EVE Online would seem to be prior art. The system keeps statistics on players killed recently, and the autopilot has an option which avoids dangerous routes (or those where you are persona non grata for some local NPCs).
This patent was filed by Microsoft in December of 2007 and according to Wikipedia the feature you describe was added in March of 2009 to EVE Online (at least 'change to auto-pilot features...' [I don't play the game so I don't know])
Would that mean they are in violation of the patent?
Wait, I thought you couldn't patent abstract ideas. This is a big bummer for more than just the businesses that will be routed around. The patent is essentially on just the thought of delivering a route based on anything other than shortest or fastest. No novel or non obvious inventions are described. In fact, no inventions are described at all.
At SXSW 2007, I attended a talk about Python code for Symbian phones. One idea that the speaker threw out was having the phone start to vibrate if you were approaching a high crime part of the city. I wonder if that counts toward prior art or public disclosure of the basic idea of routing around dangerous areas?
I was wondering if that was a statement on Baltimore :-) So if you're in the bayshore (a pretty rough part of SF) and you ask for directions does it simply say 'shelter in place'? Or maybe 'call for an escort'?
I totally agree with the sentiment that this isn't a patent any more than patenting a TV that doesn't tune in Adult channels, oh wait, damn.
From reading the title, I imagined a fix for Google's habit of telling me to get off the highway in the middle of the downtown of certain cities around here. I always think "no, Google, that is definitely NEVER the fastest route, no matter WHAT the speed limit supposedly is."
While I can't be sure, I believe that my TomTom Go 730 gives left turns a higher penalty than right turns when calculating a route.
I've seen it pick different roads to go A->B than to go B->A where the only reason I could discern for the difference was minimizing the number of left turns.
Link-bait title conflates "ghetto" with "high crime areas". It's disrespectful to the millions of individuals of various groups who have been forced to live in ghettos.
That is the common meaning of the term nowadays. Many people are actually surprised when they first encounter the original usage as the name for a place where Jews were forced to live. I'm sorry if you consider it disrespectful, but I don't think we should blame the editor for using words as they are commonly understood. The modern usage does derive from the traditional meaning, though — the idea is that certain groups are forced there by socioeconomic conditions over which they have very little control.
I dont know why you were downvoted, because that's what I was wondering when I read this. But unfortunately, poor areas are often "high crime areas". Lets forgo the semantics for a second and consider the implications. I wonder if this is just a first step towards "Out of sight, out of mind" approach. Lets not forget that all the 99% are not equal and if we apply Pareto principle, there is a minority that is living in dire circumstances. And considering the flow of wealth this pool will keep growing. I wonder if steps like these will contribute to the escalation of problem. I'm certainly not suggesting that people risk their safety, but 'Eloi' and 'Morlocks' keep popping in my head when I assume that steps like these will only intensify in the foreseeable future..
[+] [-] prodigal_erik|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hermannj314|14 years ago|reply
Would that mean they are in violation of the patent?
[+] [-] monochromatic|14 years ago|reply
This must seriously be the first patent the writer has ever looked at.
[+] [-] gerggerg|14 years ago|reply
This is saddening.
[+] [-] monochromatic|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meepmorp|14 years ago|reply
This isn't an invention. This is a conversation you have over drinks after work that maybe becomes a product idea.
[+] [-] monochromatic|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lesterbuck|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulhauggis|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Canada|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tryke|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|14 years ago|reply
I totally agree with the sentiment that this isn't a patent any more than patenting a TV that doesn't tune in Adult channels, oh wait, damn.
[+] [-] zmonkeyz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] larrik|14 years ago|reply
This is just for pedestrians, though.
[+] [-] fedd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Symmetry|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daxelrod|14 years ago|reply
I've seen it pick different roads to go A->B than to go B->A where the only reason I could discern for the difference was minimizing the number of left turns.
[+] [-] lansing|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x3c|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbolino|14 years ago|reply