Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Businesses Google The Internet Microsoft Your Rights Online

Is Google AutoLink Patent-Pending By Microsoft? 208

Posted by timothy from the what-would-ben-franklin-do dept.
theodp writes "While Google pooh-poohed any comparison of its controversial AutoLink feature to Microsoft's SmartTag technology, Google's generation of dynamic links to maps and use of ISBN numbers to trigger links to booksellers cover the same territory as Microsoft's 2000 patent application for Providing electronic commerce actions based on semantically labeled strings, whose sole inventor - Jeff Reynar - was the lead SmartTag Program Manager while at MS and is reportedly now a Google Product Manager who's being credited as AutoLink's creator. Reynar's patent applications that have been assigned to Microsoft, including one for Smart Links and Tags, describe a world of 'recognizer' plug-ins that automatically look at every document a user creates, receives or views, transmitting messages to 'action' plug-ins - and even to the plug-ins' authors - that can be used to decide what info you'll be presented with, what options you'll be given, what price you'll pay for goods, and even who you'll be permitted to buy from."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Google AutoLink Patent-Pending By Microsoft? More

Is Google AutoLink Patent-Pending By Microsoft?

Comments Filter:

  • Your Rights Online? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:06PM (#11730028)
    For the love of michael, just make a legal section. This is not about our rights. Not yours, not mine, just Google's. Sheesh.

    • Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:23PM (#11730132)
      This is not about our rights. Not yours, not mine, just Google's. Sheesh.

      No, this is about everyone's rights except Microsoft- which includes me, you, and Google. Just because you may not want to implement a goofy smart-tag-like technology doesn't mean you haven't lost the right to do it.

      • Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @05:05PM (#11730369) Homepage
        So, because Google is still "good" (but for how long???), they can own a stupid patent like this, and because MicroSloth is "bad", they can't???

        • Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by laughingcoyote ( 762272 ) <barghesthowl.excite@com> on Sunday February 20, 2005 @05:19PM (#11730448) Journal

          I think the point more is, neither one should be entitled to patent such an idea, but both should be entitled, if they wish, to implement it. As should you or I be entitled to implement it, or a similar technology, in programs we write.

    • Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ArmchairGenius ( 859830 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:25PM (#11730150) Homepage
      I think it is about our rights. Our rights to new products and technological innovations that are being suppressed from us by large companies that are creating monopolies of technology through the patent system.

      Patents are (at least arguably) a necessary mechanism, but the way patents are being used in the United States is a problem. Especially when patents are being issued that are clearly barred by prior art and then used to extort money from small businesses that cannot afford to fight those patents. See the EFF [eff.org] for more info.

    • Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:4, Funny)

      by j0nkatz ( 315168 ) * <anon AT memphisgeek DOT com> on Sunday February 20, 2005 @05:02PM (#11730350) Homepage
      Dear:
      [X] Clueless n00b
      [X] Lamer
      [_] Flamer
      [_] Pervert
      [_] Sexist
      [X] Spammer
      [_] Racist
      [X] Dumbass
      [X] Waste of Life
      [X] Other: Pathetic Moron

      You are being flamed because:
      [X] You obviously don't know anything about the topic at hand.
      [X] You started a pointless thread.
      [_] You bumped a pointless thread.
      [X] Your post contained nothing but crap.
      [_] You can't spell more than 3 words right.
      [X] Your awful markup made the post unreadable.
      [_] You made a useless assumption.
      [_] You posted IN ALL CAPS FOR NO APPARENT REASON.
      [_] You tYpEd SoMeThInG lAmE lIkE tHiS.
      [_] You don't know how to use the search feature
      [X] You say you're "1337".
      [_] You posted a topic that's been posted 50 times already.

