Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Businesses

Overture To A Patent War? 174

Posted by timothy from the one-two-three-four dept.
Shackleford writes "CNET has an article discussing Yahoo's proposed $1.63 billion buyout of commercial search specialist Overture Services on Monday. Yahoo would acquire 60-plus patents related to technology and processes for indexing the Web, as well as for pay-per-click and bidding systems to grant sites higher placement in search results. The search market is expected to be reap $4 billion in revenue by 2005, according to researchers. As the industry matures, the competition for a piece of that large pie could lead companies to bulk up their IP legal teams, much like in other industries such as online advertising sales during the dot-com bust. And Overture sued FindWhat.com in February 2002 after FindWhat filed a summary judgment request in a New York federal court in an attempt to fend off any potential infringement charge from Overture. Two months later Overture filed a second lawsuit, charging Google with patent infringement in its pay-for-performance ad system. So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Overture To A Patent War? More

Overture To A Patent War?

Comments Filter:

  • Is this even relevant? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation@gmai l . c om> on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:28PM (#6481433) Journal
    As consumers become more informed, the pay-for-ranking search engines will fall by the wayside. Just about everybody I know uses Google exclusively specifically because the results are objective and almost always bang-on. Yes, you do get ads with Google results as well, but they're always either directly on top in the sponsored links area or relegated to the paid boxes on the right side.

    And, often times, I do click on those paid listings when it's something I really need. The signal to noise ratio is extremely poor when you go to a site in which the top entry pays $0.01 more than the next highest one up. Who's to say which is really the better one? When it's a matter of shelling out the most money, the relevancy goes completely out the window.

    • Ads are okay when they don't jump in the way and Google understands this, thus their advertising business model is not only sound but attractive both to the consumer and supplier.

      Yahoo!, on the other hand, is trying to reap way too much of a profit. I'm confronted very ofter with large ads or a page of an ad before moving on to the main content. I used to like Yahoo! but now its such a hassle.

    • searching might not be the problem. Google uses an algorithm to choose which ads to display (if you read their ad overview, you can et more info).

      Basically, ads show based on how much an advertiser pays but also how often their ad gets clicked... so popular ad-sites get top ranking with less cost, and unpopular ad-sites have to pay more to get to the top.

      If Overtures patents cover a system like that, it could cost google.

      • Google's system for making sure their ads are relavant is to kill any ad, no mather how much money is behind it, if it fails to meet an unpublished click-to-impression ratio. This is pitched as a win-win situation to the sponsors, they're told that their ad wasn't as effective as they wanted and given hints to write a better one.
        • Its not unpublished (well, kind of): Google Adwords FAQ [google.com]:

          Is there a minimum required clickthrough rate (CTR)?
          ...
          For ads that appear in the first position across our partner sites, the minimum required CTR is typically 1.0%. For ads that appear in the first position just on Google's site, the minimum required CTR is 0.5%. CTR thresholds may vary depending on the positions in which the ads appear. Due to the improved overall positioning of AdWords ads on our expanded network of partner sites, the CTR

    • Did you know? Altavista (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19, 2003 @08:21PM (#6481649)
      Did you know that Overture owns Altavista?

      Granted they're not where they used to be, but I bet there is quite a bit of expertise (aka. patents) in that portfolio.

      This buyout is much more complex that looks at the surface.
    • Google orders its advertising placements based both on the amount an advertiser is willing to pay for a click and according to the percentage of users who click on the advertisement. It is not necessarily true that the highest bidder is in the first position.
      • It is not necessarily true that the highest bidder is in the first position.

        But it is the ad that makes Google the most money (clickthrough rate * cents per click). Even though Google's ordering of ads tends to produce relevant results, you can't use it as evidence that Google isn't greedy.
        • Yes, but Google has a minimum threshold of 5 clicks for every 1,000 times an ad is served. If that threshold is not met, the ad gets dropped even if there is no one else to pay Google for the same inventory. (As an aside, a click-through rate of .5% is astronomical for online advertising. Google has set the bar very high for its cut-off, and I think that they are probably turning away a nice sum of money. Not MSFT money, but still pretty good amounts).

  • Shocking (Score:3, Funny)

    by bluesoul88 ( 609555 ) <bluesoulNO@SPAMthelegendofmax.com> on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:29PM (#6481437) Homepage
    "Two months later Overture filed a second lawsuit, charging Google with patent infringement in its pay-for-performance ad system."

    No, god forbid some other company decides to make you pay for services. It's obvious that Overture was the first to come up with that idea, dag nabbit!

    In other news, I make 3 cents in royalties for every fork ever produced for the next 3000 years. =)
  • Ok, who has a link to a website that shows what patent expires when, so some OSS project can implement it?

    Gifs are "free" now, right?

    • delphion.

      GIFs are free in the US now, but there are still some outstanding international patents on LZW. The LZW issue isn't really about an obselete 256 color graphic format anyway, it's about a general purpose (textbook) compression algorithm being patented. Think "patented bubble sort".
      TIFF and several other things can use LZW.
      • No, the LZW issue *is* about an obsolete 256 colour graphic format -- people are still using it, and steadfastly refuse to switch to its successor. Look at slashdot! Every image on this page is a GIF!

        LZW was not a textbook compression algorithm when it was *invented* in 1983. It was -- gosh darn! -- INNOVATIVE! It *deserved* a patent, in 1983. Let me put it this way. 1983. ZIP had not been invented. LHA had not been invented. RAR had not been invented. GZIP had not been invented. COMPRESS had not been inve
    • Why wait? Software patents mainly exist in Japan and the US, for the rest of the world implementation can begin right now (some software patents have slipped through in Europe, too, although they shouldn't exist according to current laws, but they wouldn't stand any chance at court).

  • Guh? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 )
    So wait... Pay-per-rankings, paying huge sums of money for existing ideas rather than innovating, seemingly random earnings expectations, and plans to be able to litigate against semi-competitors rather than cooperate/compete and grow...

    So.. they're buying their way into obscolescence? Great idea guys.

    Ryan Fenton

  • I guess so (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cipster ( 623378 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:30PM (#6481442)
    So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?"
    I would say yes since the technological battle was won by Google a while back.
    The new motto of business: If you can't compete: Litigate!

  • Defensive Patent My Ass (Score:5, Interesting)

    by saden1 ( 581102 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:30PM (#6481443)
    It is kill the competition by any means necessary. Now even reverse engineering in danger thanks DMCA. All you really have to do is add some kind of "security" encryption mechanism (Lexmark anyone) in your product and anyone can be sued under the DMCA. Congress should be ashamed of itself.
    • Lexmark wasn't a DMCA case -- straightforward copyright infringement.

      The biggest threat to R.E. these days, however, is the Federal Circuit opinion in Bowers v. Baystate.
    • There's no law that says patents should only be used in defense. These fuckers who sit on patents, or buy them only to prevent progress (kinda like SCO, I think a company that does this is named 'softbank', not sure though) are kind of defeating the purpose, but still patents are not even intended to be used in defense only.

      And patents have nothing to do with the DMCA anyway

  • Well.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by st0rmshadow ( 643869 )
    So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?

    Isn't that how most other commercial competitions are won?
    • I prefer to think most commercial competitions will be won by arson and mysterious deaths of low tier company employees, but it's hard to throw someone off a bridge via the internet, but the RIAA is working on that still. Soon a simple click of the button will pour a pair of concrete boots and summon a Simon Deliver's truck to haul you away.

  • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

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

  • We're doomed.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phuturephunk ( 617641 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:36PM (#6481469)
    Lawbooks are the new Market Cornering Tool. We can't find new business models to innovate with, so we'd rather sit around the country and sue each other into oblivion..

    This country is in for some major comeuppance in the next couple decades.. Its gonna get NASTY.. Just you watch..
    • Perhaps everybody should get a degree in law since that will be the only business that will be left after a few years.
    • Patent law has always been about cornering the market. That's what it's for. that's the whole point

    • Yes, We are doomed. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 )
      Litigation is inherently a negative sum game. The players litigate, one takes a portion of money from the other (or not), and a percentage (usually 30% or more) is pocketed by the attorney.

      Even in the most just and reasonable situations, in which one person is truly injured by another and deserves compensation, the litigation involved decreases the overall pie available to the two principles (remember, that ambulance chaser is getting a third of the money).

      When it comes to vastly more insidious things li

  • Patent wars extended to EU as well? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Homology ( 639438 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:36PM (#6481473)
    So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?

    The EU is in the process of modifying patent laws and practices, partly after US/corporate pressure. Hopefully we can avoid the worst of the US patent excesses along with it's accompanying lawsuits.

