Xerox Sues Google, Yahoo Over Search Patents 202
gnosygnus writes "Xerox Corp has sued Google, Inc. and Yahoo, Inc., accusing them of infringing the document management company's patents related to Internet search. In a lawsuit filed last Friday in the US District Court in Delaware, Xerox said Google's Web-based services, such as Google Maps, YouTube and AdSense advertising software, as well as Web tools including Yahoo Shopping, infringe patents granted as far back as 2001. Xerox seeks compensation for past infringement and asked the court to halt the companies from further using the technology."
So you are saying (Score:5, Funny)
that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox???
Re:So you are saying (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox???
I find all these xerography jokes rather dry...
Can someone help? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone have a link to this patent? The summary fails to accurately describe what it is they patented - though the impression I get is... Practically Everything?
Re:Can someone help? (Score:5, Informative)
System for automatically generating queries
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979 [uspto.gov]
Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979 [uspto.gov]
Re:Can someone help? (Score:5, Funny)
The ironic thing is that, if I understand correct, Google Patent Search (what I used to find these patents) would be in violation of these patents...
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I reminded of the quote about understanding recursion?
Re:Can someone help? (Score:5, Funny)
because, in order to be reminded of the quote about understanding recursion you must first be reminded of the quote about understanding recursion. and you were.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you win. Your prize is 1 internets.
Re:Can someone help? (Score:5, Funny)
Did you mean recursion [google.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, I meant the one google suggests on that page, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if Xerox lawyers used Google Patent Search to find their info. Gotta be easier than digging through paperwork.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
System for automatically generating queries http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979 [uspto.gov]
Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979 [uspto.gov]
You posted the same URL twice.
Prior art : Ingres/Postgres (Score:4, Informative)
As for the second - as the link is not valid - I would examine LISP designs for prior art circa 1956. Other environments since have also had "Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge" - but LISP is one of the original to have this as an architectural component. I believe the 1945 paper used as a prototype for some of LISP design also had this, but I've misplaced the reference. (it's on one of the many, many fine lisp websites *grin*)
Without more definition than a title, any expert system would qualify and much of all the historical research into Artificial Intelligence.
*thinking* - expert systems may also hold prior art against the first patent as well.
IANAL,and I'm rusty as all anything- but I hope it helps someone.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The bigger question is why not sue MSFT & as well - they're doing everything Yahoo & Google does. Perhaps Microsoft has many other patents they could use to retaliate against Xerox, something Google & Yahoo are a bit lighter on. Given these patents are more than a decade old, could Google & Yahoo make some sort of laches defense?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Xerox is not going after MS because MS licesnsed the patents for WinXP, (See: "C:\Program Files\Xerox" and this [windowsbbs.com]). They had to keep the Xerox directory to satisfy patent agreement. MS had this problem settled BEFORE the release of WinXP.
Given that they are more than a decade old, they only strengthens them. Looks like Google/Yahoo are screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't such a suit be more appropriate to suing over Bing than over WinXP anyway? Also, I've never had a C:\Program Files\Xerox folder in any windows installation I've ever used at home (though there is one on my work machine).
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit non sequitur ... because they had a protected directory for _scanner drivers_ in Windows XP they licensed the patents??? WTF???
Re: (Score:2)
Real Goal: Cross-Licensing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
SCO wasn't a patent troll once also.
Re: (Score:2)
SCO[1] still isn't a patent troll--no patents are involved in any of their lawsuits[2]. They could, perhaps, be considered a copyright troll, except that patent trolls usually own the patents they're suing over, while SCO doesn't seem to own any sue-worthy copyrights.
Just sayin'.
[1] Note that SCO (The SCO Group) is not the same company as The Santa Cruz Operation, so their history is not quite as extensive as their name might suggest.
[2] IBM did originally include patent claims in their countersuit, but th
Re: (Score:2)
they created a LOT of patents, many of them for non-obvious, very interesting inventions... like the Mouse.