      As punishment, you must:
      [X] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea of what you're doing.
      [X] Stab yourself in the eye with a pen.
      [_] Give up your internet account.
      [X] Eat paint chips for the next 6 months.
      [X] Make goat.cx your home page.
      [_] Jump into a bathtub with a toaster.
      [X] Fuck yourself in the ass with a cactus
      [X] Attach a car battery to your scrotum

    • Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:5, Informative)

      by laughingcoyote ( 762272 ) <barghesthowl.excite@com> on Sunday February 20, 2005 @05:21PM (#11730463) Journal

      Software patents gravely affect the rights of every developer out there, where have YOU been living?

      • Somewhere where there are no software patents - yet.

        The MPAA, RIAA, patent, political and other mechanisms of old are all becoming increasingly abusive with each passing year, all in the name of profits and against all regardless of consequences for the general public.

        After bombings and plane crashes comes litigative terrorism - but this form is endorsed by governments so we need an alternative to that.
    • Surprisingly enough, there are many /.'ers who dev for a living. Sadly, news of such patents affects end users as well.
    • "For the love of michael, just make a legal section. This is not about our rights. Not yours, not mine, just Google's. Sheesh."

      And another thing, it really pisses me off that the show was called 'Deep Space Nine' when they went an entire season where they weren't on the station and it was called Terak Nor. For the love of michael, they should have called it Star Trek: Terak Nor for that season!! Of course, after every episode, I was on the internet registerring my complaint throughout the world!

  • I am Jack's total lack of surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by no parity ( 448151 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:08PM (#11730035)
    Sure. Everything gets patented these days. Do we really need a separate story every time someone digs up something like this?
    • There's a lot more to news than its "surprise" value. Talking about these stories is part of what makes the nerd community strong. You want pure infotainment, go to Fark [fark.com]. The rest of us can carry on with the community activities that protect the rights of even the infoporn surfers who can't even complain for themselves.
  • wonder how many google posts we can get in a year...

  • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:16PM (#11730094)
      At this point it doesn't matter if it is a breach of the NDA. As soon as Google starts making money form it, Microsoft will send them a take down and sue them for "lost revenues".

      In Microsoft vs. the DoJ Microsoft won (even though it doesn't say that in the court documents)
      In Microsoft vs. Google who will win?

      • Nah. Google is a big boy now and has a decent patent portfolio of its own. All that'll happen is that Microsoft and Google will enter some kind of cross-licensing agreement (if they haven't already) and that will be that.

        Now, if you or I decided to set up a Web site to run along those lines ... yeah, there'd be lawyers involved.

        • All that'll happen is that Microsoft and Google will enter some kind of cross-licensing agreement

          MSN Search licensing Google search technology? Tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, anyone?

        • Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by hoppo ( 254995 )

          Google certainly has the capital to fight this (typically, litigation runs at about $1-2M per year), or at least drag it out for a long time.

          The end result we eventually will see all depends on how strongly Microsoft feels Google is infringing, and how well they feel their patent will stand up in court. It won't be until after discovery that they have a better picture of the strength of their case.

          After that, one of three things will happen:

          1. They'll decide Google's argument has a strong foundation, an
        • Now, if you or I decided to set up a Web site to run along those lines ... yeah, there'd be lawyers involved.
          There's lawyers heavily involved in their transaction as well. It's simple economics. They both have enough money to hire the best lawyers in the world. I bet the agreement is a hundred pages long and contains as many absurd possibilities, ridiculous conditions, and tortured sentence clauses as you can count. But this is because the two companies are becoming closer competitors in many arenas. By t
    • I agree. This has nothing to do with patents. If this story is true, it seems Microsoft could easily win this case, and wants to spin it so it looks like patents are why it won, when they are irrelevant, they will win because it was a violation of their employment contract.

  • Tracking in such an evil sense (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rebeka thomas ( 673264 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:09PM (#11730043)
    > that can be used to decide what info you'll be presented with,
    > what options you'll be given, what price you'll pay for goods,
    > and even who you'll be permitted to buy from.

    All the better reason to not let anyone online know who you are, where you've been, and where you come from.

