I really feel like there is an educational opportunity for the HN community about patents. We frequently have these articles where the title of the patent is copy pasted into a submission to generate the largest amount of hysteria possible. Then the HN community completely ignores the fact that a) the titles are misleading and b) the titles are meaningless in terms of patent protection.<p>Based on the claims, they are patenting a system for updating client side web server applications. The system attaches source code information to JavaScript object in order to be able to determine the version of source code that generated the objects. The system attempts to provide a way for web applications to update client side code in a browser using the source code the objects were derived from as a way to continue operation without restart.<p>Now, I'm not saying that is novel. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of presumptions that happen before people even get to the claims. Typically, I encourage people to read the claims first, then work their way back through the rest of the application. Without knowing the claims, there is no way to know what they think is protectable.<p>This isn't a justification of the system. I think (software) patents and the patent system are incredibly broken. Thats not a reason to be unfamiliar with the systems. Know your enemy.
reply