←back to thread

Google Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

(patentpandas.org)
1798 points jerryX | 2 comments | 30 Nov 18 05:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
beautifulfreak ◴[30 Nov 18 06:32 UTC] No.18567190[source]▶
If the author pops in here, I hope he takes a look at this patent, because it might be prior art: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8512151 I complained about it to the "Stupid Patent of the Month" attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (here: https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month) and got a nice response agreeing that it looks obvious.
replies(2): >>18567233 #>>18569186 #
neonate ◴[30 Nov 18 06:42 UTC] No.18567233[source]▶
I think the author is a she.
replies(1): >>18567490 #
mirimir ◴[30 Nov 18 07:56 UTC] No.18567490[source]▶
True, but I didn't see that she identified herself, or her gender, in the article. So what's a commenter to do? That's an honest question. Mangle to use "they"? Use some genderless pronoun that'll piss off x% of readers?
replies(5): >>18567518 #>>18567640 #>>18567878 #>>18567914 #>>18568115 #
depressedpanda ◴[30 Nov 18 09:35 UTC] No.18567878[source]▶
> True, but I didn't see that she identified herself, or her gender, in the article. So what's a commenter to do?

Simple.

1. Assume an ostensibly correct pronoun of your own choice (like you did)

2. If someone corrects you, optionally acknowledge the correction and apologize if applicable, then use the correct pronoun henceforth

3. Ignore the overly gender-obsessed people who tell you that you should have used ugly or cumbersome constructs such as "they" or, even worse, "s/he" and variants thereof.

4. Don't worry too much about it; everybody can make an honest mistake.

replies(2): >>18568135 #>>18570208 #
1. Skrillex ◴[30 Nov 18 16:27 UTC] No.18570208[source]▶
Calling "they" an ugly or cumbersome construct seems like a reach. I am a native english speaker, and the use of that word to describe people with unknown characteristics (such as criminal suspects and people with obscured features or seen from a distance) has been very common even before the gender-obsessed people took root. It is merely english.
replies(1): >>18571014 #
2. depressedpanda ◴[30 Nov 18 18:04 UTC] No.18571014[source]▶
Fair enough, point taken. In my native tongue it doesn't work at all. I was mostly referring to the "s/he" abomination (and its variants) anyway.