EVE Online would seem to be prior art. The system keeps statistics on players killed recently, and the autopilot has an option which avoids dangerous routes (or those where you are persona non grata for some local NPCs).
This patent was filed by Microsoft in December of 2007 and according to Wikipedia the feature you describe was added in March of 2009 to EVE Online (at least 'change to auto-pilot features...' [I don't play the game so I don't know])
Would that mean they are in violation of the patent?
Wait, I thought you couldn't patent abstract ideas. This is a big bummer for more than just the businesses that will be routed around. The patent is essentially on just the thought of delivering a route based on anything other than shortest or fastest. No novel or non obvious inventions are described. In fact, no inventions are described at all.
They're comprised of a bunch of abstract ways of getting a route other than fastest or shortest to a pedestrian. States no inventions. Just the concept of route finding based on criteria other than shortest or fastest.
Claim 1. Computer storage media having embodied thereon
computer-useable instructions that, when executed,
implement a system, the system comprising:
a search component that locates at least one information
source, retains pedestrian history from a plurality of
pedestrians and addresses of at least one information
source that has a history of providing reliable
information, identifies low quality information sources
that do not provide information used in route
generation, and blocks information obtainment for the
low quality information sources;
a gather component that obtains information related to
pedestrian travel including security information,
weather information, and terrain information, wherein
the gather component obtains the information from the at
least one located information source;
an artificial intelligence component that makes at least
one inference regarding a route based on a previous
pedestrian behavior;
a filter component that determines, based on the at
least one inference, the information that is likely
relevant and deletes information that is commonly of
little value in part through examination of previously
produced routes;
an analysis component that determines an importance of
the information to a user, estimates how likely the
information is to change, and chooses if the user should
reach a destination through a pedestrian route and/or
through a conventional route;
a generation component that obtains the information from
the gather component and produces a direction set for
use by a pedestrian based at least part upon the
obtained information; and
a resolution component that resolves a conflict between
an information source with a financial interest and an
information source without a financial interest and
instructs the generation component to produce the
direction set based upon the information source that
does not have a financial interest in providing the
direction set.
That sure seems like an awful lot of structure and detail for a vague, abstract idea.
Every one of those is an abstract component. Making up an abstract system. There are no algorithms, no methods, no inventions. It's a collection of abstract ideas.
The purpose of patents is to give incentive for the inventors to publish their inventions publicly. So that after the patents expire the public can benefit from the knowledge contained in the patents. This patent circumvents that by only stating a collection of abstract ideas. Then they can actually invent something and have the best of both worlds. They get a legal monopoly on the concept as well as obscurity from the public of the actual invention.
> Every one of those is an abstract component. Making up an abstract system. There are no algorithms, no methods, no inventions. It's a collection of abstract ideas.
It's unclear why you think that "abstract" ideas shouldn't be patentable or aren't useful knowledge.
Suppose you were the first person to conceive of a wheel, which is surely something where disclosure would be of great value to the rest of us.
What would be acceptable-to-you claim language for a wheel?
Mine would be something along the lines of a description of the distance between the closest point on the axle and some point on the contour of the wheel, which is pretty abstract.
That is actually quite specific. Try thinking of patenting the ability to move objects via reducing the coefficient of friction. Not even specifying that you are using a wheel or what a wheel is.
for a long time, the patent office required little models of the thing to be patented. it was a huge pain in the ass, but seems like a worthwhile requirement.
It seems like the embodiment of what a patent shouldn't be to me. There is no detail on how to implement any of the parts. It is hilarious that it actually specifies "An artificical intelligent component that makes at least one inference" ... it's the equivalent of saying "here magic happens". I'm certainly no expert but my understanding is that one is supposed to be able to implement the patented invention using the information in the patent. When it is full of "magic" words like "information sources" and "articifical intelligence components" it should be obvious that there is insufficient information to actually implement the invention given the patent.
I find it baffling that they accept patents where I just add "an artificial intelligence component" until I present something that might or might not actually exist but I get a chance to derive future revenues on it.
They're not supposed to. If the examiner has reason to believe that the patent's specification doesn't provide enough detail to allow a person of ordinary skill to make and use the invention, he should issue an "enablement" rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Note that I haven't read the specification of this patent, and have no opinion on its enablement or lack thereof.
"A database of relevant information with a quality / spam filter, stuff which pulls in more information, some AI, a filter that throws out useless data, corrects itself based on previous performance, a bit which personalises the results based on the user, a bit which puts the data together in a useful format, and a bit that identifies and blocks SEO."
Reddit and google are both prior art, I think. But they forgot to mention that you are applying this general approach to pedestrians.
At SXSW 2007, I attended a talk about Python code for Symbian phones. One idea that the speaker threw out was having the phone start to vibrate if you were approaching a high crime part of the city. I wonder if that counts toward prior art or public disclosure of the basic idea of routing around dangerous areas?
