Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Patents Displaying Patents

Comments Filter:
  • Uh... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Didn't the Patent Office figure out and implement the displaying of patents first? Like... oh, maybe a century or two ago?
    • Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Sunday November 22, 2009 @04:35PM (#30196076) Journal

      I don't think Google is here who is to blame. We see these kinds of news everyday by Microsoft etc too. It's just how the (broken) US patent system works and companies have to cope with that too.

      Ironically, Google Patents can't seem to find the new Google patent for Google Patents.

      To be fair, there's no translation of the papers online everywhere else either.

      Also;

      The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but reserves all other copyrights whatsoever.

      So like with many other computer patents, they just seem to be covering their own asses against patent trolls. Blame the system, not those who need to work with it.

      • Oblig... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Cryacin (657549) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @06:22PM (#30196914)
        "It's a coffee table book... about coffee tables!!!"
      • by orwant (49048)

        There's a time lag between when the USPTO issues a patent and when Google receives the data from the USPTO. It'll be live soon.

        -Jon (Google Patents guy)

    • Re:Uh... (Score:5, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @04:39PM (#30196112) Homepage Journal

      The summary's misleading. It isn't the displaying of patents that Google patented, it is the particular Web GUI that they patented. Which is, mind you, fairly unique in that it displays the original images quickly and uses particularly unique layout for the display of the very intuitive controls.

      Not that I agree with software patents, I think they're stupid, but under current patent laws, what they patented seems to meet the standard for what is patentable.

      (IANAL, TINLA, bleh.)

      • Re:Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nog_lorp (896553) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @04:55PM (#30196248)

        Not even the web GUI, the exact visual layout of the GUI, just like people patent other designs (textiles for example).

        Not news like 90% of Slashdot today (what the fuck, an OLD VERSIONS OF IE exploit is news here? 10 of those are uncovered a day)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by radtea (464814)

        The summary's misleading

        Thanks for the information! When I read the headline I of course thought, "I wonder what Google has patented. It's too bad I don't know anything about it, having just read the headline and summary. I can be pretty Google has filed a patent application, but I have no idea what it's on."

        Wouldn't it be amazing if the /. editors actually posted actual information in summaries?

        • The more you know about patents, the more liable you can be for breaking them. If you read about the patent beforehand, you can be awarded triple damages by the brilliant patent system. Innovation at work I guess..

          So it's best to know LEAST about patents, and not learn from anything else than free sources of information (which is prior art).

          So please don't give more information about patents, because they're a BIG liability!

          • Why do you say that? It all depends on what the patent is about. In this case, it's a design patent. I don't think anyone here is in danger of copying Google's particular visual layout.

            Besides, I'm not sure I've ever seen Slashdot list all of the claims of a particular patent anyway. In addition, it's important to remember that while you can get be liable for breaking patents by reading about a patent beforehand, the burden of proof is still on your accuser. And no, a Web log is not adequate proof that

          • by twr57 (976263)
            "If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise". The US system is slightly stupid in its application of 'innocent infringement', but it's the lawyers who advise you not to read patents, so as to avoid triple damages, who are really crazy. It's a bit like advising drivers to drive blindfold, to avoid charges of deliberate manslaughter.
      • by twr57 (976263)
        Yes, it's a substandard post. This is not a patent on GUIs as such, but a design patent (note the D prefix) to the particular form of GUI shown. And Google haven't got round to indexing design patents yet, so no wonder you can't find it on their system.
    • by 91degrees (207121)
      No. They figured out a way to do so. Patents are on the solution, not the problem.
    • Re:Uh... (Score:4, Funny)

      by ls671 (1122017) * on Sunday November 22, 2009 @07:55PM (#30197554) Homepage

      Never mind that... I sense a business opportunity...

      "Google Patents can't seem to find the new Google patent for Google Patents."

      I am going to patent the process by which Google Patents will be able to find the new Google patent for Google Patents. ;-)

      • Impossible! I already patented the action of patenting! And I patented (the result* of) x':

        x'(x) = something whose patenting would prevent patenting x
        where x in X
        X = { x'(y) | y <- Y }
        Y = { p, X }
        p = "patenting the action of patenti

        • Surely an algorithm can't be patented. :/
          • by twr57 (976263)
            Not as such, but if you're using it for something useful (control of an industrial process, for example, you can usually patent it for that use.
      • Ultimate ending patent to every patent and copyright for the next 20 years.

