Stupid Patent of the Month: Selfie Contests
eff.org
eff.org
2025-08-10 Adjusted expiration
No one's bothered to invest the $500,000 or so for an IPR to destroy this patent, which should be easy. Just adding the words "on a computer" to a common activity does not make it patentable.
Someone should tell the patent office
It sounds like the lawsuits over this patent are probably for minimal amounts of money.
Abolishing software patents would be a very heavy lift, but not impossible.
Getting angry at the examiner when the patent stinks is similar to getting angry at programmers when the application stinks. Often, it wasn't the programmer's fault. Management didn't give them enough time, for example, so the programmer did the best they could given the time constraints.
And that's exactly what happens at the USPTO. Many examiners understand that patent quality is a problem, but USPTO management simply doesn't give examiners enough time to do a quality job. Mistakes will happen.
[I posted this elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38765299]
No no no, humans never do a good job of anything unless they earn a profit, which is why we need capitalism, which is why we need patents.
Also, it doesn't need to be exactly the same thing. Obviousness/103 rejections are probably the most common. (The legal definition of obviousness doesn't correspond exactly to the colloquial definition, by the way.)
The main problem is my view is the very limited time examiners get. If it's not found fast, it's probably not going to be found.
Cough, cough:
WO2006068865A3: "Method and apparatus for making a sandwich" (2004/5) https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006068865A3/
Abstract: The present invention relates to a sandwich assembly tool and methods of making a sandwich, which may be a hot or cold sandwich, quickly by pre-assembly of various sandwich components and simultaneous preparation of different parts of the same sandwich. The sandwich assembly tool is composed of a member preferably having one or two cavities for containing a quantity of garnish. The cavities are used for the assembly of the sandwich. The tool may have a raised ridge adjacent one or both cavities for placement against the hinge of a bread component. Methods of making a sandwich] are disclosed. The methods may include one or more of the use of preasseribled sandwich fillings, assembly of garnishes in advance of a customer's order or while ether portions of the sandwich are being heated using the sandwich assembly tool, the simultaneous heating of a bread component and the sandwich filling, placing the bread component over the tool containing garnish, and inverting the tool and bread combination to deposit the sandwich garnish onto the bread component.
And meet the rest of the McCrew: https://iptica.com/patent-food-recipe/mcDonalds-patents/
... and then in 2022, McDonald's applied for 10 metaverse-related patents to allow it to deliver food online and in person, offer entertainment services...
I see people on HN confusing patent applications and granted patents too frequently. People can write basically whatever they want to in applications, and do.
I don't have time to look at the others, but you should check if patents were actually granted, and if they were, look at the "Notice of Allowance" in Patent Center to see the examiner's reasoning. In my experience, you'll usually find a small detail in the claims that the prior art lacked.
It IS true that non-patent art is incompletely searched by examiners the world over, but it's not the case that it isn't searched at all.
Not everyone who attempts to file a patent is an inventor. Some are nuisances, some are outright trolls.
We could cite patents that were actually granted that should have failed obviousness.
That is clearly wrong. If you want to broaden the argument, you might want to start a new thread.
that's not how it works. we can find plenty of rejections based on non-patent prior art.
Another post mentions spending $500k for an IPR to invalidate - would that be the only way, limiting it to only well funded startups or larger established companies?
There are multiple levels of engagement. The simplest is simply to ignore the patent and take the risk.
You can get an independent lawyer to write a finding that the patent is invalid for reasons X, Y, and Z. What this does is to insulate you from treble damages.
There is a formal process for requesting invalidation, but it requires starting with the confidence that the patent is invalid (or a lot of money to waste, or both), and those things are usually enough to justify either of the two above options.
Situations where it makes sense to request formal invalidation seem to be rare.
You can wait until you get sued, and counter with an invalidation action.
I don't think you can DIY any of this. Especially, the rules for what is "obvious" and what actually counts as prior art, are complicated and it's easy to be wrong.
This is a dangerous suggestion. Using advice of counsel as a defense to willful infringement is not always successful, and this would be especially true if counsel’s advice is that the patent should be invalidated (rather than your technology not infringing).
I was going to say that the original Hot or Not predates your friends' site, but Wikipedia has prior art for that too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_or_Not#Predecessors_and_sp...
one stop gap solution would be making it more streamlined and standardized to make a license
these are antagonistic tolls because the conditions are onerous
you do something ambitious and lucrative, patent owner comes out of the woodwork and says “cease doing that”, “pay me this toll” or “cease doing that and pay me this toll” or “pay me this toll and continue doing that”
and you’re like “no, thats ridiculous, have fun in court” and then they go have fun in court and you freak out
its a state sanctioned monopoly, the state should standardize how the licensing is done. a model uniform patent license, almost like an insurance model that businesses pay into maybe even from existing fees, where patent holders file claims to that insurance pool
(tool is still WIP, if you're interested I would love to get your thoughts)
Getting angry at the examiner when the patent stinks is similar to getting angry at programmers when the application stinks. Often, it wasn't the programmer's fault. Management didn't give them enough time, for example, so the programmer did the best they could given the time constraints.
And that's exactly what happens at the USPTO. Many examiners understand that patent quality is a problem, but USPTO management simply doesn't give examiners enough time to do a quality job. Mistakes will happen.
But why couldn't the EFF use the flaws of the patent system to their advantage.
They could file all kinds of patents for things they oppose. DRM schemes, surveillance and tracking tech, dark patterns, etc... And then patent troll companies that use these techniques.
Win/win. If they lose their lawsuit, it creates a precedent against patent trolls. If they win, that's one less of the things they are against.
But unlike most patent trolls who prey on companies producing useful things, the EFF would attack companies making things that shouldn't be done (according to the EFF).
For example, let's have the EFF patent ad banners with a close button that is too small to click. If the patent is granted (unlikely but let's imagine it is), the EFF can then threaten sites with such an ad banner with a patent lawsuit. Hopefully discouraging websites from using such tactic.