Transform any text into a patent application(lav.io)
lav.io
Transform any text into a patent application
http://lav.io/2014/05/transform-any-text-into-a-patent-application/
17 comments
Every day closer to Accelerando by Charlie Stross.
You should make it into a kind of wizard that asks the user a few questions about their "invention" and then spits out an application ready to file like Turbotax.
You should make it into a kind of wizard that asks the user a few questions about their "invention" and then spits out an application ready to file like Turbotax.
Great idea - although I think my next step is to automatically send out patent infringement cease-and-desist notices.
What would be more useful is to transform a patent to plain non-BS language. Its probably hard but it should help developers understand patents quickly(one point of patents is to release trade secrets to researchers). And yes I know the risk of treble damages from intentional infringement if the patent was read. Also, hopefully such a tool will prevent some folks from knee jerk reactions based on patent titles(who am I kidding :). I bet it would be very hard to make such a tool though
I'm not sure that patents can be represented in any simpler form. They're a sort of programming language of their own, in that they (in theory) encode precise legal claims. The patent system has a specified "language" for encoding that information. Because the information is inherently complex and nuanced, there may not be a way to encode it more simply than in the "programming language" patents currently use.
To make an analogy, C is hard to read for newcomers. But has anyone designed a simpler, better language for describing direct, low-level manipulation of memory? Is it even possible to describe such operations in a simpler way than in C?
That being said, any given patent isn't necessarily written well. Within the confines of the "patent programming language," one can write well or poorly. So I'm not claiming that individual patents can't be edited for clarity. Rather, I'm claiming that the fundamental way patents are written--which is admittedly intimidating--may not admit of much simplification.
To revisit the above analogy, one can write bad C. One can even write deliberately obfuscated C.
To make an analogy, C is hard to read for newcomers. But has anyone designed a simpler, better language for describing direct, low-level manipulation of memory? Is it even possible to describe such operations in a simpler way than in C?
That being said, any given patent isn't necessarily written well. Within the confines of the "patent programming language," one can write well or poorly. So I'm not claiming that individual patents can't be edited for clarity. Rather, I'm claiming that the fundamental way patents are written--which is admittedly intimidating--may not admit of much simplification.
To revisit the above analogy, one can write bad C. One can even write deliberately obfuscated C.
It's unfortunate that the patent language is mired in obtuse legalese rather than understandability by actual programmers.
For example, take a Shazam-like song id algorithm.
Technical blog post explaining the technology: http://laplacian.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/how-shazam-works/
Patent covering such an algo(is it the same? I can't even tell!): http://www.google.com/patents/US6941275?dq=.+6,941,275
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
The word patent even means 'in the open'. When was the last time someone linked to a software patent to share knowledge or enlightenment?
For example, take a Shazam-like song id algorithm.
Technical blog post explaining the technology: http://laplacian.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/how-shazam-works/
Patent covering such an algo(is it the same? I can't even tell!): http://www.google.com/patents/US6941275?dq=.+6,941,275
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
The word patent even means 'in the open'. When was the last time someone linked to a software patent to share knowledge or enlightenment?
[deleted]
That's because the patent you linked isn't for a detection algorithm, it's for Shazam's entire business model - namely, a way for a customer to on the fly transmit a segment of recorded music, have the music identified (the claims are agnostic to the method of detection), have the identified match fedback to the user, and also providing a method for the user to also purchase the identified track.
I mean, this is actually a bad patent to pick on, because in the scheme of things, it's actually really clear. Just read the claims.
If you want to look at what an algorithmic patent looks like, take a look at http://www.audiblemagic.com/pdf/US5918223.pdf this is a Patent cited by the Shazam patent as an example of a music matching algorithm. The bulk of the patent is basically a mix of block diagrams, pseudo-code, and background into the art. It's certainly not phrased like normal papers, but it's hardly 'mired'. It gets trickier when you get to the claims (which is actually the only parts that are binding), but if you read and understood the preferred embodiment (which I believe any reasonable literate and patient programmer can), it's nowhere as bad, as long as you understand that claims are nearly always structured from broadest to narrowest, with successive claims typically carving out specific 'implementations' of prior, broader claims.
I mean, this is actually a bad patent to pick on, because in the scheme of things, it's actually really clear. Just read the claims.
If you want to look at what an algorithmic patent looks like, take a look at http://www.audiblemagic.com/pdf/US5918223.pdf this is a Patent cited by the Shazam patent as an example of a music matching algorithm. The bulk of the patent is basically a mix of block diagrams, pseudo-code, and background into the art. It's certainly not phrased like normal papers, but it's hardly 'mired'. It gets trickier when you get to the claims (which is actually the only parts that are binding), but if you read and understood the preferred embodiment (which I believe any reasonable literate and patient programmer can), it's nowhere as bad, as long as you understand that claims are nearly always structured from broadest to narrowest, with successive claims typically carving out specific 'implementations' of prior, broader claims.
