Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Patents Censorship Google Your Rights Online

Google Patents Country-Specific Content Blocking 106

Posted by Soulskill
from the two-steps-forward-one-step-back dept.
theodp writes "Today Google was awarded US Patent No. 7,664,751 for its invention of Variable User Interface Based on Document Access Privileges, which the search giant explains can be used to restrict what Internet content people can see 'based on geographical location information of the user and based on access rights possessed for the document.' From the patent: 'For example, readers from the United States may be given "partial" access to the document while readers in Canada may be given "full" access to the document. This may be because the content provider has been granted full rights in the document from the publisher for Canadian readers but has not been granted rights in the United States, so the content provider may choose to only enable fair use display for readers in the United States.' Oh well, at least Google is 'no longer willing to continue censoring [their] results on'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Patents Country-Specific Content Blocking

Comments Filter:
  • Not in ACTA (Score:4, Informative)

    by DrYak (748999) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @10:26AM (#31154812) Homepage

    Step 3b(I): Get forced to "grant" compulsory licenses in most countries which have that option in their patent system (for the common good, ofc).

    The purpose of the parent's funny strategy (3b) is to let ACTA self-destroy on its own playground.
    Of course some countries have way to circumvent too broad and/or stupid patents, but patents are not a problem in these countries to begin with because they can be circumvented.
    But in country where all patent even the stupid one are followed, will have to follow that stupid patent too.
    Until they start adding exception to their patent system, at which point the goal *is* achieved - If *Google* can be forced to give out a patent on a core technology of the web, any patent troll should be forced the same whenever they try to stifle fundamental and important innovation.

  • by unixfan (571579) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @10:30AM (#31154844) Homepage

    A month after the much discussed attack on Google, continues to censor search results, though it appears to be less than prior to this incident. Ref. []

  • Re:Not Censorship (Score:3, Informative)

    by Eskarel (565631) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:31AM (#31155502)

    It kind of looks like from the article that it's designed to be used to restrict access to content based on the wishes of the publisher, not of third parties like governments.

    Of course it could be used to censor content, but google(and for that matter the governments themselves) can do that anyway. It's not like China can't(and doesn't) block access to certain web locations it doesn't want its citizens to see. It doesn't stop back channel distribution of course, but neither does this.

If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields