Slashdot Mirror
Uber Pushing For Patent On Surge Pricing
mpicpp sends news that Uber is renewing its push for a patent on "surge pricing," the practice of increasing rider fees when many people are trying to find transportation.
The system measures supply (Uber drivers) and demand (passengers hailing rides with smartphones), and prices fares accordingly. It’s one of at least 13 U.S. patent applications filed by Uber or its founders to give it an edge over potential rivals ahead of a potential initial public offering. So far, Uber hasn’t had any luck. Ten applications were initially rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “obviousness” or for covering something not eligible for protection.
Surge pricing I would have thought falls under the obvious category. It is simply pricing for supply and demand. higher prices bring in more suppliers and reduce the buyers. most businesses don't do it because it is difficult to manage and can cause a lot of customer aggro not because they are not aware of the supply and demand models.
They could patent surge pricing during terrorist or hostage activities.
Uber managed to get some bad press here in Australia when their price went up to $100 for a callout to get out of Sydney when the guy took hostages in the Lindt Cafe there.
Haven't the airlines, railroads, vehicle rental agencies and google already been doing this for years, if not, decades?
It seems pretty suspiciuos that the USPO only now has started to do their jobs - just when UBER's patent-applications crossed their desks.
Requiem for the American Dream
It wasn't allowed because it is too obvious?
For a patent office that allowed 1-click-purchasing, and anything that looks like "X on the net," this is a real change.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Presumably they have a specific implementation for predicting the appropriate price on an ongoing basis.
A classic example, of course is "keep raising the price at some rate until you have product left over." This has some inefficiencies (i.e. lost profit - but also unnecessary delays to customers) which could be reduced if certain modeling of the present can be performed based on historical data.
Balancing supply and demand by raising prices? Who'd have thunk it?
Wait, wasn't there some guy named Adam Smith...
Uber should create an algorithm to automatically detect when people will start whining to politicians about "price gouging".
Then they can send their extra drivers home -- drivers who would be happy to provide high-priced rides. And they can make riders wait for hours -- riders who would be happy to get a ride now, even if it meant paying a high price. Everyone will be poorly served, but no one will be "price gouging".
So when did they use "surge pricing" for the first time in public? Before or after the patent was filed? Performing it in public would be equivalent to a publication and stops it from being patentable.
Adam Smith disclosed that centuries ago.
But this is all different because it is "On The InterNet!"
But there's so much prior art.
It's called "supply and demand" and is the study of any first year economics student.
Supply goes down, or demand goes up, and prices will go up.
Perhaps they should try patenting a test for "how fucking stupid investors and executives are," where they can ask one question:
"Can you patent surge pricing?"
So did Uber just rediscover supply / demand curve and the fact that increased demand with stagnant supply pushes prices up?
I mean that's like the FIRST law of supply and demand, if demand increases and supply stays the same clearing prices go up.
Well, let's see if the patent office knows anything at all about basic economics or if this will be accepted as an 'innovation because of ... computer or mobile phone'.
You can't handle the truth.
I used to use uber in London a lot even with surge pricing it was cheaper than a london taxi, and I could also get one. After a few months it became clear that some thing strange was happening with the surge pricing.
After working late one night I requested a cab, it looked like it was going to be there in about 10 minutes. It was really late and there wasnt much traffic, but car stayed at about 10 minute away for some time. I could see where it was so I started walking a way that would put me in front of it. There were some closed roads and I could move around quicker than a car through the inner city.
Eventually I am in the same street as the car, which is weird, because there is no traffic and no cars on the road, plenty parked though. My phone goes ding and the driver has canceled. I walk up to where the car was meant to be and find the car, parked on the side of the road. Swearing I pull out my phone and use uber, again surge pricing f#!k it I want to go home. I book, the car behind my driver pulls out and immediately picks me up.
The street I was in was quite near my work and its once I was familiar with, at 3am in the morning it wasn't normally full but this night it was. I wonder how long it took them to game the system?
Are they trying to patent the first thing you learn in Econ 101?
By "others" I mean price-gougers like motels, airlines, etc. is that in these industries, EVERYBODY does it and they've been doing it for years so they get away with it. People expect airfare and lodging to cost more during holidays and special events. But Uber is a taxi company and taxi companies don't do this. It's simply not necessary. They have survived for decades charging whatever rate is posted on their door, which seldom changes due to inflation.
But go ahead, Uber. Do what you want. Once people realize they're paying more than conventional cabs, they'll be gone.
Once people realize they're paying more than conventional cabs, they'll be gone.
If so, it's a self-correcting problem. If not, customers must be satisfied with Uber's service and pricing. Either way, there's no reason for anyone besides Uber and Uber's customers to be involved in the decision.
I very much expected that the vast majority of Slashdot commenters would take Uber's side, just because their marketing shtick is anti-establishment making them the darlings of the Slashdot crowd. I'm glad to see, and slightly impressed, to see that the Uber fans here are apparently capable of seeing when the Uber execs are being dicks.
At least ten patents so obvious they got kicked by USPTO already? If Uber is turning into a patent trolling company there might be some seriously conflicted people here on Slashdot.
This is another example of how Uber has advantages over taxis. Most, if not all, taxi fares are highly regulated. A taxi company can not "adjust", read hike, fares in response to demand. If they could do it fares would be much higher on the weekends than on the week days.
If you believe in a patent system at all (which is a separate argument), an original implementation for a relatively obvious concept can still be patentable. Most patents I've seen start out by claiming something fairly obvious (a wheel) and have several progressively less obvious claims before getting to the core invention (a specific axle mounting design, etc.) and then maybe some variations. Most articles about patent abuse focus on the more obvious claims being obvious; that's separate from whether the more abusive actual cases are somebody getting a patent for the less obvious parts and then suing people for violating the much more obvious claims.