    • Isn't it ironic that many Europeans emmigrated to the US in the first place to avoid the corporate monopolies and oppresive trade guild system that had almost completely paralized Europe and its colonies?

      KFG
      • And USA has been a shining beacon of civil rights for those escaping oppressive regimes. But new laws made professor Jim Cornehls conclude in the The USA PATRIOT ACT [zmag.org] that :

        If another power were to occupy the United States and institute the policies provided for in the USA PATRIOT Act--secret arrests, secret trials, secret investigations, secret deportations--the United States would be considered a police state.

        Sadly so, it's indeed ironic.

    • At least, the attempt of the British Labour MEP to hurry through a vote on an unclear and self-contradictory new law already on 30 June has failed. Many software producers, organisations and private persons had warned the members of the European parliament of the effects of software patents. The vote will be on 1 September.

      I think it is likely that software patents will be rejected or only allowed in a very limited way. There are few very large European IT corporations that could profit from getting suein

  • didn't see that coming... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peterprior ( 319967 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:38PM (#6481481)
    In the post .com era, with soaring spam (with half the sites they advertise not working, and random crap in the messages to avoid filters), huge flash adverts in the middles of pages, and sites going under every day, don't be suprised to see companies scraping by every way possible. Afterall, lawsuits and patent infringements, are practically the only source of real revenue. How many banner ad clicks does it take to get $1,000,000 ?

  • Of course! It's the American way! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:46PM (#6481516)
    There's no need to innovate any more. Just sue your way to prosperity. It's a simple thing to do too: Just find an idea (whether or not it's patented doesn't matter; neither does prior art. File for a patent - the Patent Office is so lame that you'll surely be granted one). Then sue everyone in sight.

    In other words:

    Steal

    Patent

    Sue

    ???

    Profit!

  • Anybody up for a good old lynch mob? I think we've been under this IP lunacy for too long; it makes me sick. I fear we may very well have to resort to vigilante justice. I mean, what do you call P2P, the search for prior art, and the whole fsckin' OSS movement? It's an attempt to correct injustice, where government will never on a wide scale favor or condone such measures.

    The sad thing is, if things don't turn around soon, it may be the only option.

    Oh, and BTW, I at least hope all those modding this

    • Re:I've just about had it (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is one of the many reasons Americans are hated throughout the world - The American way. The worse thing that ever happened to the world was when the US became the only Superpower. Your politicians are sooooo bought (remember campaign finance reform). It's sad and whats worse is you ram this crap down the rest of the world's throat.
    • As in trademarks, copyright, and patents? If not, then you'll be the one lynched as well. The compromisers and half-assers are just as bad.
      • No no no... just the IP lunacy. Even though I don't really respect "intellectual property," I do completely respect authorship; but because there will always be people who want to make money off of this stuff, instead of solely furthering science and/or the human cause, and because some people will plagiarize without enforcement and punishment (and some still with it) (geez, couldn't we have less destructive character defects?) I'm willing to accept decent copyright and patent laws.

  • Just remember. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by janda ( 572221 ) <janda@kali-tai.net> on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:53PM (#6481546) Homepage

    Every time one of these lawsuits is filed, there's another chance for a judge to say, "this is stupid, goodbye patent".

    • If he did that, the companies would go "this is stupid, goodbye judge".

    • Re:Just remember. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MrWa ( 144753 )
      That may seem nice, but will a judge really have the power to rule something like that?
      • In the supreme court, yeah.. well, it's always a jury that makes the final decision a lot of the time, but nevermind that.

        Remember, all law suits have to end somewhere. Either they start and end in a supreme court, or move up from a lower-level court, gets appealed and moved to a supreme court where they say either "The ruling makes 100% sense, respect the ruling!" or "We need more deliberation"

  • Prior Art (Score:3, Funny)

    by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @08:08PM (#6481597)
    "So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?""

    No, SCO has already patented that business model.

  • Increasingly often nowadays... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JessLeah ( 625838 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @08:14PM (#6481627)
    ...this sort of thing (i.e. legal wrangling in place of real "innovation", to borrow Gates's term) is becoming The Way Business Is Done.

    I don't like it any more than you do, but let's look at it this way: This sort of thing WILL continue until the public is not only MADE AWARE, but MADE TO CARE about these issues.

    Which, of course, is unlikely at best, and impossible at worst.

