7197684
story
Comments: 93 +- Your Rights Online: Google Patents Displaying Patents on Sunday November 22, @03:30PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpatents.gif); width:75px; height:54px;
patents
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgoogle.gif); width:104px; height:38px;
google
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topichumor.gif); width:58px; height:39px;
humor
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictech2.gif); width:60px; height:80px;
technology
theodp writes "Google has actually managed to patent displaying patents. The USPTO issued US Patent No. D603,866 to six Google inventors for their 'graphical user interface for display screen of a communications terminal.' Among the six inventors is the guy who introduced Google Patents. Ironically, Google Patents can't seem to find the new Google patent for Google Patents."
Related Stories
leverage, n.:
Even if someone doesn't care what the world thinks
about them, they always hope their mother doesn't find out.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Uh... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Oblig... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Circular reasoning: I just slashdotted slashdot! [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Every company that files for a ridiculous patent is supporting the broken patent system.
Come on people, pay attention. Google is a company no different from Microsoft or Boeing.
I say that Google is very different from Microsoft and Boeing. Boeing doesn't make phones (unless I totally missed something), and Microsoft gets most of its business from software. Google's main business is helping you find stuff. Plus, who are you to say what they intent to do with what they file?
I know it's kinda poor to use wikipedia as a source, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Patent [wikipedia.org]
The author notes that, in practice, the patent office has tended to only use other patents in the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Google's main business is advertising. If you search, you are the product, not the customer.
Not quite (Score:2)
I don't believe you. Google certainly helps me find stuff, much more than Bling, Altavista or even Lynx, if they're still in business. I haven' checked in for like 10 years. Even Fast with "All the Web", or any other competitor doesn't seem to be able to give as good search results as google, and haven't been able to touch Google's quality in how many years now. With Google, you mostly get results you can trust, especially at the top rankings.
Only thing is link-building / advertisement sites and net catalou
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe what? The post you're replying to says:
That's just a simple fact.
Yes, they work hard to give you the best search results, and don't take payment for top listings. That's because if their search is sucky or biased, you won't use it. Just like if your local radio station sucks, you won't listen. But in both cases, delivering a good product is a means to an end: namely, selling advertis
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Parent
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Actually no (Score:2)
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!
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Funny)
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. ;-)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
In other news, I just sent in an anonymous patent patenting posting anonymous comments!
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
No, they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
They got a design patent. That's something complete different [wikipedia.org] from a regular patent.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
How about Google Display Doesn't Display Patent Patent Display?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No, they didn't (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, so then it's more like this?
P a a a a a a a a a a tent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Parent
Design Patent (Score:4, Informative)
It's a design patent. Please learn how the patent system works before posting patent stories.
Re:Design Patent (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:1)
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? :)
Re: (Score:2)
But lets not get into way of some good sensationalism journalism.
What do you mean? That is the only kind we have left!
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? It wasn't even "edited" by kdawson!
Re: (Score:2)
It's just theodp's usual patent trolling:
http://www.google.com/search?q="theodp+writes"+intitle:patent+site:slashdot.org [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
The above comment is a violation of Xzibit's Recursion, patent number 112358.
Google's strange stance (Score:2, Redundant)
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
Re:Google's strange stance (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Glad we all agree. So, anything new? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here [beyondtext.ac.uk] is every corporation's stance on patents.
Yo dawg (Score:1, Redundant)
Prior Art (Score:2, Funny)
Jeff Bezos already has a patent on patenting patents.
Good God (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? That happens all the time. Microsoft needs defensive patents; &c. Then someone brings up the offensive FAT lawsuits, and TomTom GPS settlement, &c.
I think it's appropriate to point out... (Score:3)
it's a design patent (Score:3, Insightful)
So (Score:2)
Does this make google evil now?
Design Patents - What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It's a feature, not a bug (Score:2)
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.
and that's consistent (Score:3, Insightful)