Petar Maymounkov is doing some really interesting research in that direction: http://www.maymounkov.org/memex/abstract
I work for a company that pays a reward for patent submissions so I have done a fair number of them, and what has amazed me since I started doing them is that I prepare a submission that by most estimations if a readable, understandable explanation of the invention and I usually include some diagrams. The company evaluates it and they deem it patentable, they then pay special outside council, firms that specialize in such things, and they proceed to turn it into incomprehensible legaleeze babble. They also take my nice diagrams and turn them into those patent stick diagrams. It is too bad that my nice understandable synopsis could not be included. But that is the process, I think reversing the process seems almost impossible.
incomprehensible legaleeze babble
Is this like software engineers taking someone's simple algorithmic concept and turning it into 'incomprehensible computerese babble'?
Is this like software engineers taking someone's simple algorithmic concept and turning it into 'incomprehensible computerese babble'?
> It is too bad that my nice understandable synopsis could not be included.
I suspect the issue here may be the same as the one that besets people who want to - for example - include a nice human readable version of a EULA alongside the legal version.
It introduces the opportunity for conflicts between the two version. Which is the actual legally binding version?
Your nice understandable synopsis should be used by the PR department for the press release that goes out explaining the newly awarded patent (if the PR department does such things).
I suspect the issue here may be the same as the one that besets people who want to - for example - include a nice human readable version of a EULA alongside the legal version.
It introduces the opportunity for conflicts between the two version. Which is the actual legally binding version?
Your nice understandable synopsis should be used by the PR department for the press release that goes out explaining the newly awarded patent (if the PR department does such things).
If you take a easy to read and understandable explanation to a patent office, the people who work there will more likely find prior art.
The firms that specialize in patent applications are paid to increase the chance that a patent is granted, so its natural that clear and understandable language is the first to go.
The firms that specialize in patent applications are paid to increase the chance that a patent is granted, so its natural that clear and understandable language is the first to go.
I ran this on my thesis: http://ix.io/cfV and it's scarily good.
The ultimate irony would be to submit a patent application on this software that generates patents.
Maybe you remember that Halliburton got a patent on a method of patent trolling:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=...
Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party
Abstract Methods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property. The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property. The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect. The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office. The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party. The methods sometime include attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of a claim.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=...
Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party
Abstract Methods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property. The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property. The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect. The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office. The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party. The methods sometime include attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of a claim.
That too completely automated ...
Like generate -> submit money via gateway -> print n send to verify -> get sms alert over apis -> etc .....
Basically u submit the money rest taken care .... an app on playstore n iphone will be great ....
Basically u submit the money rest taken care .... an app on playstore n iphone will be great ....
Ha, let's make it a game too! IAPs to get a better lawyer or choose where you sue infringers, global hiscores for the most successful patent trolls (players), share successful suings to Facebook..
you almost had me there, bezos! http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030301
Simply run the essay through the patent generator!
Or a patent application describing the automation of the application of patents that were generated by patent-generating software.
This is fantastic. I've been reading through bunches of patents lately doing research for a project and this actually made laugh out loud.
The post script comment about typing swear words into google patent search is hilarious, even if it is only a translation artifact - for example the first one I stumbled across:
https://www.google.com/patents/CN202375763U?cl=en
https://www.google.com/patents/CN202375763U?cl=en
Hi! Original author of the post here. Yes - lot of the funny ones seem to be the result of translation issues. It's just amazing how the translator (I'm assuming it's automated) likes to pick the most graphic possible words for human anatomy.
Is this patented? Think about how much money you could make suing law firms actually using this...
You can turn this in to a cool Wordpress plugin for adding a ribbon for blog posts: "Patent me on USPTO". It would be like ribbon for "Fork me on Github" :).
This has real possibility of increasing awareness about how broken current patent system is.
This has real possibility of increasing awareness about how broken current patent system is.
While it's a neat exercise, the most important part of a patent is the claims. Everything else is fluff.
I love how the author explains how (relatively) simple doing these transformations is.
We've used pretty much the same technique for this little pet project of ours where we add profanity to English texts: http://cursingapi.com/
We've used pretty much the same technique for this little pet project of ours where we add profanity to English texts: http://cursingapi.com/
Excellent, now generate a fake patent and submit it to the USPTO.
If it gets approved, we're in for another round of Sokal affair [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
If it gets approved, we're in for another round of Sokal affair [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Through automation like this, maybe the patent system can be overloaded and have to be reformed if automated patent filings filled the queues and everyone starts getting wacky patents.
Can we turn HN into a patent application? I wonder if it would work on a list of titles.
Software eats law?
Is this what apple uses?
...
Figure 1 is an isometric view of the progressive historical development of the proletariat.
...
The present invention is itself the product of a long course. The present invention finds its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. The present invention creates a world after its own image. The present invention endangers the existence of bourgeois property. The present invention becomes an appendage of the machine.
This is great.
[1] http://saaaam.s3.amazonaws.com/communist.pdf