5

The patent you refer to expired back in 1983 or so. Any time after that, the teachings are considered public domain. Recall that many patents - especially in the titles, abstract and descriptions - sound insanely obvious and trivial. And indeed some are! However, it is the 'Claims' that determine the scope of what is legally excludable, and these are ...


4

Anyone can try to patent everything he wants to without that beeing fraud. After the application comes the examination where claims like these are just getting rejected. If you want to do something against the patent you can however send "prior art", meaning documents proving that these steps were known before the date of the patent to the patent offices. ...


2

This is not a patent. It is a patent application. It may never become a patent and even if it does, it is very likely the claims will be greatly narrowed. In any case, whatever has been done prior to the priority date of May 15, 2015 represents prior art and shouldn't be impacted. Given the broadness of the claim, it is worth keeping an eye on this ...


2

Short answer is no. Long answer is possible based on novelty and inventive step. It sounds like you need to spend $500-$3k and ask a patent agent or attorney to review your technology and your prior art search. If you don't want to shell out the cash, here's what you can do yourself for free: Information gathering phase: Read the specification carefully. ...


1

This is not a patent yet but still an application, so it hasn't been examined. Only during ther examination is a patent application checked for novelty and non-obviousness. It might be that the examiner finds this patent to be obvious over the prior art and rejects it. If you want to help the examiner / make sure / provide prior art to the examiner, this ...


1

"[T]he specific embodiment is easier to defend and has far higher chances of being approved." These are the main reasons why registered patent attorneys and agents include in just about every patent application a number of narrower (dependent) claims, which incorporate by reference and layer additional elements or further limitations onto the broadest (...


1

They would get granted as they are innovative. If they produced their TVs they would infringe the original patent. In this case, this would probably classify as a "standard essential patent", making licences by the fair reasonable and non discriminating (FRAND) criteria available. The exact explanation of this would go to far, google it and then try to ...


1

I only quickly reviewed the patents. The applications you cited are now issued patents: US9087048B2, US9015037B2, US9176957B2. They seem to be specifically aimed at automatic fact checking of posted or broadcast information. I would gather to reduce the amount of fake news. Read the claims of the linked documents and if you still think they are too broad, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible