JP Morgan Chase Patents App Communications

>>62217726
It's so broad that it may not cover everything.

>>62217792
Chase has the right to sue any developer or company who utilizes this model of app communication for patent infringement. I'm more worried that it's too broad so that it does cover everything. It's all up to interpretation of the courts. Since JPMC has money and lawyers up the ass, fighting this is going to be near impossible.

>>62217726
>patent breathing air
>sue everyone breathing air
>sit on shit ton of cash
>invest patent and lawsuit money in arms and coups
>continue to destabilize markets and countries with money/power
>amerifats continue to watch jerry springer and opra and eat deep fried butter with ranch dressing and approve

stay classy america, stay classy

The only way to put an end to this shit once and for all is to start warming up the gas chambers.

>>62219277
wew lad that joke's so new, i'm sure you can do that from your basement while mommy brings you some more tendies

>>62219405
Joke? Think again.

>>62219448
>I wasn't pretending to be an edgelord, I _am_ an edgelord
okay

>>62219277
This, essentially.

File: ar15.jpg (19KB, 301x200px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 301x200px

>>62218028
>Since JPMC has money and lawyers up the ass, fighting this is going to be near impossible.
Courts aren't the ideal way to fight fascists.

>>62219468
>I'm going to not gas people, and continue being disappointed with my predicament when nothing changes.
Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.

>>62219498
>wallstreet jews are fascists
wew lad, careful with that edge

>>62219498
Better get your terminology right.

>>62219533
>>62219574
For JPMC to claim ownership over the concept of inter-app communication is outright theft. Theft, scams and trickery is the core of the way these people do business. You cannot acknowledge that they have a right to even exist.

File: chase-pay.png (6KB, 170x170px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 170x170px

>>62219277
>>62219487
>>62219498
>>62219237

In all seriousness, what is JPMC's end game here and how can we stop this from destabilizing all of society?

I don't foresee JPMC suing everyone and everything into oblivion, at least not anytime soon. Rather, I see them selectively choosing and blackmailing companies, startups and developers to a larger, more strategic advantage. The question is what exactly that advantage is and why a fucking bank decided to patent basic networking concepts.

Keep in mind the shift of the global economy towards online retail, virtual currency, and general digitization. Amazon is a huge player in this ballpark. Pic related.

>>62219884
>The question is what exactly that advantage is and why a fucking bank decided to patent basic networking concepts.
Their strategy is to brainwash, control and manipulate people by making them think they "own" the very idea. The threat of litigation is implicit. Their goal is to create a chilling effect to stifle innovation.

>>62219945
Legally speaking, they do "own" the idea and process. >>62219793 is right; it's straight up theft but patent and IP law would say otherwise.

Anyone know much about IP or patent law and can give some insight to any of this? I'm tempted to post this on /pol/ as well but that place has become a shit storm.

>>62220072
>but patent and IP law would say otherwise.
For them to have been granted the patent, cheating in some way, shape or form must have occurred. Sure, the patent can be overturned in court, however the damage would have already been done.

>>62220132
>cheating in some way, shape or form must have occurred
I have no doubt that banks like JPMC are in bed with the federal reserve, courts, and the govt. in general, but it would be nice to get some better insight as to how exactly. I've always been under the impression that patents are just handed out like candy to whoever files them.

>Sure, the patent can be overturned in court, however the damage would have already been done
Overturning the patent in court would be an absolute nightmare and is at the discretion of the political inclinations of a judge. JPMC filed this patent for a reason. If by damage you mean stifling innovation, I have a feeling that this isn't going to publicly advertised to the masses. Most people are going to continue making apps and utilizing this without any knowledge of this patent, hence why I think this patent is a strategic move in a larger 4D chess game.

>>62220285
>I've always been under the impression that patents are just handed out like candy to whoever files them.
The rules have changed several times over the past couple decades. A patent application can be invalidated by prior art, but currently the USPTO only searches for prior art in existing patents and previous patent applications. It's therefore possible to patent something that has been around for years, but was never patented before. This is called the "first to file" rule.

>>62219277
>warming up the gas chambers
What? You ionize them to death?

>>62220355
So JPMC clearly saw opportunity here. They must have done their research and realized that no such patent for this existed and seized the opportunity. The bigger question is what they intend to do with it.

For what it's worth, I've found the LinkedIn profiles of the three individuals listed on the patent. The woman, Amanda, is involved in governance control. Constantin has a PHD in mathematics and has several articles and publications on CS and mathematical theory. Steve seems like an above-average programmer, but nothing special in terms of status or professional accomplishments.

>>62217726
>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9,747,468.PN.&OS=PN/9,747,468&RS=PN/9,747,468
Perhaps it is cheating but I had a look at claim 1:

1. A method for a first mobile application and a second mobile application on a mobile device to share information, comprising: the first mobile application executed by a computer processor on a mobile device determining that the second mobile application is present on the mobile device; receiving, from a user, permission for the first mobile application to access data from the second mobile application; the first mobile application executed by the computer processor requesting data from the second mobile application; and the first mobile application receiving the requested data from the second mobile application. 

