the service rendered was he made public the details of the invention. Whether Square read or did not choose to read the patent is beside the point.
> Did they get the idea for their product from your patent? Did they learn how to implement their process from patent?
You are assuming that Square did not read his patent - which if true suggests that Square inefficiently re-invented the wheel. You know, that whole standing on the shoulders of giants thing.
However, what we find happening lately is the concept of efficient infringement where large corporations have found it more cost effective to infringe and fight with their lawyer muscle than to pay inventors their due rights.
I completely disagree.
1) http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...
2) www.google.ca/patents/US8396808
3) http://pat2pdf.org/patents/pat8396808.pdf
if not publicly disclosed?
If you have any of those, I'd encourage you to file a public comment with USPTO, as I have repeatedly. Otherwise, yeah, in this case I thought of it first, and I filed a patent on it, and I added a number of important limitations, and it was granted.
You were right at the time, but I just flipped through it now (the meat seems to be in attachments 4 and 5 at the bottom of the original link) and it doesn't change my argument.
What service did you render to Square to earn the payment you claim to deserve? Did they get the idea for their product from your patent? Did they learn how to implement their process from patent?
Are you just trying to get a slice of the pie because of some childish "I thought of it first" garbage, and because our broken patent system allows it?
I suspect it's that last one.
> Yet you argue that they're the pro-innovation good guys
I never argued that. I argued that you are trying to extort money out of Square despite providing them with no real service or benefit, and that this does real harm to innovation.