    • Re:Tracking in such an evil sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:34PM (#11730207)
      Things like this are the last things that concern me about Google. I'm more interested in the fact they have an ex-NSA guy with security clearance working there, and freely state in all their privacy policies that they will happily give in to any governmental requests to turn over user data. This includes your Gmail (which they freely state might remain indefinitely on their systems, even after deletion, and get searched at any time), your search terms and habits (the infamous Google cookie that logs your IP and is set to expire in 2038), and so on.

      I know it sounds paranoid, but considering Google's insane amount of traffic, and the fact the majority of their traffic comes from outside the US, coupled with their employee ties with the government and their past privacy issues, I've tended to stop using Google so much. Also, their search results have really begun to suck since 2003. Using Google to find anything is a frustrating experience.

  • In two words... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by datastalker ( 775227 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:10PM (#11730048) Homepage
    ...who cares?

    Eventually, as in every other case like this, there will be a lawsuit.

    One side will win, the other won't. In either case, the loser will just change some small piece of the technology, and it will no longer infringe, if it even did in the first place.

    The lawyers will get rich.

    None of us will be affected in the slightest.

    Cynical? Maybe. But before moderating, ask yourself if I'll end up being right.

    • Re:In two words... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by unoengborg ( 209251 )
      >None of us will be affected in the slightest.

      Not true. Software patents is too complex to evaluate to most businesses. They will simply treat it like any other financial risk.

      The result is that some software that we otherwise would have the benefit of using will never be produced and that those who chose to produce software inspite of this risk wants higher compensation for taking that risk. I.e. higher software prices.

      The fact that some will not take the risk will mean that less software hits the ma

  • I can't quite put my finger on it... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:10PM (#11730050)
    But, when I see this, I have this feeling of overlords or something.

    Wierd.

  • Time for Google to come out against EU Patents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NigelJohnstone ( 242811 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:11PM (#11730064)
    Perhaps Google should now come out against patents in Europe.

    Afterall their patents on search technology are worthless, anyone could use Pagerank and Google could not show they had used it -> failed attempt to protect invention.

    Their newer search technology (they changed the algo last year), hasn't been disclosed in patent form and so the SEOs & competitors don't know how it works and MS couldn't copy it -> successful defence of invention.

    They don't hold enough patents to join the "big company patent exchange club".
  • Google, the world's most widely used search engine, denied that the AutoLink feature is an attempt to control which destinations Web surfers visit.

    I haven't looked that deep into the Google toolbar. How customizable is it? I can only imagine that it doesn't allow you to use any site that you want for maps, directions, etc -- you probably have to choose from Google's list, right? The article mentions a choice between Yahoo and Mapquest. Can I input my own URLs in there (similar to the way Konqueror's URL
    • Then again I could always just get the damn map myself without using the Google toolbar...

      Exactly, and the toolbar isn't a compulsory thing either, you have to specifically wish to download and install it and reading it's notes before you do. You're not forced to do anything with it.

  • ISBN prior art (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cratermoon ( 765155 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:18PM (#11730107) Homepage
    Slightly off-topic, but I can cite prior art for use of ISBN numbers to trigger links to booksellers back to the mid/late 90s, when Amazon first created their affiliate program. One of the first Wikis would look for ISBN in the text of pages and automatically turn them into links to Amazon.
    • I believe MediaWiki (ie, Wikipedia) does this sort of thing for ISBN numbers, RFC's and possibly others . Not sure for how long, though.
      • MediaWiki (as used in The Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and The Metaweb [metaweb.com]) automatically treats "ISBN xxx" as a dynamic link to a customizable list of ISBN-aware sites like Amazon, Powell's Books, and the Library of Congress.