Which is not to say that they actually produced those inventions: patenting does not equal innovation or creativity. Doug Engelbart (who was working at Stanford at the time) is usually credited with the invention of the mouse. So, while PARC certainly used the mouse in their Smalltalk GUI, they didn't invent it. Furthermore, patents or not, if a corporation has reached the point where they are expecting to survive financially off their patent portfolio, well, let's just say that they're past their prime.
Re: (Score:2)
The mouse wasn't obvious, exactly, but the idea, rather than the device, wasn't a major innovation. People knew what the problems with the light pen were.
So it was a minor innovation with important after-effects. (If you check the internals, you'll see that the modern mouse doesn't owe much, if anything, to the mechanical design of the original.)
At the time I'd have been all in favor of Xerox getting a patent on the mouse. I just wouldn't be in favor of the patent still being valid. It's been too long,
Article summary (Score:2, Insightful)
"We want your cake too. And it'll cost us less in legal fees than the potential benefit. That's a mighty nice website you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to...happen... to it. Probable result: cross-licensing agreement to patent portfolio to lock out smaller competitors, higher costs for consumers in countries with strong IP laws. "
Timeframe (Score:2)
How long can you sit on a patent before you have to start going after people?
It would appear to me that Xerox must have been sitting on this for quite sometime.
It is also odd how Microsoft is not included in this, Yahoo and Google, but not Microsoft in a search related patent case?
Re:Timeframe (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent law is retarded. You can sit on a patent for 19 years and 11 months. There is no requirement to go after people to keep a patent enforcible. You can patent something and wait for the entire term of the patent for someone to actually invent/commercialize what you have patented, and then sue them at the 11th hour and take as much money from them as the courts will give you.
The exclusion of microsoft is interesting, perhaps MS already has a cross licensing deal with Xerox?
See laches (Score:5, Interesting)
You can sit on a patent for 19 years and 11 months. There is no requirement to go after people to keep a patent enforcible.
Citation needed. Where I come from, they have something called equitable estoppel. In this case, you're looking for laches [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, where the rest of us come from they have something called "lawyers", which renders your equitable defence moot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How many hundreds of Slashdot patent stories have come across the wire and how many of them have even whispered equitable estoppel or laches in the court filings? I can't think of even one, or if there was one, it failed so utterly we never heard about it.
A legal mechanism that theoretically exists but can never be exercised doesn't actually exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The inability to collect damages for past infringement (due to laches) has no effect on the ability to enforce a patent for the remainder of the term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, no, you can't sit on it and expect to be able to enforce it like you imply.
You don't lose the patent like you do with Trademark- but if you delay, the range of things that ends up happening goes from no damages to an inability to enforce against the infringers that you didn't enforce against during the time you "sat on it". Subsequent infringers can be enforced against during the life of the patent- but not the others if you delay any substantive time on it from the moment that the infringement b
Re:Timeframe (Score:5, Funny)
They probably tried to actually find something using Bing and decided they wouldn't have a case.
How do I get in on this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How do I get in on this? (Score:4, Funny)
Remember when PARC actually invented stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Remember when PARC actually invented stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They make the current incarnation of the solid ink printer tech that got bought off of Tektronix, amongst other things.
Solid ink produces much sharper results than color laser printers and seems like an overall win, but for some odd reason, while they've got units with price points that are reasonable (same basic pricing as comparable laser printers...), you just can't find them except through their reseller channels or online.
I'd have to concur with your and the GP poster's assessment on this.
Re:Remember when PARC actually invented stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good times, but how the mighty have fallen these days. I for one miss the idea of a pure research group.
Yeah ... no kidding. Put Bell Laboratories on the short list as well.
Re:Remember when PARC actually invented stuff? (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad management at PARC were too retarded to profit from what the guys (and gals) there invented (they were 10 years ahead)
researchers: "We've invented the GUI, OO programming, etc, etc"
managers "hurr durr durr what's that hurrrr"
Re:Remember when PARC actually invented stuff? (Score:4, Insightful)
Delaware? (Score:3, Funny)
Xerox won't win (Score:3, Informative)
Both patents I've seen cited as applicable were granted (filed in 2001) in 2004.