12. A method for a first mobile application and a second mobile application to share information, comprising: the first mobile application executed by a computer processor on a first mobile device determining that the second mobile application is present on a second mobile device; receiving, from a user, permission for the first mobile application to access data from the second mobile application; the first mobile application executed by the computer processor requesting data from the second mobile application by providing the second mobile application with a uniform resource locator; and the first mobile application receiving the requested data from the second mobile application via the uniform resource locator. 

So this is how you monopolise "all of mobile technology"??

Someone posted about this on /pol/: >>>/pol/140003023

>>62219793
Yeah I know, I meant get your terminology right. Read: meaning of fascism/fascist

>>62220708
Most, if not all, mobile phones and apps use app-to-app and device-to-device communication in some way. JPMC filing a patent on such a broad process is a slippery slope for them to "own" most of this technology and use it to their advantage.

>>62218028
>Chase has the right to sue any developer or company who utilizes this model of app communication for patent infringement. I
Patents are territorial. Chase cannot attack someone in Europe, say, with this patent.

>>62220072
>Anyone know much about IP or patent law and can give some insight to any of this?
Patent attorney somewhere in Europe reporting in. While I am no expert in US practice (we always use US agents for prosecution before USPTO) there are a few common generakl principles.

Also: TINLA and IANYL.

There are 2 independent claims you have to examine: claims 1 and 12. Each claim comprises several features. And you have to find each and every feature in a product in order to demonstrate infringement. This is where news articles usually go wrong. I guess that sells more than a calm analysis and why we are rarely asked about what this means.

Just taking claim 1 now and breaking it down into features:

1a:     1. A method for a first mobile application and a second mobile application
1b:     on a mobile device to share information, comprising:
2a:     the first mobile application executed by a computer processor on a mobile device determining that
2b:     the second mobile application is present on the mobile device;
3:     receiving, from a user, permission for the first mobile application to access data from the second mobile application;
4:     the first mobile application executed by the computer processor requesting data from the second mobile application; and
5:     the first mobile application receiving the requested data from the second mobile application. 

Cont...

>>62221279
Breaking this down:
1a tells us that there are two apps but not where
1b states that both apps are "on a mobile device", and it looks like it is the same mobile device.

2a states that the first app runs to do something and that
2b makes it clear that it looks for the second app. It appears that the second app has to be present but not that it has to be running.

3 tells us the app first has to wait for permission to proceed and that this comes from the user

4 requests data form the second app and
5 then it gets that data.

And that is all.

So please tell me how this is monopolising all mobile technologies.

The underlying idea is that say a ticket booking app can directly ask a banking app to do the financial transaction without opening the whole of the banking app.

>>62221279
>>62221424
This sort of local app-to-app communication is already used by most apps that require inter-app communication on almost all smart phones globally. The fact that Chase has a patent for this in US - where most large technology/app companies are stationed - is setting a dangerous precedent.

How does this impact smartphone users globally? What about apps/companies dispersed between companies? This process is universal - how can Chase only own it inside the US?

>>62221424
If you include the mobile OS as an app then these claims apply to launching any app.

>>62219793
No shit, but none of that makes them fascists, you fucking idiot.

>>62219884
>>In all seriousness, what is JPMC's end game here and how can we stop this from destabilizing all of society?
In all seriousness, gas them. There is no other way. There are no peaceful political solutions because they have money and all democratic systems are corrupt by design.

>>62220529
>>>warming up the gas chambers
>What? You ionize them to death?
Zyklon B only works when it's warm. It must be 80F at least, otherwise it won't vaporize.

>>62221549
>The fact that Chase has a patent for this in US - where most large technology/app companies are stationed - is setting a dangerous precedent.
Not really. The US system is best described as unpredictable. Some times you get a patent for strange things. Other times the Examiners reject for no good reasons. And since the patent is territorial the rest of the world does not have to care unless you plan to offer such services or products in the US or buy the same from the US. And I really cannot see that would be the case.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the claims should be read in view of the description when doing infringement analysis. That would narrow the scope significantly. Such claim construction is hard and is where we need US agents due to a lot of important case law that comes into it.

>How does this impact smartphone users globally?
Probably not much. It is also possible the patent will be opposed in, say, and Inter Partes Review (IPR).

>>62221622
>If you include the mobile OS as an app then these claims apply to launching any app.
That would be a redefinition of "app" that is unlikely to hold.

It is also important to keep in mind that a patent should never take away rights or technologies that have already been in use. Very little prior art was cited in the patent, rather unusual in my experience. Chase could very well get some unwelcome surprises in the future with newly discovered relevant prior art.