        The last and ultimate patent, the patent to end all copyrights, and patents and everything the human race can do besides movement. and working,

        lets end this once and for all if no one does anythin about it just patent human languages this includes writing, and speach, that would be the ultimate patent end it all.

    • by Carnildo (712617)

      You see that "D" in the patent number? This is a design patent [wikipedia.org], on the appearance of their particular user interface for displaying patents. For the next 14 years, nobody else can copy the "decorative ornamentation" of their page. Since it's not a utility patent, anybody can copy the underlying idea of displaying patents.

  • O RLY? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    In other news, I just sent in an anonymous patent patenting posting anonymous comments!

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by Lord Lode (1290856)
      I patent posting articles about patents related to patents!
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      My lawyers will be contacting you with a cease and desist letter, very soon...

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      OK, but I have the design patent that covers the design of the anonymous display of anonymous comments discussing anonymous patents.

      And yes it's anonymous.

  • No, they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Halo1 (136547) <jonas...maebe@@@elis...ugent...be> on Sunday November 22, 2009 @04:33PM (#30196058) Homepage

    They got a design patent. That's something complete different [wikipedia.org] from a regular patent.

  • Design Patent (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22, 2009 @04:35PM (#30196072)

    It's a design patent. Please learn how the patent system works before posting patent stories.

    • Re:Design Patent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Sunday November 22, 2009 @04:37PM (#30196096) Journal

      You must be new here. Every patent story on Slashdot is like this, and in every case theres tons of people jumping in who can't seem to understand the abstract is just that.. an abstract. You need to read the actual claims and description to see what is being patented.

      But lets not get into way of some good sensationalism journalism.

      • by Megaweapon (25185)

        You must be new here. Every patent story on Slashdot is like this, and in every case theres tons of people jumping in who can't seem to understand the abstract is just that.. an abstract. You need to read the actual claims and description to see what is being patented.

        But lets not get into way of some good sensationalism journalism.

        "journalism"? Are YOU new here? :)

      • But lets not get into way of some good sensationalism journalism.

        What do you mean? That is the only kind we have left!

      • What are you talking about? It wasn't even "edited" by kdawson!

      • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

        I've been arguing this since I started reading Slashdot years ago (notice my 5 digit ID). It is utterly appalling how ignorant the editors of Slashdot are on this issue. Yes there are problems with the US Patent system, but you aren't going to constructively address them with this sort of drivel.

        • I've been arguing this since I started reading Slashdot years ago (notice my 5 digit ID). It is utterly appalling how ignorant the editors of Slashdot are on this issue. Yes there are problems with the US Patent system, but you aren't going to constructively address them with this sort of drivel.

          My theory is that ALICE http://www.alicebot.org/patents.html [alicebot.org] has secretly taken over the editing on this topic.

    • It's just theodp's usual patent trolling:

      http://www.google.com/search?q="theodp+writes"+intitle:patent+site:slashdot.org [google.com]

    • by yuhong (1378501)
      Even worse, not the only time. Remember Google's design patent on it's home page?
      • by treeves (963993)

        No, but I'm pretty sure there's a patent on using "it's" (with the apostrophe) as a possessive pronoun.
          Better watch out!

  • Yo dawg (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22, 2009 @04:38PM (#30196104)

    Yo dawg, herd u liek patents, so I put a patent on displaying patents so now you can violate my patent while ur lookin at patents.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The above comment is a violation of Xzibit's Recursion, patent number 112358.

  • I've tried to figure out Google's stance on software patents, but it's never clear.

    The brief they signed for the Supreme Court Bilski case does seem to argue against software patents, so that's the main thing.

    On the other hand, they're stockpiling them. But do they use them aggressively? Have they ever argued *for* them being generally allowed by the USPTO?

    (I know they support "patent reform", but that's only important for massive corporations, it's got little to do with anything of importance to software

    • by houstonbofh (602064) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @04:46PM (#30196184)
      Just makes me think of an old Danny D'vito quote from Other Peoples Money.
      "Of course I've got lawyers. They are like nuclear weapons: I've got em coz everyone else has. But as soon as you use them they screw everything up."
    • by canajin56 (660655)
      This isn't a software patent.
      • Glad to know you agree with us all on that... ...but the question was on a different topic.

