
Patent: Electronic flashcards (2013) - zadokshi
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110275050?oq=flashcard
======
vortico
As with any patent, _read the claims_ before making statements about what the
patent covers. Patent titles are useless.

With that said, at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel
electronic flashcard method, but there could be something I missed.

~~~
akersten
> at a quick glance it doesn't appear that it claims a novel electronic
> flashcard method

I mean, there is no such thing. It isn't possible to create something like
that. Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn't matter
how you put them together to do the flashcard thing. Or anything. There's
nothing novel to be found. It's just math.

We should not grant artificial exclusivity over categories of functionality
that computers were designed to provide.

Destroy all software patents.

~~~
achow
I'm with you on the sentiment. But comment on the rationale behind the
sentiment..

> _Computers only perform a specific set of actions, and it doesn 't matter
> how you put them together.._

More or less everything in this world is about understanding how 'elements'
work and then how to put them together to invent a new thing.. Medicines
(molecules), Design (lines and shapes), Art (colors and mediums), Yoga
(Asanas), etc.

~~~
akersten
The nuance with software is that we _made up_ the system in which all of these
programs are put together.

Just like in math, we made up the constructs and rules that define what an
algorithm or a theorem or a function _can be_. Because there is a human-
defined limited scope of what even constitutes a valid construct (i.e. an
"upper limit" of novelty - "this is everything mathematics can do"), anything
that exists within this sandbox is therefore less novel. We establish the
baseline novelty of the entirety of mathematics as "really powerful, and world
changing - and too important to the common good to lock behind a patent." So
if that is the upper limit, no individual piece of it can be more novel.

The patent office displays stunning clarity in correctly determining that
therefore, any particular instance of maths cannot be patented.

Their failure to apply this same reasoning to software (which is, and always
will be, reducible to math) baffles me.

------
kbumsik
Don't look at the title. At a glance, the claims looks like a very specific
implementation of a flashcard application, which does not seem to be relevant
to the current flashcard apps. Did I miss something?

~~~
teraflop
The first three paragraphs of claim 1 describe every flashcard application
ever made. As far as I can tell, the "novel" part of the invention being
claimed is the fourth paragraph, namely the concept of displaying multiple
cards on the screen at the same time.

IMO, that's still an extremely broad concept to be granted a patent on.

------
save_ferris
What does this mean for apps like Anki (assuming they’re not the ones who own
this patent)?

~~~
joshvm
If I understand correctly this patent is only active in the USA. Anki is based
on SuperMemo-2 and they freely admit it. SuperMemo (based in Poland) has
pretty liberal licensing:

[https://www.supermemo.com/en/blog/licensing-and-
copyrighting...](https://www.supermemo.com/en/blog/licensing-and-copyrighting-
of-supermemo-algorithms)

I can't see this patent holding up unless it's for a very specific flashcard
system. There is prior art on flashcards going back to the 19th century.

~~~
amelius
Once a patent is granted, it is very hard to fight the patent using prior art
as evidence.

------
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
I’d love to see a charity formed for the sole purpose of challenging these
patents in courts. Crowdfunding can go a long way, and strategic legal wins
can go a long way in shaping precedence.

Many organizations dabble in these challenges, but it needs a singular
purpose.

~~~
khc
It's not the sole purpose but EFF does do a lot in this area:
[https://www.eff.org/patent-busting](https://www.eff.org/patent-busting)

~~~
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
I love the EFF but they have their pokers in a lot of (important) fires. I’d
ultimately like to donate to both causes.

------
deskglass
What is the recourse here? Would it be reasonable to contact the person that
approved the patent with information showing that plenty flashcard systems
precede this patent? I imagine there is some more formal system.

~~~
smnrchrds
> _What is the recourse here?_

If you want to make a flashcard program, pray to gods Google will take pity on
you and not enforce their patent. Otherwise, you better had set aside a couple
of million dollars for the patent fight with Google. I mean, the patent will
eventually get invalidated, but not before a decade in courts and millions of
dollars in costs.

EDIT: Ignore everything I said. I got confused. I apologize. I am not going to
change the original comment so the context of the replies would be preserved.

~~~
lern_too_spel
Why would Google pay to enforce a patent it doesn't own?

~~~
ReverseCold
It looks like it's a person (not a company) that owns the patent too, so
unless this person is a m/billionaire a court case doesn't even sound _that_
bad.

~~~
Hnrobert42
All patents are granted to people not companies. The people may then assign to
a company the right to enforce the patent.

~~~
ReverseCold
Oh, I actually didn't know that. Thanks!

------
ConcernedCoder
"A method of writing a patent application whereby the most trivial and non-
patentable ideas are made to seem novel and patentable."

------
vortico
This patent was filed 2007 and granted 2012, so the title should say (2012).

~~~
jameslee50
The patent page states it the patent became active 2020-01-01

~~~
lbatx
There seems to be a weird bug on the Google Patents site. I've noticed that
the expiration date of a patent is always the day I visit the site, even for
patents I know expired a while ago. This may be something like that.

~~~
Geimfari
It's not wrong but it is confusing – it's showing you what its current status
is, which should be shown somewhere else than in the timeline.

~~~
lbatx
Ah, thanks. As in Expired (date). Where date is every day from the day it
expires until forever. Not Expired on date, but currently expired. Makes sense
now.

------
bszaboky
The lady who owns the rights is Vicci Tucci. Here is a link to her company's
website: [https://tuccionline.com/company/](https://tuccionline.com/company/)

Here is also a video on how her flashcard tech works:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFOm9oM_-A4&feature=share](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFOm9oM_-A4&feature=share)

If you look under "Products", you can see that she has a flashcard app called
Fluency. However, I can't seem to find the app on iOS or Android app stores.

Also, I still can't seem to find the novel aspect of this patent? The first
claim literally denotes the functionality of every current flashcard
application.

------
femto113
I imagine there's plenty of prior art available. Certainly by the time the
Apple II was in schools if not before.

------
scottyelich
Unlikely to survive an Alice 101 challenge.

------
username4567
Hasn’t flash card software been around since the 80s or 90s?

------
ww520
The claims in this patent are too broad. It's likely that it will get
invalidated with prior arts in the court.

------
hnuser123456
I wrote a flash card program in 2011 to help me study French. I should charge
licensing fees to anyone who uses this in a product.

------
admax88q
How brain dead or just checked out are patent office clerks that patents like
this are granted.

~~~
Hnrobert42
My friend was a patent clerk. She is pretty sharp. She explained that rules
make it much more time-consuming to deny an application than to grant it or
coach the applicant on changes they need to make in order to win a grant.
Something about needing to explicitly refute each claim. Further, clerks are
given quotas on how many patents they must review a week. It’s a pretty
crushing load, so the system favors grants.

~~~
gyc
> Something about needing to explicitly refute each claim

Seems like a wholly reasonable rule, no? We don't want the government to
arbitrary grant or deny something without applying the same rules to everyone?

~~~
Hnrobert42
Sure, but to grant a patent, you just have to say “approved.”

------
wolfgang42
The patent _has not_ “become active;” the reason it says ‘2020-01-01
Application status is Active’ in the timeline is because its _current status_
(as of 2020-01-01) is Active. It actually became active on 2013-11-26 when it
was granted and published. (If you look at _any_ active patent it will show
the same date, and if you look at this patent tomorrow it will show tomorrow's
date instead.)

This comes up every single time someone links to a Google Patents search; it's
an incredibly misleading bit of UX design.

[Edit: I'm glad to see that the title has been adjusted to remove the “becomes
active” bit. It should probably still have (2013) added on the end, though.]

