How is something this vague "directed to systems and methods for providers of products and/or services to interact with users of those products and services to gather information from those users and transmit that information to the provider" patentable?!
So if a service provider (a restaurant) uses their service (waiters) to gather information from users of that service (waiters get food orders from customers) and transmit that information to the provider (waiter brings orders back to the kitchen) then wow ... they patented waiting on a customer!!! What a novel concept!!
It involves a computer -- and the examiners employed by the PTO just don't have the time or training to properly understand computer patents. That's the only explanation.
If examiners can't figure out whether something is patentable, they err on the side of good faith on the part of the applicant, and leave the question to the courts.
It involves a computer -- and the examiners employed by the PTO just don't have the time or training to properly understand computer patents. That's the only explanation.
That's the only explanation? Doubtful.
I know someone at the patent office, an examiner who handles tech patents. When I asked about certain patents she explained that you need to look at the complete patent application and the specific behavior or items in the claim. Titles are often very broad for convenience. Also, patent applications tend to start broad and go narrow, with the overly broad requests (usually) denied.
If examiners can't figure out whether something is patentable, they err on the side of good faith on the part of the applicant, and leave the question to the courts.
Where did you get this information from?
As it was explained to me if a patent is not clear or what is being claimed not readily understood by the examiner then it gets sent back for revision. There does not appear to be any "good faith" involved.
Some patent holders like to claim that one of their narrowly defined patents applies to much broader behavior, and then threaten people with legal action. In this case it is quite possible for a non-tech judge to decide that a patent applies to things it really shouldn't.
I don't doubt there are bullshit patents or that some patent examiners aren't as educated as they should be, but I also don't see any reason to think the examiners are just so harried and untrained that they just shrug their shoulders and assume everything is legit.
There are two problems with the current patent system. One is that patents are granted where they shouldn't be. The other is that legitimate patents on specific, narrow, precise items or behavior are later used to extort money from people because untrained lawyers and judges will decide that a very narrow patent should, incorrectly, apply to more broader cases.
If you look at the chart, you'll notice the 3rd feature didn't affect our sales much at all. We've pushed out 12 major feature updates since launch and I believe that had an impact on our sales as people can feel confident that we stand by our product.
Technically speaking, we'd made about $40K in app revenue from our previous apps before we launched iMockups. That $100K is just iMockups revenue, not total for the company.
But you are correct that it was the best ROI so far for any of our apps.