>>62222098
>since the patent is territorial the rest of the world does not have to care unless you plan to offer such services or products in the US

I still feel this patent has a territorial gray area somewhere. Some developer in the US wrote code to execute this app-to-app communication, which Chase now owns. A developer writing the same code in China or Europe is not bound by Chase's ownership. What about a company like Google whose headquartered in the US but has a developer in London who uses said code? What about when the app-to-app communication happens on a smart phone in Japan?

This whole situation is just sketchy as fuck and I don't see any good outcomes coming from it.

>>62222098
>us patents don't matter for rest of world
As someone who lives in a country that was involved in the tpp talks, and whatever was before that, that seems like an unreasonable dismissal.
>redefinition of apps unlikely to hold
Seriously? Are you the same anon who claims to be in the industry? When people talk about "dangerous" tech patents they are clearly not taking about reasonable good-faith argued court cases but out of court extortions based on FUD

You are now aware that Chase employs 30,000 developers. Thirty fucking thousand. Holy shit what do they even do besides public banking apps, internal IT things, and high frequency trading stuff?

>>62222305
>I still feel this patent has a territorial gray area somewhere.
There is a lot of case law covering this. If the US attempts to enforce a US patent outside the US (ultra vires) there will be a diplomatic meltdown. When US "diplomats" were literally shouting demands about US views on intellectual property rights to the parliament in India there was a whole lot of anger.

>Some developer in the US wrote code to execute this app-to-app communication, which Chase now owns.
A company developing, selling or operating this in the US would be in trouble.

>A developer writing the same code in China or Europe is not bound by Chase's ownership.
Correct. There might be some trouble if this developer is employed by a US company.

>What about a company like Google whose headquartered in the US but has a developer in London who uses said code?
The use by a developer in the UK should not be prevented by a US patent.

>What about when the app-to-app communication happens on a smart phone in Japan?
Again, without a JP patent this should not be a problem. Everything in this scenario happens in Japan.

>This whole situation is just sketchy as fuck and I don't see any good outcomes coming from it.
It is not uncommon that sales department of a patent proprietor crows about their patent and exclaims that it is groundbreaking and you cannot get around it. Never trust them.

>>62223293
Different reasons such as IT, Mobile payments, etc. The finance sector is notorious for instilling non-compete clauses and enforcing them on devs if they ever want to get any job.

>>62222312
>As someone who lives in a country that was involved in the tpp talks, and whatever was before that, that seems like an unreasonable dismissal.
OK, can you expand on why you think so? People have been talking about "world patents" for ages but due to large variations in legal theory and traditions around the world that remains unlikely in the foreseeable future. The US never hesitates about putting other countries (including European "allies") under a lot of pressure but I cannot see how they can plausibly use the patent system for that.


>Seriously?
I am, yes.

>Are you the same anon who claims to be in the industry?
Yes, I am >>62221279

>When people talk about "dangerous" tech patents they are clearly not taking about reasonable good-faith argued court cases but out of court extortions based on FUD
you can take these extortions to court. And you can attack all their patents and their patent applications. Or you can fold. It is a choice.

>>62223293
>>62223375
My guess is that this number also includes non-developers and people that don't know shit about code like project managers

I really think it's about time patent law was just scrapped entirely along with copyright.

I don't care you cannot open a concept or idea and the very notion is ridiculous.

>>62223488
How do you propose pharmaceutical developments will be funded without patents?

>>62223359
>A company developing, selling or operating this in the US would be in trouble

That's my point. Take Samsung for example. They're headquartered in South Korea but use this inter-process communication in all Samsung phones in the U.S. The code may have been written in South Korea but is being used and sold in the U.S.

Law and government have been hauling ass when it comes to technology. Even most tech employees don't know shit about basic programming or computer systems concepts.

>>62223523
Why single out pharmaceuticals? Nothing gets invented without patents, period. The breed of people capable of original thought is motivated only by the prospect of legal ownership of the sweat of their brow.

>>62223523
Prize based system.

The legal costs of parents and enforcement can result in mediocre returns as is and ultimately outs unfair and broad restrictions on competition. So why not award prizes that fairly account for the innovation's value based on a board of industry specialists.

>>62223465
Multiple sources specifically say developers, but yeah you're probably right l, BAs PMs, etc., and management are probably included.

>>62223626
>Why single out pharmaceuticals?
Because
- it involves a very long development, trial and approval time
- it involves a lot of money
- nearly all pharma patents are litigated
- and we are seeing the early effects of the patent cliff and it does not look good.

>>62223753
>Prize based system.
OK. And who will fund this? Keep the 15 year development, testing, trials and approval time in mind.

I might be wrong here but with a patent don't you need to prove you were the first to do it?

>>62224599
Correct, in the US it's a first file system, so whoever files the patent first gets full ownership rights even if they weren't the ones who originally invented it.

>>62223626
>Why single out pharmaceuticals? Nothing gets invented without patents, period.
Are you retarded? How old do you patents are?