US Dir. of Citizen Participation Patents the News 66
theodp writes "Ex-Googler and now White House Director of Citizen Participation Katie Stanton is charged with promoting open public dialogues. Last Thursday, Stanton and Google snagged a patent on displaying financial news. Google explains that Stanton's invention — Interactive Financial Charting and Related News Correlation — will 'facilitate and encourage the user's use and understanding of financial information,' which does jibe nicely with Stanton's appointment to Obama's New Media Team. Too bad it'll be encumbered by a Google patent until 2027."
Misleading title (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary doesn't go into specifics as to what has been claimed. Basically, Ms. Stanton worked at Google, and was part of the team that developed Google Finance. What's been claimed here is essentially the placement of flags at points on the stock chart, along with some other specifics of Google's stock chart presentation.
Laying aside opinions on the patent system and this patent in particular for a second, I would say that the title is highly misleading: the "news" is not patented, nor was the filing made by the named inventor of record in her capacity as Director of Citizen Participation. Google is obligated to list all individuals who played a dominant role in the inventive process, and apparently it was felt that Katie Stanton was just such an individual.
Since I consider Google Finance to be a fantastically well-designed resource that communicates a lot of data very succinctly, I guess I'd say that this recommends Ms. Stanton's ability to communicate information, even in a very abstract sense. That said, I suspect that this is the last I will ever hear of her, or the office of the Director of Citizen Participation.
Nothing to see here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patented status (mostly) irrelevant to govt use (Score:2, Insightful)
As a side note, 28 USC 1498(b) gives the government a similar right to use copyrighted works.
Best argument I've heard yet for ignoring copyright! I mean, we are talking about a government by, of, and for the people, right?
Re:Google is not a patent troll (Score:5, Insightful)
so? (Score:2, Insightful)
Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.
since when has that stopped companies from patenting the "technology" they "invented".
Yet Another Smear Campaign On Slashdot (YASCOS) (Score:3, Insightful)
When employed at Google, Ms. Stanton worked on user interface design, and yes her employer sought a patent for one of her inventions (that she created as part of a team of other workers).
She was required to assign her interests in the invention to her employer---that's 100% standard.
I'm not aware of any employer that say: "Oh, if you invent something, you get to keep it or patent
it yourself, or give it away as you see fit...."
Does this previous employment, which anyone in their right mind would consider an important
resume line, now eliminate her from serving in the White House? Does the fact that
she's creative, and had to earn a living, prevent her from later working in the public
interest in government?
We should hope not, since government surely needs talented people.
Is there some sort of "purity test" implicit in this article? I.e., anyone who has ever applied
for a patent---either personally (at enormous expense), or because of one's work---is NO LONGER
qualified to work in any position that lets them give something back to society? I think
that's the tone of this submission. That's certainly the conclusion one draws from the wording.
Yes, the patent system is complex, outdated, silly and not what we need. But do you know
what else we DO NOT need? Patent trolling on slashdot. We also don't need silly
"purity tests" that only allow patent virgins to work in public office.
What we DO NEED is talent, creativity and passion in public officials. I'm glad that highly
talented people like Ms. Stanton can decide to change her career, give up the high paychecks,
and work in government, serving the public. It's a shame there are idiots (and I use that
word carefully) who diminish her public service, because she once worked for a company.
What would the article author have us think? Perhaps only starving artists should serve in
government? Well, that wouldn't do, since the good ones bother to register copyright on
their valuable works.... Perhaps that will be the article author's next topic to attack.
Perhaps then we should have government ranks only filled by those who never held a job in
a large company, never did anything of value (worth having their employer seek patent protection),
and never wrote or composed anything of value, else they'd have tarnished themselves with
a copyright notice.