    In my humble opinion and experience, there is only ONE way to motivate the Wrath of the Public nowadays, and that is to convince them that their money is at risk. The public will generally not raise an upcry AT ALL any more (the '60s having brought to a close the era of widespread, effective social upheavals of any sort), but when they do, it inevitably surrounds a "they're trying to take away my money, and I don't want them to" sort of issue.

    So, there are only so many ways to deal with the growing problem of corporate litigiousness:

    1) Somehow convince the public, in such a way that they could not be swayed again back into the corporate fold by extensive "PR" campaigns like the SoundByte campaign from the RIAA, that this sort of thing threatens their money (highly unlikely, but as I noted it's the only way to mobilize The Masses)

    2) Move to another country-- but if it's anywhere even remotely civilized (e.g. Europe, Australia, Japan, etc.), chances are that they are already working on DMCA-like and other pro-corporatocracy laws there... if they've not already passed them!

    3) Become a criminal and go burn down corporate infrastructure (and/or murder the "luminaries" of the Corporatocracy world, e.g. Darl McBride, Hilary Rosen, and of course BillG)-- likely ineffective, and even more likely to land you in jail and/or Death Row for the rest of your life (though may I be the first to say that the day Microsoft awakens to find their Redmond campus burned to the ground, I will hold a HUGE party...)

    4) Commit suicide in disgust. (A bit extreme, but I'd be lying if I said the thought hadn't crossed my mind. We are living in a global plutocracy, and it's frankly very depressing.)

    I wish there was a better way, and I'll probably be modded down as a Troll for being so negativistic, but hey-- I'd like to think I'm somewhat insightful. When Dubya was elected, the first two things I said (after "Oh, shit!") were that (1) we would get into a war (or wars), and (2) that the MS v. DOJ matter would end in MS getting let off with a slap on the wrist. Both came true. So maybe my negativistic attitude here is right-on. I really don't see an end in sight to all of this. The only thing that could stop it is for the economy to collapse so much that even Upper Management would be begging for crap jobs like the rest of us... and I really don't see that happening. In ten years, everyone in the US could be reduced to eating rice and drinking tap water, but Bill Gates will still be worth dozens of billions of dollars, and Darl McBride, as likely as not, will be living on a private (and very posh) island somewhere...

    One very important point that the Public doesn't realize is that in a recession, or even in a Depression, all that money that people used to have does not "disappear". The total number of dollars floating about in the US is ever-increasing (even as the value of the dollar fluctuates). What happens during recessions and depressions is that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Do you really think that when 99% of the people have fallen on hard economic times, that their money simply disappears into thin air? Nonsense. It means that the other 1% are getting fatter.

    Oh yes, and one more thing to bear in mind. Many people's highest ambition in life is to become like these people. Most people entering the "IT" world (that sinister term for the fusion of inferior technology and businesslike ways) dream of being the next Bill Gates. And most people among The Public At Large not only respect corporations and corporate ty
    • I don't like it any more than you do, but let's look at it this way: This sort of thing WILL continue until the public is not only MADE AWARE, but MADE TO CARE about these issues.

      Most of the public will never give a fudge until they *directly* see it affect them. Thus, the only realistic way to fight is to use the same weapons: polical action committies and lobbyists. We need to form GeekPAC to fight for things that geeks care about.

      The H-1B issue has taught some of us that if you don't protect your po
    • You know, you throw Gates' name around over and over and over, yet, he actually produced a product that people wanted and needed.

      It's time to wake up, Bill Gates is not Microsoft, not anymore, not for several years now. You hate Microsoft as a company, that's obvious, but can you name one time where Gates himself did something to hurt people? He was one of the people who made computers pretty much available to the general public. He's even going to give away most of his fortune, yeah, that's a horrible per
      • Ahh, I love how you think you know what drives me. I don't hate Gates/MS for that reason. I hate them because they ruthlessly destroy any and all competition, and push a bloated, security-hole-ridden product on everyone. I also hate them because they make no effort to educate people to be TRULY computer literate. Microsoft wants nothing more than for the current status quo to continue indefinitely-- that is, for people to go to school and learn (by rote) the top 10 most common things they'll need to do in O
        • Ah, so what we need is a complex, hard to use interface that makes every computer user require months of training... Great idea, if you're in the computer training field.

          Again, you are proving my point, people hate Microsoft becuase they made using computers easier, while still being successful.

          Most people want to send email, play games and visit websites at home. Great news, Windows does that for you. It might not be the best system out there, but it does the job and it does it well. It's not super expen
          • Ah, so what we need is a complex, hard to use interface that makes every computer user require months of training... Great idea, if you're in the computer training field.

            Again you put words in my mouth. I don't believe this at all. Read what I say, and don't make ASSumptions. I said that Windows XP's default interface, Luna, looks like it was designed for a preschooler-- and that IS bad. I did not berate it for being "easy" (though I could certainly think of several other interfaces, past and present, wh
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        Don't you ever forget, Windows got the Internet out of the little Telnet, Gopher and FTP land that it used to be and made it one of the most valuable resources created, ever.

        I am not usually one for profanity, but... bullshit !! The "thing" that made the Net take off was email, and that dates back to 1963. It is still the #1 reason people want to get on the Net -- ask anyone who's done so recently. As for making the Internet popular, well, I was there at the time, sonny, and it

      • Actually, Gates/MS had little to do with it. MS got into the game by buying a crappy DOS from DEC and reselling it to IBM. The first version released didn't actually do anything useful and required an update the following week. That trend hasn't really changed since. Had it not been for gates, we'd have probably just had CP/M until it was replaced.

        Next came Windows. It really wasn't anything but a clone of Apple's good idea. It also didn't really work right until version 3.1. Even once it did, it was prim

    • Wow. That was a downer screed! Blockquoth the poster:

      The public will generally not raise an upcry AT ALL any more ... but when they do, it inevitably surrounds a "they're trying to take away my money, and I don't want them to" sort of issue.

      Not entirely true. The Do Not Call list passed without any direct measurable fiduciary benefit to the public. Of course it's more convenient (or less inconvenient) for people, so they gained. But it wasn't motivated by a strict dollar decision.

      • The only reason that the do not call list was passed, is because not even politicians are immune from phone marketers. This is different, politicians get money from corporations, and corporations like to sue competitors (or perceived threats to there gravy train, like the RIAA suing everybody and there dog for example) so don't expect any real changes in your life time.
      • The Do Not Call List is interesting. I believe it's going to do great damage to the economy (like we need any more): before calling, a marketer must first verify that the number they are about to call is not on the list. This should take between 30 and 60 seconds, given a decent web interface (not sure they will have one, though, but a company can put together a database application -- in fact, if the government doesn't create one I'm sure a cottage industry will pop up selling such).

        A marketer who call

        • They are getting the numbers out of a database anyway. You think they really just sit there and pull numbers out of a phonebook? All they have to do is remove all the numbers from their DB that are in the NDCL.
          • Hi, I respect you (and thanks for your sig) so please keep down the name calling.

            Last year I passed the Series 3 exam (commodities) and became a commodities broker for a short period of time (they were a bunch of crooks so I didn't last long). We were handed sheets of paper that were faxed to them containing names and numbers.

            Now, yes, I could imagine that the broker would trust that the company they get them from ran it through the database. However, given that the cost per violation is something lik

            • Well, I think most phone monkies simply call the next number on the computer. A lot of places now call people automaticaly and then forward the phone call to an operator only if someone picks up. I guess on low-volume places might not use such tech, but if they are so low volume a 60 second check wouldn't kill anyone.

    • The best way to deal with large corporations abusing OUR goverments and OUR legal systems is by employing OUR police force and OUR justice. Yes, I am proposing vigilante justice when things get too extreme; when we lose trust in our goverments and when our legal systems are just a corporate tool for extortion and profit, it is time WE the people take back what is ours; OUR country, OUR legal system, OUR goverment, to reshape it into something new, something different, something BETTER. How? Beats me, but th

  • A model to follow regarding patent abuses.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @08:46PM (#6481743) Homepage Journal
    Declaratiuon of Independance [emory.edu]

    When was the last time you actually read it and understood how and why its the publics right and duty to correct such injustices?

    • I guess I don't get it. I'm not sure how a document that mostly lists grievances with a long-dead king, written in a time when it was perfectly acceptable to refer to the prior inhabitants of the thirteen original US states as "merciless Indian Savages" (and a time, by the way, when it wasn't even an accepted fact that rocks [meteorites] can fall from the sky), has any relevance at all regarding the handling of patents by modern corporations.