I was wondering if that was a statement on Baltimore :-) So if you're in the bayshore (a pretty rough part of SF) and you ask for directions does it simply say 'shelter in place'? Or maybe 'call for an escort'?
I totally agree with the sentiment that this isn't a patent any more than patenting a TV that doesn't tune in Adult channels, oh wait, damn.
From reading the title, I imagined a fix for Google's habit of telling me to get off the highway in the middle of the downtown of certain cities around here. I always think "no, Google, that is definitely NEVER the fastest route, no matter WHAT the speed limit supposedly is."
Just take Dijkstra's Algorithm (or possibly A* if you want to try to optimize the runtime performance) and give a higher cost to edges in your map that correspond to left turns. Now it's just a matter of tuning the additional weight added to suit your preference. You won't get the shortest distance any more, just the "cheapest" path in terms of the distance/left-turn weight; if you find you have to go too far out of your way to avoid left turns, you may want to reduce the added weight so you can make a few more left turns without going so far away. For example, you probably don't want to go 10 miles down the freeway and another 10 back to avoid a single left turn on what would otherwise be a 5 minute drive, but maybe you'd instead be willing to drive a 1/2 mile to avoid a left turn that you'd otherwise have had routed -- so route the left turn as whatever distance it would be plus 1/2 mile additional cost.
UPS uses this in the direction software their delivery vans use. minimization of left turns means the vans get everywhere faster and more packages are delivered in a given day.
I wish the US/state governments would do the same thing. I hate how the green left-turn arrow is the first thing to light at a stoplight. This penalizes efficiency and rewards a behavior that costs us all time and energy.
Why is it like this? The only valid reason I can think of is that turn lanes would tend to back up at most lights in busy cities. I would think correcting this behavior would help reduce the number of vehicles turning, to offset the backup.
You should check out the "Michigan left" which is being increasingly implemented around the country. A Michigan left prevents backup by having people turn right and then do a U-turn further down the road at a designated area.
Thanks for the concept epikur! This is better, but it seems this design would not work on very busy roads. You would never get a chance to cross oncoming traffic due to the volume.
This does seem perfect for most Midwestern highways where space is not really a concern and traffic is relatively light.
They installed one of these a few years ago where I live. Each U-turn area gets its own traffic light in addition to the light at the grade crossing; I don't drive through there often enough to know how the patterns are synchronized for the different lights.
I had some customers who used it (Anheuser-Busch has some weird licensing partnership that their distributors get it for free-ish). So you CAN get it, if you have the money.
While I can't be sure, I believe that my TomTom Go 730 gives left turns a higher penalty than right turns when calculating a route.
I've seen it pick different roads to go A->B than to go B->A where the only reason I could discern for the difference was minimizing the number of left turns.
I remember seeing a paper that suggested outlawing all left turns except onto cul de secs or where at least one road is one way would shorten driving times for everyone. Every time I get stuck behind a huge long line of jerks trying to turn left I think of that and seethe.
Link-bait title conflates "ghetto" with "high crime areas". It's disrespectful to the millions of individuals of various groups who have been forced to live in ghettos.
That is the common meaning of the term nowadays. Many people are actually surprised when they first encounter the original usage as the name for a place where Jews were forced to live. I'm sorry if you consider it disrespectful, but I don't think we should blame the editor for using words as they are commonly understood. The modern usage does derive from the traditional meaning, though — the idea is that certain groups are forced there by socioeconomic conditions over which they have very little control.
I think the parent's underlying point is that, while the title's usage is perfectly comprehensible, the word is unsavory as part of a headline on a news websie. To go through the well-worn analysis: "ghetto" has strong connotations of specifically black poverty and crime, and is often used as somewhat comic shorthand for these issues, which is arguably offensive to people for whom these problems are their lived reality (leave alone its extensions in phrases such as "ghetto fabulous" and "ghetto queen"). I'm not black but I am a racial minority and I've always been attuned to words with valences like these, and I do micro-wince whenever friends or acquaintance use the term flippantly in conversation. So it's usage in this context is worthy of comment and pushing back against it legitimization, especially when its usage adds absolutely zero value above substituting "high crime area."'
I disagree. The respectable "modern" variant of ghetto is still to refer to people or things of a group that are constrained to a limited area. There is the "gourmet ghetto" in North Berkeley, for example.
It seems like you're referring to the slang usage of the term, which is mainly used by upper middle class youth when referring to things outside their economic class and daily reality, is pejorative, and is often tinged with racism.
the "gourmet ghetto" in North Berkeley, for example.
I also spent 4 years calling <5 floor dorm buildings "BuildingName Tower". It even caught on with other people, but that didn't change the definition of a tower.
It seems like you're referring to the slang usage of the term
I certainly think so too, seeing as how it is nothing but a slang term.
which is mainly used by upper middle class youth
How rich, the guy who uses North Berkeley as a counter example is calling people out for a limited world view.
Hey man, no need to get personal. For what it's worth, I live in a rural, very low income area. We all have limits on our world views. I simply object to the casual usage of a neutral but racially-sensitive term as a blanket adjective for criminality and wretchedness.
