google to get a strong foothold in the market (unless Google states that it's a purely defensive patent.)

View on HN

The patent appears to be about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. The device can choose a network based on price and quality of service. What prior art is there for this?

Apple has one about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...

Why the downvotes?

I think it's because it had the word Apple when responding to a post about Google.

That's a prior patent not prior art i.e. Apple hasn't used it in a product yet. Moreover Apple having a patent suggests Google applied for a patent for their own implementation to avoid getting sued by Apple. Apple has a history of litigation to stifle competition.

It appears patents can serve as prior art.

http://www.ericksonlawgroup.com/law/patents/patentfaq/what-i...

In terms of utilities this is how the energy market works for producers.

Assuming that is true, and while IANAL I read it that way too, it is baffling that someone in the patent office can read something like this and not feel compelled to laugh and toss it in the dustbin.

Replace 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger', 'device' with 'person', and 'network' with 'fish' and you can probably find prior art that predates recorded history.

I also have the urge to laugh and toss the patent in the trash, but I don't think your example helps the case, and it might hurt. Replacing 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger' and 'network' with 'fish' works fine, but...

If I say "I've created a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves"... is it really obvious that, based on that description alone, I should be ineligible for a patent? Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person is significant. You can't swap between the concepts without triggering an entirely different context.

> Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person

The thing is, processes are not patentable. The problem lies in the fact that there's a loophole which allows processes to be patented if they include the phrase "implemented on a machine".

This loophole is the problem, since it makes something previously unpatentable (such as mathematics, business logic) patentable.

OK, look. Carrying water up a hill in buckets is a process for raising the water. Using an Archimedes screw is also a process for raising the water. Yet the Archimedes screw is (conceptually) patentable.

Feel free to rephrase my earlier comment to say "A machine that does what used to require a person is significant". In fact, I'm pretty sure I used that phrasing myself just one sentence earlier -- compare "a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves". There's no reason a machine that can negotiate for you shouldn't be patentable, any more than a machine that can wash your clothes for you shouldn't be patentable. The problem here is that it's a stupid-obvious idea.

But here we have patented the whole concept of lifting water uphill.

I don't need this patent to reproduce the functionality of their system. Ergo it is not patentable.

Ah but there's a big difference: The Archimedes screw is a novel device with a unique design that's significantly different from other solutions for performing the same task (moving water up a hill). The Google patent here describes the mere process of picking a vendor based on their price.

It's the equivalent to a patent on moving water--regardless of the mechanism.

I can think of many novel, unique ways (in code) in which to perform the function described in this patent yet all of them would fall under the same umbrella of violation because, like I said, it is basically a patent on a generic process that could be preformed with a pencil and paper.

Patents of processes are actually explicitly allowed:

35 U.S.C. 101: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful _process_, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101

> The patent appears to be about selecting a network carrier using a bidding process. The device can choose a network based on price and quality of service. What prior art is there for this?

It's a common-knowledge approach in general: Obtain a service based on price and quality. Modifying that to obtain service of type __ should not represent a novel patentable idea.

In a non-broken system these kind of patents would only apply to the specific selection technology/method and not to an obvious general concept. How broadly applicable it will be in practice? Who knows? I'd say since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Interna... it's more promising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com