Given that they're just suing now, unless there's been extensive negotiation privately that's somehow managed to not leak out at all over 5-6 years (unlikely), Xerox probably won't be able to get any court to enforce shit. It's called laches - you have to actually work to minimize your damages. If you knowingly let infringers make use of your IP so you can sue them when they're worth something, you lose the ability to enforce your patent.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's for trademarks. Not for patents.
I'm fine with it if they sue facebook, myspace... (Score:2, Interesting)
Robert Frost (Score:2, Funny)
Neither, Bobby; it's gonna be lawsuits.
"Xerox sues someone for copying?" (Score:2)
Still one of the best headlines ever.
What?!?!? (Score:2)
No Bing?
Patent problem solved! (Score:4, Interesting)
Bear with me..
The problems with patents as they currently stand is they are often used as bullshit tools whihc stifle technology in an attempt to extort or monopolise any technology or idea. What once might have been a useful tool has become a strategic game-piece often crippling American innovation when it was intended to encourage it.
But I don't believe the answer is to abolish the system, or even to make it increasingly difficult to make use of, that would punish legitimate users and patent trolls and legal firms would no doubt find ways to continue around it.
What I'd like to see is it remain almost exactly as it is today, with a few small changes:
It's probably worth noting that software companies which wish to keep their code and related processes black-boxed would still have several options, one obvious option (aside from restrictive licensing and binary only releases) being SAS, where they control the process by keeping access to all relevant code and business systems themselves, only pushing relevant/needed data out to the client front-end. SAS is really the ultimate black-box solution and it protect your property from just about everything but internal abuse (staff, break-ins, social engineering) and network related penetration. And that's nothing new.
Sorry about any grammaros/typos/spellos. I just wanted to get these ideas out while there was still active discussion. Over the past several years I've begun to strongly believe our own enemy (patents - via trolling/hording and other related anti-competitive business practices) are actually our best hope for a sensible business/technology future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simpler solution: Besides all the other problems with them (like the inability of the patent office to tell what is an "invention"), software patents are a net drag on the economy, therefore they should be eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go so far as to say I think patents could solve much of the trouble we are currently having pulling our selves/society in to the digital information age.
Arcane patent and copyright laws are the major obstacles preventing society's move into the digital age. I dare say they're a major contributing factor to the current economic situation. Instead of society being able to embrace new efficiencies they're are being tied up in legal fees and monopolies rents. The music industry is the perfect example. Technology allows for a way to reduce the distribution cost of music to almost nothing and instead of embracing this tremendous new efficiency they fight it tooth
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no. Here I go again... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
... ditto ...
Re: (Score:2)
what the heck??
stupid mimeograph, I can't read any of this!
Re: (Score:2)
So although their claim might be a little... erm... aggressive, don't be too quick to dismiss them as a mere patent troll.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can you say "Patent troll"? (Score:5, Insightful)
And once upon a time SCO was a respectable Unix vendor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can you say "Patent troll"? (Score:5, Insightful)
...They practically invented the GUI.
...and if they'd be able to patent it, we'd still all be running DOS, since Xerox never came out with a GUI product. Such is the power of software patents to drive innovation (into the ground).
Re:Can you say "Patent troll"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, no - since the GUI would have been patented in the 1970s and at that time the law gave protection for 17 years from the date of publication (and usually took 3 years to get published - current law is 20 years from filing). GUIs didn't really become popular until the late 1980s and that would have been near the end of any patent for it, so it may have delayed the GUI, but not killed it. Some hardware patents Xerox showed off such as the mouse would have already been near end of patent by the 1980s (invented in the 1960s).
I'm not saying software patents don't suck - I don't think people should be able to patent, say, how to do the Navier Stokes equations for fluid dynamics in software and on graphics hardware, which has been done multiple times (and the methods are trivially obvious in some cases - one hardware accelerated patent I saw was essentially implementing an expired software patent in hardware). OTOH, if you INVENTED the Navier Stokes equations, then sure - allow a patent that can apply to software. I also don't think an idea itself should be patentable, either - for instance, I remember Woz talking about when he made characters display on a screen and then later getting sued by a TV manufacturer that had patented the idea - there needs to be some practical plan to implement it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, posting to remove a wrong mod.