Ghetto, in its appropriate usage, isn't a slang term. It's been a part of standard English for a long time.
Word meanings are by nature fuzzy, democratic, fluid, subjective, regional and varied. So you may be fighting a losing battle to want "ghetto" to have a fixed "proper" meaning that people should use.
No doubt, but the converse is not necessarily true. There are many high crime areas that are not ghettos, in that they have no particular ethnic make-up. There are even relatively high crime areas that are neither ghettos, nor low-income communities.
The converse doesn't need to be true. If ghetto ⊂ high-crime area, then an algorithm that avoids high crime areas avoids ghettos, regardless of whether high-crime area = or ⊂ ghetto. The converse only affects whether it would be accurate to say that a ghetto-avoiding algorithm avoids high-crime areas.
I don't understand why lansing's being down-voted here. He's absolutely right. It's pejorative when used as a way to reference a place where black people live now, and it's historically inaccurate. The "modern" usage is all since the late '80s; and it came from a term based on enforced ethnic divisions. The fact that a lot of readers here live in parts of the country or the world that don't enforce ethnic divisions along geographical boundaries does nothing to change the fact that those still exist, even in the US, and they are still enforced by white-on-black violence in many cases. The first question that comes to mind is who puts the boundaries of these ghetto into the database? What's Fairfax south of Olympic? What's 120th and Broadway? And the second question is, would stores and businesses within those areas suffer as a result of decreased traffic; what recourse would they have; and what hope would blighted areas have of economic improvement if everyone followed a GPS that steered them around the zone?
This is a disgusting concept and an insult to human dignity. It will turn "ghettos" in the slang sense into more genuine ghettos in the historical sense. And lansing is right to take issue with the term as it's used now, because it's become a light, casual, racist and derogatory way to talk about a certain area, which is definitely used by the white middle class as a stand in for other racist words they don't feel comfortable saying anymore.
[Edit: The fact this was downvoted in less time than it would take a speed reader to finish what I wrote is pretty much proof that either someone's got it in for lansing, or someone's a fuckin racist dipshit. Either way, fuck you.]
[Re-edit: Not only do I stand by my comment, I think the people who downvoted me are cowards. Respond if you have a response, and you speak enough English to communicate it.]
Your comment, even with the edit, takes me about 15 seconds to speed-read (I timed it), and it's short enough to skim-read in about five seconds. And I'm not a particularly good speed-reader. And a lot of people will downvote without reading the whole thing if they feel they've got the gist, though I hope not too many. I think you need to calm down and treat people who disagree with you more respectfully. Your reply is extremely heavy on negative emotion, fairly accusatory and low on solid reason, and that kind of thing does tend to get downvoted here. Hacker News tends to value knowledgeable, factual commentary and reasoning on relevant topics over outrage.
Also, now you're complaining about getting downvoted, which is generally against the rules here and will often lead to further downvotes (because you getting downvoted is always off-topic).
Personally, I think I would find some of what you're saying interesting if you presented it in a way that's more informative and actionable and less angry or defensive. Could this have a negative impact on those neighborhoods? That's an interesting question. I'm not sure if it would (most of the people who travel in the area frequently will already be avoiding them), but it's an interesting question. Unfortunately, rather than exploring this interesting topic, you decided you'd rather hunt racists, which might make you feel all high and mighty but doesn't really advance the conversation.
Perhaps the downvotes are coming from people who find this whole discussion off-topic. Or perhaps you are getting downvoted for your rigid tone or hyperbole.
I dont know why you were downvoted, because that's what I was wondering when I read this. But unfortunately, poor areas are often "high crime areas". Lets forgo the semantics for a second and consider the implications. I wonder if this is just a first step towards "Out of sight, out of mind" approach. Lets not forget that all the 99% are not equal and if we apply Pareto principle, there is a minority that is living in dire circumstances. And considering the flow of wealth this pool will keep growing. I wonder if steps like these will contribute to the escalation of problem. I'm certainly not suggesting that people risk their safety, but 'Eloi' and 'Morlocks' keep popping in my head when I assume that steps like these will only intensify in the foreseeable future..
It is funny that you mention Eloi and Morlocks. Just last night I caught a few taped television commercials and was wondering who their target audience could possibly be. I brought up the concepts of Eloi and Morlocks and a cultural, intelligence, and eventual genetic divide.
I don't intend to sound elitist, but some of the TV commercials were so ridiculous and predatory that I figured they must be aimed at a group of people with low intelligence. This immediately made me think of the Eloi and Morlocks from Time Machine.
I found the concept quite sad. I wondered if that was how the homo sapiens felt about neanderthals? It seems a situation that is ripe for predation. Perhaps we are headed down the same path.
The fact that there's so much downvoting is a nasty sign of the kind of society you're talking about taking shape right here and now. I'm appalled by it. Seems like the Klan's out in force on HN tonight.