        I would also look for prior art in Alexa's existing patents and public software. In the latter case, I believe zBubbles, Alexa Internet [alexa.com]'s comparison shopping tool from 1999/2000, did dynamic linking from pages to products, going so far as to insert product links (bubbles) into pages as the user visits them

    • The application was filed November 26, 2001. By that time, there were several client-side applications for adding arbitrary links. Only some of the dependent claims in that application are probably valid, such as the use of an automatic update for link patterns and targets. (By "valid" I don't mean "nonobvious" though.)

  • Sounds dodgy. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:23PM (#11730135) Homepage Journal
    I have not used the Google toolbar - I use Firefox under linux - however I have RTFA and what is described to me sounds rather dirty play on googles part. The action of modifying web pages containing addresses or ISBN to drive click through traffic seems pretty low to me. While im not sure what to make of the patent infringements allegations (inserting smart tags into html at development time is rather different from using search technology to do this on the fly - although the result may be the same) Im not keen on google using theses kinds of pratices it blackens their reputation and seems more like the kind of stunt Microsoft would pull. Google need to be extra vigilent now that Redmond have stepped up the fight. My advice to google would be to keep their face clean. Its not just surfers that are going to be miffed with this but developers and their customers too.

    Nick

    • The action of modifying web pages containing addresses or ISBN to drive click through traffic seems pretty low to me.

      Actually you seem to have misunderstood. This is something the user has to actively choose to install. The modification to the web pages is no more dirty play than supressing popups or blocking ads. (Although the copyright holders of those pages may have a thing or two to say on the matter) This is not something they force on the user without his knowledge.

      This is basic economics, you p


    • seems more like the kind of stunt Microsoft would pull

      I don't recall Gates ever proclaiming the ability to define what was "Evil" as a matter of corporate policy, unlike Page and Brin. Should be interesting to see how AutoLink plays out, given the howls when Microsoft introduced smart tags in Office.

      I find Google to be quite useful, though I don't use it exclusively. That said, Google management obliterated its credibility with me on the "We won't be Evil" front when they granted themselves stock with pre


    • I remember a few years ago having having received a reply to one of my mail. The guy who had replied had used a web-based mail client, and the funny part was that my original mail was quoted in his reply and some word in my mail had been replaced by links to web sites ... Obviously, his client was doing this.

      Pretty upsetting if you ask me.

      --
      Go Debian!
    • Here's the difference: It's off by default, and you have to click a button to make it work -- for the single page that you're on.

      Further, it's not limited to working with Google Maps -- you can tell it to use Yaho! Maps or MapQuest if you like, instead.

  • Slashdot Primer (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Google good.
    Microsoft bad.

  • Sounds anti-trust to me -- (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:30PM (#11730177) Homepage Journal
    "..that automatically look at every document a user creates, receives or views, transmitting messages to 'action' plug-ins - and even to the plug-ins' authors - that can be used to decide what info you'll be presented with, what options you'll be given, what price you'll pay for goods, and even who you'll be permitted to buy from."

    Interesting that anti-spyware has shown fresh installs of MS windows OS has spyware that tracks online use ...

    Where are our privacy laws and fair competition laws?

    Or do we really know who has bought them away from us?

    The only way for this to be faired up is to allow any and everyone who wants to use such a thing, to be able to. Just like the solution to the "trillion dollar bet">/a> was faired up, via exposure and wide scope use. [pbs.org]

    Or in other words: nobody gets an unfair (anti-competition) advantage in marketing via patenting some automated privacy invading information collecting marketing process.

    Most software is NOT patentable as shown by abstraction physics" [ffii.org], and that certainly includes this.
    • ...software is NOT patentable as shown by abstraction physics"...

      JHC, what a crappy article! It's full of spelling mistakes and gobbleygook like:
      "There is an identifiable and definable 'physics of abstraction' (abstraction physics), an identification of what is required in order to make and use abstractions."

      You do the s/w world a disservice with that link, IMHO.

  • End users (Score:2, Insightful)

    by goodgoing ( 810124 )
    Would anybody care if this feature was pulled from Google's toolbar? In my opinion this is a non-issue.