Re: (Score:2)
Xerox never came out with a GUI product
The first Xerox GUI product was the Xerox Star [wikipedia.org] in 1981.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Xerox has done a lot of innovating. They have also quite famously totally failed to properly DO anything with the things they've created. We could have had something akin to Java a lot earlier in the form of Smalltalk-80. Xerox in their "wisdom" decided to charge a king's ransom for it forever enshrining it in it's ivory tower. It took Apple, Microsoft and Amiga, Inc to bring the windowed interface to the world, despite Xerox having the working system right in front of them (again, in the form of Smallt
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they never pushed any of that great tech out the door.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can you say "Patent troll"? (Score:5, Interesting)
after discovery of infringement (maybe a couple years after the event), they could have attempted to come to an agreement with both entities. Negotiation might have broken down and now the patent holder's last recourse is an infringement suit.
Wouldn't be the first time that series of events occurred, especially when multiple patent-lawyer-loaded parties are involved, and it would create a legitimate delay before filing suit.
Be interesting to see what the details actually were, however.
Re:Can you say "Patent troll"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's a better definition of a troll, I don't know what it is...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, because they waited almost 10 years to enforce this patent.
Do you work for either company? How do you know negotiations have not been taking place all this time?
Do you just say that every time? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can: PATENT TROLL.
I know it's in vogue here on Slashdot to scream "Troll!" anytime a patent holder sues for infringement, but "patent troll" really means something distinct from "patent suit."
From the Wiki, a patent troll is someone who:
* Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;
* Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;
* Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base
* Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights.
* Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers
TFA and TFS are thin on details, so there is no evidence to support the idea that Xerox is doing any one of these.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see Xerox intending on doing an internet search engine...ever. So, you're kind of wrong on that count.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see Xerox intending on doing an internet search engine...ever. So, you're kind of wrong on that count.
There's nothing to suggest that the patents have anything to do with an "Internet search engine."
Some other posts suggest that they have to do with refining search queries (I think.) Xerox probably does have some product or service that takes search queries and returns scanned documents. If it doesn't already, its a logical business avenue for Xerox.
Re: (Score:2)
* Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers
This fits closely.
Again, there's nothing in TFS or TFA that explains what exactly the patent is about or what the alleged infringements are. So you're saying, without knowing anything about the patent, that there is no way any search engine company could be infringing it?
One of the Slashdot posts suggests it is a patent that covers (what looks like) suggesting a refined search query based on documents that matched the original query. Google does have a feature that does just that. This may or may not be the patent in questio
Re:Can you say "Patent troll"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Except patent trolls file in east Texas, not Delaware. Most patent trolls create a shell office in Texas just so they can file cases there - in fact, I believe setting up shell offices was Texas' biggest growth industries during the recession.
Re: (Score:2)
Haveta read their bs to find out which one is in court this time.
Moot. There shouldn't be software patents. Anyone who uses patents on software is most likely trolling.
Software patents have become their own lame formulaic joke, like the one about appending "in bed" to fortune cookie fortunes. Take any idea and append "on the Internet" to it.
Re: (Score:2)
And whose idea was it to make things this way? Why, a lawyer of course!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Patent it.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't make those contributions to the PC out of altruism.
It was done for profit.
So I say don't cut them any check unless they have a valid claim befitting of recompense. And even then only if the patents in question are non-obvious and not overly broad.
Re:Xerox Gets a Pass (Score:5, Interesting)
Xerox is notable for failing to commercialise or profit from PARC's accomplishments, including the invention of the gui, laser printing, bit-mapped graphics, the mouse, and Ethernet. It is the most monumental example of dropping the ball that I can think of.
Re: (Score:2)
Xerox is notable for failing to commercialise or profit from PARC's accomplishments, including the invention of the gui, laser printing, bit-mapped graphics, the mouse, and Ethernet. It is the most monumental example of dropping the ball that I can think of.
