&gt; So utterly absurd that those things can be patented<p>Your comment was posted just 30 minutes after the comment listing the patents, so am I correct in guessing that you are judging based on the titles, or perhaps the titles plus the abstracts?<p>If so, then you very likely don&#x27;t have anywhere near enough information to figure out whether they are absurd.<p>A patent title just tells you the very general area that the patent is in. If patents were books, the title would just be telling you what section of the library it goes in.<p>Continuing the book analogy, the abstract is like the description on the back of the book. It will give you a better idea of what area the patent is in, but still doesn&#x27;t tell you what is actually patented.<p>You have to read and understand the claims to know what the patent is actually covering. To understand the claims you must read the specification, because the claims are interpreted in light of the specification. In particular, the specification can narrow the meaning of the claims.<p>If you really want to be thorough, you also should get the &quot;file wrapper&quot; for the patent. That&#x27;s the collection of documents associated with the application. In particular, the file wrapper includes copies of any correspondence between the examiner and the applicant. In such correspondence the applicant may say things that narrow some of the claims.