SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that you can't get a patent for implementing an otherwise abstract idea on a computer. The decision, known as CLS Bank v. Alice, has had a big impact over the last five years, invalidating a lot of broad software patents.
But a ruling this week illustrates the limits of that landmark ruling. The confusingly named United Services Automobile Association, which provides insurance and other financial products, sued Wells Fargo for infringing two patents on the concept of cashing checks with a mobile device. Wells Fargo argued that the patents were abstract—and therefore invalid—under the Alice rule.
[...] The patents cover check-cashing mobile apps that automatically snap a photo once a suitable image of the check is in the field of view.
A key claim of one of the USAA patents covers the concept of using a "processor" (aka a smartphone) to take a picture of a check and then send the check over a "communication pathway" (aka a network). USAA's supposed invention is the idea of monitoring "an image of the check in a field of view of a camera of a mobile device with respect to a monitoring criterion using an image monitoring and capture module of the mobile device"—and waiting until the image has met the criteria (is the entire check in the frame? Is there adequate light?) before snapping the picture. In other words, they patented the idea that you should wait until you have a good shot before snapping a picture.
[...] Wells Fargo argued that USAA had simply used a computer to perform the same steps any human being would take when snapping a photo of a check. Obviously if a human being was snapping a picture of a check, they would monitor the image in the viewfinder and only click the button once it showed an acceptable image.
But the court disagreed, noting that human eyes and human brains can't measure objective criteria like brightness as precisely as a computer can. USAA has argued that its approach leads to fewer bad check images being submitted. So in the court's view, the patent doesn't just cover an old-fashioned process being done on a computer—the use of the computer improves the process, yielding a patentable invention.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pipedwho on Friday November 01 2019, @10:35PM (5 children)
Are the courts in Texas intentionally trolling the rest of the country?
The court’s argument is that on average people are shitty photographers, so someone can patent the same techniques as used by half way decent photographers. Which flies in the face of ‘someone skilled in the art’.
Ah fuck it. On a computer. Pass me the rubber stamp.
(Score: 4, Informative) by exaeta on Friday November 01 2019, @11:05PM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Friday November 01 2019, @11:09PM (1 child)
The whole thing is bullshit and the patent system is broken. This is corporate welfare and protectionism to provide profits to the elites for what is blindingly fucking obvious. It's important too, because it precludes open source projects, and we know damn well that credit unions would cooperate to provide these services.
One of the core tenants of a patent is obviousness.
They're clearly assuming that the average person is a complete fucking moron when it comes to photography and using their smartphones. Instagram would prove otherwise. Substitute smartphone for desktop computer and scanner, or just go back a decade or two to the Check 21 Act which just about states the major details of the fucking patent.
We're techies here, but the average level of intelligence out there in regards to taking photographs on our smartphones is extremely obvious here to be adequate for imaging documents. There are smartphone apps that do everything the patent covers, just not specifically with checks. They will focus, auto crop, apply filters, sharpen, convert to grayscale, and then upload to Dropbox and many other kinds of connections.
There is absolutely nothing new or non-obvious about either of their patents and it's intellectually and ethically repulsive to provide either of these major corporations ownership of blindingly obvious knowledge. It's not warranted and abusive to the Public Domain.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Friday November 01 2019, @11:28PM
QR code readers do the exact same thing... Get a good image to transfer from the camera frame buffer to the nonvolatile storage file.
What is so unique about that?
This is just judge- assisted extortion, pure and simple.
Now, may I copyright the phrase "Call Now", so I can make money from radio and TV advertisers?
Stuff like this sure erodes a belief system that law is a public good, to a belief that law is just another strong-arm technique for the endowed to compel their wish-lists onto others.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by captain normal on Saturday November 02 2019, @03:07AM
Why do you think all the patent trolls go judge shopping in Eastern Texas? Someone should be looking into money transferred into certain judges' favorite church, school, social club or relatives.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday November 02 2019, @01:17PM
Actually they seem to be talking about specific human eye limitations and the objective measure of brightness, that is a known limitation of every human alive or dead and has nothing do with skill at photography.