Since Uber's lost about 10 previous attempts, they may very well be trying to patent something obvious (charging more when it's busy), or may be trying to patent more specific things about their implementation (but maybe still obvious to the patent examiners, who've actually taken taxis before, even if they haven't written compilers or optimized databases.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Clearly Uber will be sued once in a while for price gouging, tactics as old as world.
Rather than treating it as a future potential liability they want to send a message now to the future uberzealous seekers of the fairness: look, the price gouging is our patent protected right, secured by the laws.
Making a lemonade from lemons at its finest.
thanks.
So far, Uber hasn’t had any luck. Ten applications were initially rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “obviousness” or for covering something not eligible for protection.
WOW, I didn't think it was possible for the modern patent office to turn down a patent request. Though I doubt any will be actually used against competitors. Uber seems to get kicked out of whatever area they start operating, I doubt they will be in business much longer. And I agree with the many others who have already pointed out that basic economics shouldn't be patentable.
Cost might be $0.02 per mile during during off-peak, so about $0.37 for the main I-85 corridor. Same ride might cost $8.50 during rush hour with accidents clogging normal lanes. Lane pricing is dynamic and changes within minutes as traffic conditions change.
I recall Coca Cola tried this on some vending machines based on the weather.
... provides same functionality and similar concept as Uber to add to the competition amidst the taxicab monopoly cartel. :D
Some people might call what they're trying to patent price gouging.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Yes, it was included in a design patent, but it shouldn't have been -- at least not in a way that allowed Apple to beat up Samsung over rounded corners. Rounded corners on a device you slip in your pocket are purely functional.
So the good guys are now trying to patent free market economics? This is awesome.
They're trying to patent something called yield management. I do believe a wikipedia article about an age old process invalidates any legalese patent language you try to wrap around the idea.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Businesses don't because they calculate profit by selling something a % over the cost, they can't react fast enough. Manufacturers will always change based on supply and demand, they would have to. If they use silver, and supply of silver is down, the price has to go up.
To say businesses don't follow the law of supply and demand is like saying some people stop following the law of gravity.
Airports charge more during big travel days, hotels charge more during sporting events, whenever demand goes up, price goes up.
Economists call this supply and demand, perhaps I should patent capitalism and become one of the idle rich.
Something like "publically smacking the applicant in the face" or thereabouts.
I'd sure apply for a job with the PTO then.
Really Uber is pretty much the definition of what a 21st century robber baron looks like. Attempting to set loose the rawest most destructive and most craven form of labor-competition on the people least able to defend themselves in a race-to-the-bottom style of economics which in the end benefits only the principals of Uber.
Giving the finger to the processes and results of democratic law-making that define civilization, as opposed to rule by the powerful or rule by fiat. The laws regarding taxis and transit are not some form of special interest gerrymander lawmaking which benefits some mythical taxi behemouth mega-corporation. They are the hard-won rules of the game which protect people who are constrained to drive others to make their living. They protect the drivers and the customers.
It's amazing to me any nation has tolerated the sheer criminality and public endangerment that Uber's "business method" represents to their people.
And now we're all treated to the spectacle of Uber dragging its overheated crotch along the carpet, mewling for "protection from competition" to those same exact government's whose laws they take a sneering "squat-and-shit on you" attitude.
And worse, crying for absolutely the worst, most anti-competitive, most anti--progress, anti-free market type, anti-innovation form of market protection- business method and software patenting.
Uber is *about* nothing more than the sociopathy and greed of its founders and investors. Nothing more. Nothing.
While this patent application is obviously obvious, plenty of other obvious practices get patented. Apple and Samsung have famously been locked in constant litigation over plenty of things that neither company actually invented including such "obvious" ideas as using a single finger on a touch screen to scroll the page. Amazon appears to own a patent on photography with white backgrounds and a hearing aid company called Hear-Wear has a patent for electrical plugs. There's no shortage of good examples of this. The basic problem is that patents are filed with obstruse technical language to obscure the obviousness of the "invention". Furthermore, some courts require that documentation be provided to establish the obviousness of the invention. In other words, obvious isn't obviously obvious, but you must point to some written proof.
It doesn't surprise me that some company tries to patent the obvious.
It *does* surprise me that the patent office rejects such an application.
Even if this were patentable, it strikes me as a bad idea to be the company that patents it.
Surge Pricing is already one of the most hated features of Uber. Even if that hatred is unfair, there is definitely going to be more pushback as Uber's business grows. When local governments and consumer groups inevitably start trying to sue them for "gouging," wouldn't it be better to have "common industry practice" as a defense, rather than being the only company that is doing it?
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
The patent office should be ok with that.
it's called gouging....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
*That particular" machine would charge less because they wanted to promote that beverage.
However, Coke was also looking at machines that would charge more when it was hot out. See http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10... for one example.
If anyone else tried to patent this they would be called an internet troll hence my calling Uber internet trolls.
Uber is a joke. Make the drivers pay for a medallion like taxi drivers, and watch the company evaporate into thin air.
If somebody sticks a penis into you without your consent, it's rape. When somebody removes money from your wallet without consent, that's robbery. The key words here are "consent".
Nobody is making you buy a ride from Uber, and nobody's going to guarantee to provide a service with a significant marginal cost at whatever money you think is appropriate.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
and think that the market forces lecture was something new and exciting?
"Holy Crap, wait til they hear about this at the office! Maybe we can patent this, call it Invisible Hand (tm) or something."
--- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.