The Tinder

Click here: => titersara.fastdownloadcloud.ru/dt?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MzA6Imh0dHA6Ly9iYW5kY2FtcC5jb21fZHRfcG9zdGVyLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MTc6IkRhdGluZyBhcHAgdGluZGVyIjt9


Nazer, with the EFF, says a few months ago he'd have bet on a win for Bumble — but because the legal standards in this area are constantly evolving, today, he's not so sure. The ruling, called the Alice decision, held that if you take an abstract idea and just propose using a computer or the Internet to make it happen, it's still an abstract idea — and still not patentable.

In dueling lawsuits, Match, which owns Tinder, alleges that Bumble infringed on Tinder's intellectual property — while Bumble says that argument is bogus. The dispute between the two companies illustrates a recent shift in how the American legal system treats software patents.

The Tinder

In dueling lawsuits, Match, which owns Tinder, alleges that Bumble infringed on Tinder's intellectual property — while Bumble says that argument is bogus. But Tinder's parent company says the similarities between the apps suggest another kind of swiping — of ideas. In dueling lawsuits, Match, which owns Tinder, alleges that Bumble stole Tinder's intellectual property. The dispute between the two companies illustrates a recent shift in how the American legal system treats software patents. And, in general, it highlights the challenges of taking a patent system designed to protect inventors of machines... The two apps are indisputably similar — especially in their earlier versions. He had high hopes for Bumble. Its users had more thoughtful profiles, he says. But in the years since, Tinder has led to more real-life dates, possibly because there are just more users. There's no love lost between the two matchmaking apps. Bumble's launch sprang from a messy situation at Tinder headquarters. One of Tinder's early employees, Whitney Wolfe Herd, broke up with her boyfriend — who was also her boss and a co-founder of Tinder. She left the company and sued , alleging sexual harassment in a lawsuit that eventually settled. And she started Bumble. Match, the company that owns Tinder, then tried and failed to buy Bumble — twice. In a legal filing, Match's lawyers insisted there's nothing personal in the patent dispute. But Bumble doesn't seem to buy it. We swipe left on your multiple attempts to buy us, copy us, and, now, to intimidate us. We'll never be yours. No matter the price tag, we'll never compromise our values. We swipe left on your attempted scare tactics, and on these endless games. We swipe left on your assumption that a baseless lawsuit would intimidate us. Match says its lawsuit is anything but baseless — detailing, in hundreds of pages of court documents, numerous similarities between the two apps. One of the central questions revolves around Tinder's patented system for connecting people over the Internet. The matching is based on mutual interest, as expressed through a swiping motion. It's a real patent. But Bumble says it shouldn't be. Patents are supposed to cover inventions, not abstract ideas. Design a machine that does something, and you can patent it. Have an general idea, an overall concept? But in the Internet era, people discovered they could get a patent for an otherwise abstract idea as long as they tied it to an existing technology. Then, four years ago, the Supreme Court set new guidance for patenting software with a case called. The ruling, called the Alice decision, held that if you take an abstract idea and just propose using a computer or the Internet to make it happen, it's still an abstract idea — and still not patentable. So meal-planning on the Internet: No longer patentable. But what about Tinder's patent? Burstein says in the post-Alice legal landscape, it's not an easy question to resolve. It's hard to have a simple test for what's an abstract idea, and what's a software invention. But that 'something more' is the difficult part. Asked for comment on the lawsuits, both companies directed NPR toward their publicly available filings. Nazer, with the EFF, says a few months ago he'd have bet on a win for Bumble — but because the legal standards in this area are constantly evolving, today, he's not so sure. A new era for software patents The Supreme Court decision has invalidated a lot of software patents, with courts finding that the patents never really extended beyond a general, abstract concept. That's a good thing, Nazer argues. His group, the EFF, believes overly broad patent protections were bad for competition, and that the Supreme Court's decision has fostered a healthier marketplace for ideas. It's also helped small businesses and start-ups protect themselves against patent trolls — people who get patents just to sue companies — and avoid expensive, drawn-out patent lawsuits, he says. Nazer argues that some ideas should be free to copy — like when Sears was one of the first retailers to start selling goods through a catalogue. Michael Risch, a professor at Villanova University's Charles Widger School of Law, has a few concerns. He agrees that many bad, overly broad patents have been thrown out under the Supreme Court decision called Alice. But good ones could be blocked too, he says. Alexander Graham Bell's patent was kind of broad, he says — you might argue he patented an idea for how to transmit sound over a distance. This push-and-pull, between allowing competition and rewarding true innovation, is at the heart of patent law, says Burstein, the law professor.

So meal-planning on the Internet: No longer patentable. Nazer argues that some ideas should be free to copy — like when Sears was one of the first retailers to start selling goods through a catalogue. We swipe left on your multiple attempts to buy us, copy us, and, now, to intimidate us. The two apps are indisputably similar — especially in their earlier versions. He had high hopes for Bumble. That's a good thing, Nazer argues.