Plus object-oriented programming, They invented that too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right, how could I forget. I really love Smalltalk the language, but I'm less keen on the whole "modify the image" thing. I'm sure it would have been a lot more successful if it were file-based.
Re:Xerox Gets a Pass (Score:4, Informative)
No, object oriented programming was invented in 1967 in Norway. The language was Simula 67. What Xerox came up with was the application of OO to graphical programming.
Re:Xerox Gets a Pass (Score:5, Informative)
I get your point, but need to mention that Xerox has been selling laser printers for many, many years. The book Dealers of Lightning [amazon.com] claims that their profits from laser printing have easily paid for all of the research done by PARC.
Also, Xerox did not invent the mouse, and has never claimed to have done so.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Xerox did not invent the mouse, and has never claimed to have done so.
You are correct. My apologies to you and to Douglas Engelbart.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is the one who screwed them the most regarding their contributions to the PC yet that is one of the search engines that is not being targeted.
I'd say the pass is revoked.
If they were merely screwing over those who screwed them over I would agree, but that does not appear to be the case here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, they screwed themselves. They built a machine that was far too expensive for the marketplace, and there was such poor leadership at Xerox, so the Star just didn't take.
And it wasn't just Microsoft (or, more correctly, Apple) that benefited from Xerox PARC. The following technologies all were originally developed at PARC and their inventors went on to start their own businesses or work for other companies:
- Ethernet: Bob Metcalfe went off to start 3COM
- WYSIWYG word processing: Butler Lampson went of
Re: (Score:2)
Unh... Apple PAID Xerox for the tech they used. Check your history.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Apple stole the tech from Xerox, then licensed the tech to HP and Microsoft.
Xerox sued, but this was way back when. I don't think there was even a concept of a software patent when the Star system was developed. They originally tried to sue for copyright infringement, but the timing of the suit caused problems. They then tried to sue for unfair business practices. IIRC, they eventually settled out of court.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Apple stole the tech from Xerox, then licensed the tech to HP and Microsoft.
Xerox sued, but this was way back when. I don't think there was even a concept of a software patent when the Star system was developed. They originally tried to sue for copyright infringement, but the timing of the suit caused problems. They then tried to sue for unfair business practices. IIRC, they eventually settled out of court.
You're wrong. Xerox was given the opportunity to invest $1 Million into Apple at pre-IPO status. Upon vesting it was worth approximately $125 Million to Xerox. They pocketed it immediately.
Xerox corporate had no interest until after they saw the runaway success of Apple to try and then enforce patents already shown amicably to Apple. Apple hired 15 engineers away from Xerox who were the key creators of much of that work. The brain drain at Xerox PARC was their own fault was half their fault and half the fa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not cutting them any slack. Roughly 7+ years to determine if they're infringing and not enforcing their rights is a bit beyond the pale and is very probably subject to equitable estoppel out of the gate. They very probably shouldn't have ran this one up the flagpole in the first place- and it's very, very patent-trolly. Patent trolls do not get an out no matter what their past contributions might have been.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's that I hear walking under my bridge?
FTFY
OT - your sig (Score:2)
That quote is from Aleister Crowley's "autohagiography", a very thick, very facinating book. Crowley was the self-proclaimed "beast of the revelation" and the "Mister Crowley" that Ozzie Ozbourne sang about.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that would be closer than you'd think to the truth. They did a lot of all of this themselves and the upper management couldn't think past their core business, copiers, for the longest time.
As it stands, they can't seem to get the gem of print tech in the form of solid ink past a few models in their lineup- and while they've got a compelling story on it with price, ink, etc. such that it is actually largely better than color/b&w lasers and competitive with inkjets- you pretty much won't find o
Re: (Score:2)
"Xerox...asked the court to halt the companies from further using the technology." So they are asking the courts to have google shutdown the search engine, youtube and google maps until the verdict is in? Fat chance! Same with yahoo. There is no way youtube, google maps or Google search would get shutdown while this court case carries on. It could take months or even years to finish this case
A fairly obvious gambit --- they request an order that cannot be granted because it would be disastrous for the victi
Re: (Score:2)
Which one of these guys is the Sith Lord again? I get that confused ...