      I'm a reasonable patriot and a Libertarian -- I love my country

  • They are the masters of leveraging patents. They come in with a big stack of fundamental patents and nicely say: "we've noticed that your company is enjoying our innovation... wouldn't you like to formalize the relationship?" Then two guys named Moose and Rocko help you with your pen.
  • So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?

    Moreover, the only way to stop patent wars is to patent the business idea of making money on patent lawsuits.

    And when I say "the only way" I mean it: it's really the only way. Well, unless someone will fix US patent laws, but *that* is absolutely unreal, at least in the country where the goverment is of corporations, for corporations.

  • And what sucks most about the patent arms race is that the average company can't afford to fight patent lawsuits. The typical total cost to do discovery of prior art, write a brief, and submit it for summary judgement on even the most absurd patent is near $500k!
  • ... since most searches are full of irrelevant crap now.

    Makes me wonder if DMOZ should even permit these type of companies from using their system.

  • A better way (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zork the Almighty ( 599344 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @09:20PM (#6481872) Journal
    "So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?"

    I was searching for a better way, but when I tried Yahoo all I got was advertising.
  • I am not installing anything from Yahoo anymore..

  • AntiGoogle == Bad? More /. GROUPTHINK (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:10PM (#6482083)
    This is getting absurd. Anything that challenges Google is now immoral? Look, the US has a patent system. OVerture did not create it. They are just using it. If they didn't you can be sure someone else would have. The bottom line is that they submitted the patent and it was approved. Write the US patent office if you have issue with it.

  • Is this the way? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) * on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:28PM (#6482169) Journal
    So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?

    Yes, because sadly, that is the American way.

  • Projection crap (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Animats ( 122034 )
    The search market is expected to be reap $4 billion in revenue by 2005, according to researchers.

    Crap projections like that are worthless. What are last year's actuals?

    Search engine revenue may be going down, not up.

  • Overture owns misspelled kuro5hin.org URL (Score:3, Informative)

    by EMIce ( 30092 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:47PM (#6482255) Homepage
    I was just trying to head over to www.kuro5hin.org [kuro5hin.org] after visiting slashdot and mistankenly typed www.kuri5hin.org [kuri5hin.org].

    Guess what? It takes me to this [overture.com] overture search page. Makes me wonder if they've patented the use of commonly misspelled domains. The odd thing is that the whois database says that kuri5hin.org is not registered. The IE status bar briefly showed contact with auto.search.msn.com before turning up the overture page, which is also bothersome. The most logical explanation is that overture is the default search engine for my IE install. But how did it get that way? Do they just hijack unsuspecting user's browsers?
    • You have IE setup to automaticaly redirect you to MSN based searches. kuri5hin.org brings up the standard IE 'DNS error' for me. Try putting the http:// in front of the URL, at least
  • Overture sued FindWhat.com in February 2002 after FindWhat filed a summary judgment request in a New York federal court in an attempt to fend off any potential infringement charge from Overture.

    Yeah, it's declaratory judgment, not summary. Summary judgment is a motion filed in an action, whereas declaratory judgments are used to define legal rights. However, since it doesnt really make a difference in the substance of the story, carry on...... I'm such a tool.

  • No (Score:2)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 )
    So is this the way the search engine competition will be won? Through patents and lawsuits?"

    No, but it is the way the advertizement wars will be faught. If yahoo keeps up the lawsuits, they'll probably with happy getting some royalties from google.
  • I'm imagining that maybe an even-worse scenario for the web than some quality web sites becoming unavailable due to there companies being litigated out of existence, is a universal presence of web sites whose functionality is twisted in bizarre ways by the demands of avoiding IP lawsuit threats.

    Nothing is going to be quite as frustrating to me as having the web sites I visit being generally well-executed and useful, except for pockmarks of infuriating work-arounds to avoid the mandates of common-sense IP
  • Ok, so what's in it for the user? Their search engine is crap compared to google. Maybe some of this money is allocated to pay people to use it?

  • If Google is getting sued for patent infringement, would it be legal for google the company to use google the search engine to find prior art? :-)
  • So is this the way the search engine competition will be won?

    No, because a) Developing workarounds is much cheaper than licensing. & b) Performance is all people want from a search engine. Unless a lawsuit can severely and permanently damage the utility and overall performance of a search engine, even a substantial one time monetary loss shouldn't be expected to doom an established site.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all...." -- Thomas J. Kopp

Close