  • It's all about convenience and innovation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gunpowda ( 825571 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:33PM (#11730199)
    This doesn't seem like a malicious feature intended to force users to visit certain sites whenever Google should so choose: users don't have to download the toolbar or use the feature. The fact that people use the Google toolbar in the first place suggests that they appreciate the usability enhancements it offers, and auto-linking is more likely to help than hinder. Google Maps, for example, is the most user-friendly map service around, and it's a choice that most people would make anyway. The same argument could be made about Amazon.

  • google has evolved (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pair-a-noyd ( 594371 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:33PM (#11730200)
    from a search engine to the worlds largest e-commerce engine.

    When I search for, for instance, HP Laserjet schematics, I get 40 pages of assholes peddling toner cartridges and refill kits.

    That's NOT what I asked for, I want to find schematics that I can view. I don't want to buy a frigging CDROM with schematics on ebay, or laddersearch or toner carts or any of the other nonsense that google throws at me.

    God I despise google. It has become the most useless of all search engines but the most profitable of all investments for online peddlers..

    • This is, paradoxically, because it is the best. People specifically try to get a high Pagerank in Google because it it so widely used. Any other search engine would suffer the same problem. The solution, of course, is to have diversity of search engines.
      • People specifically try to get a high Pagerank in Google because it it so widely used.

        The people that get high pageranks are the people that PAY for them. Big business ends up at the top of the heap and non commercial sites are tossed WAY to the bottom.

        I'm not saying that Dogpile [dogpile.com] is any better but at least it skims over most of the other search engines too.

        The days of finding free info and free anything on the internet are done for.
        I guess cheapskates like me are doubleplusungood for the e-conomy...

    • http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html. We (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dmoen ( 88623 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @05:59PM (#11730628) Homepage
      I recently emailed google, complaining about a search result very similar to what you described. They sent me this:
      Thank you for your note. We understand your concern and are constantly working to improve the quality of our search results. If you encounter sites that are trying to deceive our web crawlers, please submit a report at http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html. We use these reports to collect data that our engineers use to devise scalable solutions to fight spam in our search results. While we do not always take action on individual sites as a result of these reports, please be assured that we are using the information to make large-scale improvements to our system.

      We appreciate your assistance in maintaining the quality of our search results.

      Regards,
      The Google Team

      Whenever I get a google search result that is full of spam, I usually try several other search engines, but the other engines results are normally worse than what Google gives me.

      If you know a search engine that is less susceptible to spam than Google, please share!

      Doug Moen.

  • because when companies start making little green annoying links to advertising sites instead of links they piss me off the web, and it matters not who is doing it, but that it is being done.

    damn the web sucks nowwadays.

    the problems is, popups, spyware, malware, far less concern for me (I never see any) that the likes of pipipiqipqiqp [slashdot.org] and his fuck-tard antics.

    see sig.
  • Jeff Reynar - was the lead SmartTag Program Manager while at MS and is reportedly now a Google Product Manager who's being credited as AutoLink's creator.

    Well, who more better qualified than Mr. Reyner to know that what Google is doing does not conflict with his previous patent, right? ;-)

    • unless...
      (anti-MS paranoid mode ON)

      1) get ex employee into a competing company (as a "mole")
      2) the employee, as previously instructed, comes up with an idea the ex-employer has already patented
      3) wait until idea is deployed
      4) sue
      5) (no ???)
      6) profit!!!

      BTW I don't like smart tags, Google's or anyone else's.

  • does this cover www.domain.com autolinking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wotevah ( 620758 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:42PM (#11730250) Journal
    Does this cover autolinking of URLs, like every decent mail or IM client does with text messages ?

  • Has it finally happened? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:45PM (#11730267) Homepage Journal
    Is Google finally... EVIL? ;P

  • Derivative Work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pmc ( 40532 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:49PM (#11730280) Homepage
    Randomly musing here, but surely Google is creating a derivative work by modifying the pages before they are seen by the user? This would make them in breach of copyright if true (unless they have the permission of the author of the page, which seems pretty unlikely).

