https://anonymster.com/microsofts-n ew-patent-identifies-pir

File: capture45.jpg (28KB, 687x942px)

28KB, 687x942px

>>60525060
How the fuck can you patent something so simple and broad?

>>60525415
Shouldn't be allowed. Patent trolls are a huge issue and they just patent thousands of incredibly broad things but never actually produce anything. Their whole existence is just waiting for something to come along that's kind of like what their broad patent is like and sue the makers of the product. In the last few years patent infringement cases in the high tech sector skyrocketed due to companies like apple, microsoft, and goolge just paying out anyone that sues them.

>>60525415
Because MURICA, LAND OF THE FREE. You have the freedom to patent whatever you want. Don't like it? You're free to sue the person holding that patent.

It's so much better than yurop and their stupid regulations.

>>60525415
This patent trolling is another level of problems, but what about the system itself? It's absolutely horrible for anyone trying to share media and it's 100% going to be used to sue the shit out of everyone with a few strikes

>>60525415
the goal is to patent the most generalizable, abstract thing you can so that if someone uses your innovation in a totally different field, you'll still be able to point to it and say that they're just adapting some of the features but that the core innovation is still present.

as for why no body effectively stops shit like this from happening, it's fundamentally the result of the USPTO not having nearly enough resources to exhaustively search this shit. if you did a thorough review i'm certain you would find countless duplicate filings, countless overly generic filings, etc... but how the hell would you suggest we prevent that? who would pick up the tab for such an endeavor?

>>60525706
Buy a couple less tomahawk missiles and redirect the funds appropriately.

>>60525578
>muh murica
>muh deregulation
>muh eu
Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of attorneys engaged in this behavior are liberals who share these superficial opinions.

>>60525742
even if you drained the entire defense budget, this is an NP hard problem. it scales way too quickly and there's no way to meaningfully classify concepts the way the patent office would need.

the best stopgap is to let interested parties submit briefs during some interim period after filing but before the patent is granted. it's not a perfect solution, but presumably google would direct its lawyers to watch any and all filings made by amazon, apple, microsoft, etc... and knock them down whenever possible, ostensibly under the guise of "helping" the companies filing applications. if there's sufficient evidence that there's prior art, or it's not sufficiently novel, or the description is too vague, or whatever, then the USPTO could reject the application. otherwise, it would sail through.

keep in mind, of course, that this has huge blind spots. if google comes up with an innovation that's fundamentally been done in a non-technical area (like an assembly line idea that google's application happens to resemble), then the chances of someone catching it are practically nil. someone would have to have a background in that area and also be watching google's submissions and make the connection.

but it would be something. to the extent that patent wars are being fought between tech companies, it would largely nullify that.

>>60525415
You're not supposed to be able to patent things that are obvious to a person working in the area, but I'm guessing that there aren't enough people who "get" engineering or programming to make that determination.

IBM is pretty notorious for having patents for fucking everything from years ago when literally nobody at the patent office would understand anything they were doing. If you try to sue IBM for patent infringement, they'll sue you right back for so much shit your company will die a painful death under the weight of your lawyer fees. IIRC, they have a patent on drawing a rectangle on a screen. Not on an angle or anything, just on choosing pixels that make any rectangle in general.

>>60525813
Which is why you need people. 1 single tomahawk is 1.59 million, which would let you hire nearly 16 people at 100,000 per year.

>>60525837
This.You know how every time we see a patent, we can go "this is obvious bullshit", and dig up some prior art?

Prior art = patent invalid.

>>60525415
Because patents were a huge mistake and should be abolished. The entire thing. The idea of protecting ideas in court is a huge joke. Anything you want to protect you keep secret and if it can be reversed engineered so quickly that you haven't made a profit by the time copies roll out then you're garbage and you should suffer and die broke and alone in the streets.

>>60525856
finding prior art is trivial if you recognize it. it's literally searching a needle in a haystack if you don't. you should assume it would take several months for a clerk to exhaustively understand a patent description *and* go through the several million patents in the system, in case there's some obscure patent in a totally different domain which describes a principally similar concept.

the USPTO currently takes ~21 months to do this, but to process the ~300,000 patent applications each year i estimate it would take ~24 months because, again, you have to go through more than 2 million already granted patents to make sure there are no bizarrely relevant cases of prior art. and you need to make sure this is a real substantive advance to the field, which would almost certainly take some time to investigate. at ~150k per year (salary plus benefits) , my back of the envelope estimate is at least 90 billion dollars per year. who knows about other costs that might be associated with what is essentially 300,000 independent investigatory cases per year.

contrast this with opening the process so the patent office says "we have an application from google. here it is. if you're interested, feel free to take a look and submit an amicus brief".

the cost gets offloaded to anyone that's interested in google's growing war chest. google in turn needs to be prepared to counter-argue with people who argue it's not valid. there are all sorts of problems with this, like the ones i mentioned above (and the fact that a small time inventor now has to be prepared for an onslaught of challenges before the patent is even granted), but asking for the patent office to take ~1/5 of the defense budget *just at the outset* to do the kind of due diligence necessary is so preposterous that pretty much anyone with experience in governance would probably think less of you for being so naive as to suggest it.

>>60525060
Unfortunately Microsoft isn't being running by Jews. If it was, you'd love to bring your money like Apple users love it.

File: 1338180469183.gif (547KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 320x240px

It's not running on the desktop. Their running it via their Bing servers. As the search engine crawls public servers where pirated content is being shared it will identify and flag it. It's also going to be made available to content-hosting services in order to make compliance with DMCA requests easier and make it harder to claim ignorance when you were automatically notified of pirated content.