It’s Not Too Late for Uber to Avoid Stupid Patent of the Month(eff.org)
eff.org
It’s Not Too Late for Uber to Avoid Stupid Patent of the Month
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/spirit-holidays-its-not-too-late-uber-avoid-stupid-patent-month
25 comments
Some info on what constitutes Prior Art for those interested in participating on Ask Patents
Prior art is any evidence that your invention is already known. Prior art does not need to exist physically or be commercially available. It is enough that someone, somewhere, sometime previously has described or shown or made something that contains a use of technology that is very similar to your invention.
http://www.epo.org/learning-events/materials/inventors-handb...
Prior art is any evidence that your invention is already known. Prior art does not need to exist physically or be commercially available. It is enough that someone, somewhere, sometime previously has described or shown or made something that contains a use of technology that is very similar to your invention.
http://www.epo.org/learning-events/materials/inventors-handb...
I'm pretty sure I learned demand adjusted pricing from lemonade stand in 1987.
Ah! But you weren't doing it on a computer, that is innovation!
I always wonder with backend-type stuff like this whether it's even possible to enforce such a patent. Since the algorithms used for pricing, and even the very act of dynamic price adjustment can remain hidden from the end user, I wonder how Uber would even be able to enforce something like this. If I own a company and I have algorithms running on my servers, how would they ever be able to prove that I'm using what they've patented? If all they see is price adjustment, I don't understand how they could ever submit a claim to the court. Seems like they'd have to get cold, hard evidence from an insider to be able to provide that that's what's happening. I'm assuming that such information would only be obtainable through an illegal leak, making it inadmissible.
Seems like this is fundamentally a useless patent because it's not even enforceable. At least if they patented something UX-related, they can spot it and submit evidence.
Am I missing something about the nature of this patent? Or is it really stupid on two counts?
Seems like this is fundamentally a useless patent because it's not even enforceable. At least if they patented something UX-related, they can spot it and submit evidence.
Am I missing something about the nature of this patent? Or is it really stupid on two counts?
The ambiguity actually works in Uber's favor: as long as there is the tiniest thread of plausibility that you are using a similar price algorithm, they can convince a judge to tie you up in court, burning time and legal fees while the onus is on you to prove otherwise.
That seems backwards to me. Why is the onus on the company being accused? Surely Uber in that case has to provide the proof. Otherwise it seems to me like a case of trying to prove that a unicorn doesn't exist. I'm not well-versed in legal protocol but I'd hope in any case that it would be reverse.
And finally, would other parties using pricing tech already, e.g., airlines, be able to sue for issuing a bad patent, e.g., [1], on the ground of prior art?
[1] http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/suing-the-uspto-for-issu...
And finally, would other parties using pricing tech already, e.g., airlines, be able to sue for issuing a bad patent, e.g., [1], on the ground of prior art?
[1] http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/suing-the-uspto-for-issu...
Could the magic bean salesman in ocarina of time be considered prior art?
I have been able to order a taxi with my mobile phone since the first day i got a mobile phone.
The Supreme court decided not to hear the case last year (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/us-scotus-newegg-s...)
why is "via a mobile app" not the same as "via the internet?"
The Supreme court decided not to hear the case last year (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/us-scotus-newegg-s...)
why is "via a mobile app" not the same as "via the internet?"
With stuff like this and others that the execs have been accused of, you have to wonder that type of people they are.
Do they have a conscience or is it all about money?
Do they have a conscience or is it all about money?
>>> Do they have a conscience or is it all about money?
Don't kid yourself. Its ALL about the money. What Uber is doing is simply trying to find the easiest way to make money regardless of who they stampeded in the process.
Owning a business is 99% about crushing your competition, establishing a monopoly and making as much money for yourself or your share holders. Sure, when you get to a certain level (think Google, Apple, GM) you start to show a little more compassion and have charities you support and do good things for the environment to prop up your public image. But up till then, it's full bore cut throat. If you're not in it to win and dominate, then you're going to get steamrolled by someone else who has that attitude.
Don't kid yourself. Its ALL about the money. What Uber is doing is simply trying to find the easiest way to make money regardless of who they stampeded in the process.
Owning a business is 99% about crushing your competition, establishing a monopoly and making as much money for yourself or your share holders. Sure, when you get to a certain level (think Google, Apple, GM) you start to show a little more compassion and have charities you support and do good things for the environment to prop up your public image. But up till then, it's full bore cut throat. If you're not in it to win and dominate, then you're going to get steamrolled by someone else who has that attitude.
Just like Zynga.
"Who?" - Yeah, exactly.
"Who?" - Yeah, exactly.
That's the company that made a ton of money while providing an entertainment service for millions, who happily used part of their discretionary income for the experience, creating untold millions of hours of enjoyment for wide segments of the populace previously underserved by the video game industry, and still has over a billion dollars in cash on hand.
Please don't apologize for Zynga. They are the meth dealers in the universe in which Uber are pimps.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus...
http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus...
I'm not sure what that toolbar anecdote is supposed to say about the business as a whole.
Are we going to start taking bets on when Uber turns into the Webvan of the mobility space?
What have the been accused of? Breaking a few city laws?
The execs haven't committed rape or murder. They aren't infringing on people rights by sending the government our emails, texts or phone conversations; as far as I know.
As far as businesses, and the objectives of any given one, go they're alright in my book.
Patents, however, I am against.
The execs haven't committed rape or murder. They aren't infringing on people rights by sending the government our emails, texts or phone conversations; as far as I know.
As far as businesses, and the objectives of any given one, go they're alright in my book.
Patents, however, I am against.
Shouldn't 'breaking a few city laws' land them in jail or with a hefty fine or something? If everyone 'breaks a few city laws', the situation would be unsustainable.
If you're going to do that you probably wan't to commit every other business to jail as well.
Might also consider committing yourself.
And I'm not being snarky here. I seriously don't believe that all laws are inherently ethical or justified. Most times they get used by incumbent businesses to avoid competition.
Might also consider committing yourself.
And I'm not being snarky here. I seriously don't believe that all laws are inherently ethical or justified. Most times they get used by incumbent businesses to avoid competition.
If you believe Gordon Crovitz (granted, his view is controversial), the average person commits three felonies a day: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/09/28/three-felonies-a-day-say...
Add sabotaging a competitor, spying on customers, and threatening to muckrake reporters to that list.
As far as @closetnerd is concerned, that's just "breaking a few city laws". Provided they don't commit rape or murder, that's just fine by him.
Its true. I'm sure I'm breaking laws everyday. Your problem is that you assume that laws imply some sort of ethics we've all agreed to. But unless your a mindless zombie, you'd realize that quite a few laws don't make sense.
And in business, you don't get very far if you're not some laws. Rest assured that every single successful business has broken laws and is likely continuing to do so.
And in business, you don't get very far if you're not some laws. Rest assured that every single successful business has broken laws and is likely continuing to do so.
The competitor claimed sabotage.
Spying on customers?
And I agree that the one informal comment made by one of the execs was stupid. But frankly there IS a war being waged against Uber by its competitor through the media.
Spying on customers?
And I agree that the one informal comment made by one of the execs was stupid. But frankly there IS a war being waged against Uber by its competitor through the media.
This wouldn't be the first time Uber has tried to patent something obvious (http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/5900/mobile-taxi-...) and I'm sure that they will keep whacking away at bad patents until one slips through. There's very little cost to them to file, and if they are lucky enough to get a bad patent accepted, I'm sure they'll be delighted to use it to block competition.