    Of course, you could argue that the user is creating the derivative work and just using google as the means to do this, but I think modifying content to this extent falls outside fair use.

    Ironic then that they are (allegedly) infringing on Microsoft's patent (a form of intellectual property) while they infringe on other people's copyrights (another form of IP).
    • I think that would land heavily on the user. AutoLink (as I understand it) is an optional function of the toolbar that must be explicitly enabled by the user.

      As for copyright violations, I seriously doubt it. That would be like filing suit against me for making a mandatory minimum text size in my browser. Or perhaps even like me looking at a book through sunglasses. I haven't changed the content and republished it, I've just modified the way I see the original work.

      An interesting idea though.
      • There is a lawsuit going on between the movie studios and various video distributers. The gist of it is that the distributers are editing films for content (sex, violence etc) and renting people the edited version. There are various facets of the lawsuit but it boils down to how much a third party (ClearFlicks) can alter the content of a second party (A movie studio) without breaching copyright.

        Complex and I don't think it has been resolved. For example if you give a film to a friend to edit for you is thi

  • Answer (Score:2, Funny)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 )
    Yes.

    I love it when Slashdot uses headlines that can be answered in a single word. Makes commenting so much easier.
  • Deja.com, the first major web archive of usenet [news.google.com is built on their archive], has a similar "feature" where it would add advertising links to certain words in the archive. I don't know exactly when this was, but this article [wired.com] is mid-2000 and refers to another now defunct site, Remarq, doing it even earlier.

    Interestingly enough, with both Deja and Remark, the users complained enough that the companies dropped the plans.

  • Apple did it first anyway. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday February 20, 2005 @05:09PM (#11730396) Homepage
    Apple had an API some years before the entire Microsoft "smart tags" mess which allowed programs to sign up to flag certain types of text anywhere in the system and define operations you could do on them. It was an experimental/research thing, like OpenDoc, and I don't believe it ever was allowed into an OS release, you had to download it. The only plugin that this API came with-- and as far as I know the only one that anyone ever bothered making-- was one that recognized URLs and email addresses whenever they were printed anywhere in the system, and turned them into functional hyperlinks. I am afraid I can't remember the exact name, it was something really generic like "Apple Text Activation Services".

    The only thing this patented Microsoft system seems to add is the idea of the link being calculated on a remote server rather than locally; this is a truly trivial step from what Apple's system explicitly did, and one that may not even exactly describe the google toolbar system.
  • It's not "Microsoft's technology", they didn't invent it--they are only trying to patent it. Whether the patent holds up despite that remains to be seen, but Google has enough money and clout to at least fight it.

  • The US is becoming irrelevant... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zogger ( 617870 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @06:42PM (#11730917) Homepage Journal
    .......to the worlds economy. It hasn't happened completely yet but that is what all the indicators say are coming soon to a reality near you. Here me out on this, this IP patent nonsense is tied to global power play economics in a big way..

    We no longer are the premier manufacturer, and soon we won't be the largest customer/consumer base either. Within this decade this is happening, all the think tank analysts have said more or less the same thing, because the raw data is just raw data and it's just not that hard to see it.

    Software can be written anywhere, it is no longer the arcane and exclusive province of a few thousand people in high level corporate or governmental/academic circles. It's a cheap commoditised "product" that x-millions create daily and x-tens of millions will be doing shortly within a few years. And most of the rest of the world is going to a FOSS model a lot quicker than we are, because of the benefits they see in it. That's not my call, just what you can see happening and read about.

    Manufacturing of tangibles goes to those who care to do it, see Asia,the west made a decision via their "leaders" to minimise that because it was "too hard" or something, so there ya go. And despite people thinking software is all that important, tangibles still rule economically and in geopolitical importance, people eat real food, not virtual food, they drive real cars, not video game cars,they live in real homes not some ridiculous sim city environment. And etc, etc, etc.