        I've given the highlights of Google's patents moves. Today's story adds another crumb of info, this time about design patents on software. The question is: anyone else got new pieces to add to help make the picture of Google's stance on software patents?

        • Design patents don't cover software. They cover the visual design of something. Like a trash can or a page layout. In this case it happens to be a page layout of the display of a patent.

          This is just another instance of the absolute lack of knowledge of the patent system by the editors of slashdot. Nothing to see here, move along.

    • by JoshuaZ (1134087)
      While this isn't a software patent you bring up a good point in regards to Google's patent strategy. They are in favor of reform but as long as everyone else is making software patents and similar patents they need to do do defensively to stay competitive.
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Here [beyondtext.ac.uk] is every corporation's stance on patents.

  • Yo dawg (Score:1, Redundant)

    I thought you'd like to patent viewing your patent, so we patented viewing your patent viewing your patent!
  • Prior Art (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Jeff Bezos already has a patent on patenting patents.

  • Good God (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DaMattster (977781)
    Enough is enough! A good corollary would be a tax on paying taxes. No, Google, is not to blame but the system and the lobbyists that built it should be blamed. Software patents are anti-competitive and end up hurting innovation. Software patents are going to cause the computing industry to go the way of manufacturing - the US will no longer be a leader in development.
    • That's interesting. I've now read several times that Google isn't to blame. I don't recall to ever read the same when Microsoft patented anything.

      • by retchdog (1319261)

        Huh? That happens all the time. Microsoft needs defensive patents; &c. Then someone brings up the offensive FAT lawsuits, and TomTom GPS settlement, &c.

  • by MrKaos (858439) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @05:31PM (#30196446) Journal
    that things are getting to be ridiculous right about now.
  • by pydev (1683904) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @05:54PM (#30196634)
    Google isn't "patenting displaying patents", they are getting a design patent on the look of Google Patents. Design patents are harmless; they just mean that if you display patents, it should be visually different from Google.
  • by Dunbal (464142)

    Does this make google evil now?

  • by theodp (442580) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @06:19PM (#30196890)

    Ford Seeks to Stop Imports of Replacement Car Parts [bloomberg.com]: Ford Motor Co., the second-biggest U.S.-based automaker, filed a trade complaint to block imports of replacement parts for Mustang cars, saying they impermissibly copy its patented designs..."The car companies are intentionally looking to wipe out competition and using the ITC and the patent system," said Eileen Sottile, the coalition's executive director. "This is going to hit consumer pocketbooks."

    • Well, not entirely outside the intention of patents. A patent should give you an incentive to invent and invest into development without the fear that your design work and your money spent on coming up with a new idea/design is gone to waste because you could have done what the other company did: Wait 'til someone invents it and copy it. Nothing is easier today than just that. Take all the low price knockoffs of brands, from bags to shoes. And while I certainly don't care about some hip design, I can see wh

    • that sounds to me rather like the corn laws, but being passed by a company and not the government.
    • by xednieht (1117791)
      "This is going to hit consumer pocketbooks."

      No, it's going to hit Ford's pocket book.
  • re: "Google Patents can't seem to find the new Google patent for Google Patents."

    If it did, the gates of hell would be flung open and chaos would reign.

  • What we need now is for someone to figure out a clever, original way to prove the entire patent system is broken and being abused. And then patent that method.

  • The reason that Google Patents cannot find this document is that the database is not as up-to-date as it could be. The latest patents they seem to have in the database were issued in October 2009. They are about a month behind, and the USPTO publishes issued patents once a week. Although the system is better than the USPTO's patent search in many ways, USPTO is better for patents issued in the last month or so.
  • This has gone way to far, become way out of control, it’s starting to decompose our rights, the world and our country. Shouldn’t the government start investigating outrageous, abusing the use patents?
    Isn’t the patent office also regulating who gets a patent and what the patents are for? Can't the government regulate what the patent office’s do?
    I thought the government should work for the people, protect our rights, and pursuit of happiness, and the right to succeed, which is startin

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.

Working...