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.

Comments

Surge pricing during security incident

[Harlequin80]

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.

Re:Surge pricing during security incident

[Anonymous Coward]

Also known as price gouging
Illegal in most US states -- probably most other industrialized nations.

Wow, and they're trying to patent it? What a slimeball company.

Re:Surge pricing during security incident

[rockout]

I'm so tired of this bullshit example being trotted out as evidence of how evil Uber is. Here's the facts of what happened in Australia:

A bunch of people suddenly wanted Uber rides out of the area during the hostage situation. Uber's computers responded accordingly, and automatically, in activating the surge pricing. Whether you like the surge pricing or not, it's designed to get more drivers onto the road by providing the incentive of higher pay to meet the spiking demand. One would assume that at least some drivers are more likely to go out and pick up passengers when their phones alert them that they can suddenly make 4x the normal fare.

When human beings running Uber in Sydney became clued in as to what was happening, they made all rides in the area free.

Here's what DIDN'T happen: Uber in Sydney finds out about hostage crisis, says "omg let's charge 4x the normal fare because bunches of people are going to want rides and we can gouge them!"

You can disagree with Uber's business practices, or how they run their business, and that's fine, but when you just start making shit up, you lose all credibility and take away from an intelligent conversation on what to do about Uber. You're the problem.

Surge pricing london style

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Uhhuh

[Ixokai]

Ugh. I'm so tired of this ignorance.

The "rounded corners" were not a utility patent -- it was a design patent, and only one element of it. Those are completely different things. Obviousness has nothing to do with design patents. Design patents are not solely based on a single trait, but a number of traits that are not essential to the function of a thing which, taken together, represent a particular design.

Obviousness is one of the reasons you reject a utility patent, as utility patents are about functionality. Design patents are NOT -- they cover only those parts of the design that are not functional, and only when taken as a whole with all the particular elements (not just rounded corners, but certain ratios, with certain colors, placement of logo, number of buttons, packaging, and so on and so forth) and are meant to protect knock-offs that confuse consumers (as opposed to utility patents which are meant to give temporary monopolies in return for releasing technology to the public).

That said, patents get rejected for obviousness all the time. They just don't make slashdot. This one is so obvious anyone who has ever taken Econ 101 should have considered it obvious so it takes very little in the way of domain knowledge to figure out its obvious -- some other obvious things are maybe obvious to us techies but harder for patent examiners to figure out, especially in the murky world of business method patents (which are all crazy).