    Software is important,no one will deny that, but it's still the tool, not the product. Software more exists (outside of "entertainments") to facilitate production of Tangible Stuff mostly, of and by itself it's not as important except for that task, and the freer the better the faster the gooder it is,and patenting really balls up that process, s-o-o-o-o, software is coming from the FOSS world now, and it will only get better. and the two just don't mix, patents and FOSS. It's a bad idea really to even try.

    Raw materials and energy come from where they come from, the US uses a lot more than we produce, so we fail it there as well economically. Just this year we even switched to a net ag products importer from exporter, the last thing we were the world leader in.

    In short, all we have are weapons and hollywood and music as exports of note,all the other traditional exports are in decline,they are not going to recover, and patents on dubious software advances are a phony way to say we are still producing ultra valuable commodities, and are a last ditch paper work shuffling effort to make that fantasy come true, but the rest of the world ain't buying that. It's like calling all the stock market numbers the same as real money, it just ain't so. Patented "IP" is beyond a "tech bubble" phenomenon, it actually serves as a form of economic strangulatory suicide, except for a few people for a relatively short period of time. It's a smokescreen to feed to the US public to keep them faked out we still produce much.

    Really, the only thing keeping the US afloat and uberimportant economically right this second is we have a force projection expansionist based military, a doofus at the top who is more than willing to use it, for all practical purposes a mercenary military dedicated to a small handful of transnationals and their controllers (I am sorry for that but it's true and I wish it weren't so...sorry), and the amount of our global debt we have accumulated. And we are in no position to actually pay this debt with anything real or intrinsically valuable, so they came up with this whopper fantasy game of "patenting" IP so that we could demand real stuff-money,goods and services for it, from "everyone else", that guy, and coincidently help to assuage the day of reckoning with this debt and no-tangible-work fiasco they got us into.

    And it won't work, because the rest of the planet just ain't that dumb no mo' no mo'

  • I control the vertical a-holes! (Score:3, Funny)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @06:56PM (#11731012) Homepage
    The technology dredges up a long-simmering legal debate over who owns the desktop. Does the consumer have the right to install software that can manipulate the appearance or delivery of Web pages? Or does the Web publisher have the ultimate say and control over how its content is displayed?
    Guess what? I went to the news.com.com page and clicked View/Page Source and read it that way. (Gods, it's ugly HTML!) Then for an encore, I browsed the page with my Clippy-tech voice reader. (The little character will do various animation routines when it hits keywords. Wheee!) It's still reading the feedback comments.

    Better come lock me up! I know how things work and how to program; I'm a dangerous fellow!

  • How to defeat Google's linking (Score:3, Informative)

    by Everyman ( 197621 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @07:29PM (#11731180) Homepage
    The new toolbar creates links on specific text if no links exist, but you can shield this text with a null link and make the toolbar look like it's broken. Instructions here [google-watch.org].

  • Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)

    by SJ ( 13711 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @09:11PM (#11731751)
    This patent should not be granted.

    I can't for the life of me remember the name for it, but back in the days of MacOS 9, Apple had some software that would parse any text on the screen and present you with a contextual menu that would be full of links to various things you could do with it.

    It would be able to recognize a physical address and present you with a map. It could recognize email and web addresses in any application. It would add dates to your calendar and any number of other definable things.

    Thats the name...

    Apple Data Detectors.
    http://www.miramontes.com/writing/add-cacm/add-cac m.html [miramontes.com]

    Would this not be exactly what the SmartTags patent is all about?

  • So long as we have software patents (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gov_coder ( 602374 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:21PM (#11732725) Homepage
    Good and bad companies alike will be forced to dance this silly legal jig.

    The only real voice we have in this battle is our wallets. I'm sending my spare dimes where they can best help fight [fsf.org] this stuff.

    Don't hate the players - fix the game.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close