>"The language of the primary claim in US Patent No. 9,747,468 describes a mobile app asking a user for permission to get information from another app; then, having acquired that permission, it goes ahead and gets the information." >"If the examiners had looked beyond patent databases, they would have seen that developers had been discussing the best methods of inter-app communications for years. In 2013, mobile apps usually asked for permissions all at once, up front, rather than getting more specific permissions from the user at various times." >"But, as Nazer notes, changing that structure was more of a management decision than an "invention." Some iPhone apps had started asking specific permission to access user contacts in early 2012. Another high-profile example? Twitter has insisted on third-party apps getting very specific permissions to access its data since 2011." >"A spokesperson for JP Morgan Chase declined to speak about its patent or EFF's criticisms"
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.
Angel Roberts
>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
Elijah Morris
The only way to put an end to this shit once and for all is to start warming up the gas chambers.
Jose Morgan
wew lad that joke's so new, i'm sure you can do that from your basement while mommy brings you some more tendies
Mason Ortiz
Joke? Think again.
Nolan Wright
>I wasn't pretending to be an edgelord, I _am_ an edgelord okay
Owen Phillips
This, essentially.
Justin Garcia
>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.
Brandon Davis
>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.
Lucas Sullivan
>wallstreet jews are fascists wew lad, careful with that edge
Kevin Lewis
Better get your terminology right.
Landon Rodriguez
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.
Sebastian Lewis
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.
Bentley Myers
>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.
Juan Evans
Legally speaking, they do "own" the idea and process. 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 Sup Forums as well but that place has become a shit storm.
Wyatt Wood
>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.
Jeremiah King
>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.
Juan Jackson
>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.
Alexander Stewart
>warming up the gas chambers What? You ionize them to death?
Jeremiah Gutierrez
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.
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"??
Isaac Smith
Someone posted about this on Sup Forums:
Samuel Stewart
Yeah I know, I meant get your terminology right. Read: meaning of fascism/fascist
Logan Fisher
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.
Samuel Parker
>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.
>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...
Leo Richardson
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.
Bentley Perry
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?
Owen Fisher
If you include the mobile OS as an app then these claims apply to launching any app.
Jayden Brown
No shit, but none of that makes them fascists, you fucking idiot.
Evan Long
>>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.
Colton Myers
>>>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.
Isaac Robinson
>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).
>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.
Josiah Cox
>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.
Austin Phillips
>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 user 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
Juan Long
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?
Bentley Jenkins
>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.
Daniel Edwards
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.
Owen Parker
>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 user who claims to be in the industry? Yes, I am >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.
Evan Torres
My guess is that this number also includes non-developers and people that don't know shit about code like project managers
Jason Thomas
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.
Matthew Collins
How do you propose pharmaceutical developments will be funded without patents?
Christopher Robinson
>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.
Aaron Garcia
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.
Michael Cox
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.
Caleb Morgan
Multiple sources specifically say developers, but yeah you're probably right l, BAs PMs, etc., and management are probably included.
David Bennett
>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.
>Prize based system. OK. And who will fund this? Keep the 15 year development, testing, trials and approval time in mind.
Benjamin Fisher
I might be wrong here but with a patent don't you need to prove you were the first to do it?
Jaxson Martin
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.
Aiden Morris
>Why single out pharmaceuticals? Nothing gets invented without patents, period. Are you retarded? How old do you patents are?
