Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Patents Displaying Patents

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the on-the-internet dept.

Patents 93

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."

cancel ×

93 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196042)

Didn't the Patent Office figure out and implement the displaying of patents first? Like... oh, maybe a century or two ago?

Re:Uh... (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196076)

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.

Oblig... (5, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196914)

"It's a coffee table book... about coffee tables!!!"

Re:Uh... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30197488)

"I don't think Google is here who is to blame."

I disagree. Every company that files for a ridiculous patent is supporting the broken patent system. And I don't buy the "defensive patent" or "altruistic patent" lines that Google and IBM keep feeding us. If they were really altruistic and intended to patent things to prevent other companies from doing so, they'd simply publicly implement whatever they were patenting to ensure that prior art was clearly demonstrated.

Any company that patents something intends to use that patent to prevent others from doing whatever the patent covers. If they say anything else, it's their PR department spinning things, and Google's PR department understands how to spin things to win the applause of geeks. If we geeks consider ourselves so smart, why do we keep falling for the spin that the new breed of PR execs in companies like Google feed us? It seems all a company has to do is say "We use Linux", contribute a bit to open source and then we hand over our undying devotion.

Come on people, pay attention. Google is a company no different from Microsoft or Boeing. Patents are bad. If Google wanted to protect everyone from patent trolls they would have put this into the public domain. They don't however, they intend to use this for what any other company would; to prevent their competition from doing this.

Re:Uh... (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30199240)

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 their review. When Google gets a patent like this it (hopefully) ensures that the USPTO will review this material in the future. Also, there is a fee for terminating the patent afterward. Why pay the fee if you're not planning on enforcing? Let's see if they pay the renewal fee in four or so years.

As for your statement on the ridiculous patent.. Yes it is. I also think that maybe, *maybe* Google did this as a demonstration and got one over on the patent office? I found it kinda funny.

Re:Uh... (3, Insightful)

Yoozer (1055188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30200078)

Google's main business is helping you find stuff.

No. Google's main business is advertising. If you search, you are the product, not the customer.

Not quite (1)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30200988)

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 catalouges. Google is subject to heavy "google bombing", and it is possible to make enough strange inter-linking, so that Google will still boost your ranking. This happens, but not too often. However, Google have now declared war on net catalouges, which is a good thing IMHO (they're just dilluting the power of a google search). So I guess they have a clue and want to provide quality service.

With Google I can almost trust that whatever is given top ranking, is good quality and safe.

If they stop providing this service, and instead cater to business-paid top rankings and other questionable activity, I and thousands of other people are out like crazy though. They HAVE to keep delivering, and keep the quality somehow.

So advertisement (adsense and adwords) is the money-generating part, among other things, but they also have to keep delivering quality search results, which is paramount to their success for the whole chain.

I don't know if Google's businessmodel of "try everything and keep what works" will succeed. It's certainly a big gamble on talent and hopes for innovation, but their core service, searching, still has got me at hello at least. And they have a good chance of actually providing something useful and innovative, although it's a big gamble to try to "produce it", instead of just buying up successful competitors like Microsoft does.

Re:Not quite (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 4 years ago | (#30202202)

I don't believe you.

Don't believe what? The post you're replying to says:

Google's main business is advertising. If you search, you are the product, not the customer.

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 advertising.

Do you pay Google for search? For Gmail? For any other service they offer? No? Then who does? The answer is: advertisers. Advertisers pay Google because they know you'll be using Google's services and seeing their ads. You don't pay for the "product" you get (search), so you're not really a customer. Advertisers DO pay Google for the "product" they get (your attention), so they are Google's customers.

That doesn't make them evil, any more than it makes newspapers or magazines or radio stations evil. But it is the truth, and we should keep it in mind. You can't understand a person or company unless you know their motivations.

Re:Not quite (1)

Lordnerdzrool (884216) | more than 4 years ago | (#30202306)

Grandparent never said you wouldn't get your search results. But it remains true that the searches, were it not for advertising, have little economic worth to google.

Google makes money through its advertisements. Google's real customers are those who have their links in the search results, and you the searcher, are the product that makes those companies want their links there.

Getting good search results consistently helps ensure the shelves are never bare.

The Iron Grip of Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30208194)

the climb to power of google is throguh there massive inventory of patents, ranging of all varieties of methods of searches to be done on the internet, creating a monopoly that no competetor could stand up to.

Ever wonder why they are well known?
Try looking up their patents, see the trolls of the internet.

I hope the government can bring them down, as they have an iron grip on the internet.

Totally unfair tactics, abusing patents to dominate others, while driving other companies out of buisness.

Why can big corperations like google and microsoft use patents to drive out other buisnesses, I'd consider that as unfair buisness tatics wouldn't you? All they have to do is threaten to have a company prosecuted for violating one of their patents. Is this right, I mean now especially with the economy in such bad condition.

Their patents allow the iron grip of Google on the internet, giving them the power to inimidate any competetors.

THIS is WRONG The must be brought down, for their wrong practices.
So I agree with anyone its Google Fault

Dont get Me started with Microsoft, they are equal or worse than Google, with all the patents they have giving them the power of intimidation, and the power to put others out of buisness.

It seems the only people who can bring them down is the governmements of the world.

Re:Uh... (1)

orwant (49048) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238982)

There's a time lag between when the USPTO issues a patent and when Google receives the data from the USPTO. It'll be live soon.

-Jon (Google Patents guy)

Re:Uh... (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196112)

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.)

Re:Uh... (3, Insightful)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196248)

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)

Re:Uh...Christmas gifts,shoes,handbags,ugg...erc (0, Offtopic)

coolforsale1212 (1684108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30198194)

http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com] (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.

Re:Uh... (2, Interesting)

radtea (464814) | more than 4 years ago | (#30198202)

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 (1)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30201006)

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:Actually no (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30202296)

Why do you say that? It all depends on what the patent is about. In this case, it's a design patent. I don't think anyone here is in danger of copying Google's particular visual layout.

Besides, I'm not sure I've ever seen Slashdot list all of the claims of a particular patent anyway. In addition, it's important to remember that while you can get be liable for breaking patents by reading about a patent beforehand, the burden of proof is still on your accuser. And no, a Web log is not adequate proof that you actually read a patent.

(I'm not a laywer and this is not legal advice; if you want legal advice, you should hire a qualified, competent attorney.)

Re:Actually no (1)

twr57 (976263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30270884)

"If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise". The US system is slightly stupid in its application of 'innocent infringement', but it's the lawyers who advise you not to read patents, so as to avoid triple damages, who are really crazy. It's a bit like advising drivers to drive blindfold, to avoid charges of deliberate manslaughter.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30200024)

Correct. This is a design patent -- which is similar to a very powerful registered trademark -- not a utility patent -- the "bad" kind of patent ( http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/#differ ).

Re:Uh... (1)

twr57 (976263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30270814)

Yes, it's a substandard post. This is not a patent on GUIs as such, but a design patent (note the D prefix) to the particular form of GUI shown. And Google haven't got round to indexing design patents yet, so no wonder you can't find it on their system.

Re:Uh... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196250)

No. They figured out a way to do so. Patents are on the solution, not the problem.

Re:Uh... (3, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30197554)

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. ;-)

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30199866)

Are you sure that Google patents can't find the new patent? Or could it be that Google intentionally doesn't want to display the new patent for fear of infringing its own intellectual property and being sued by itself?

Re:Uh... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30199998)

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 patenting".

___
* if you don't think in the functional programming / mathematical way.

Re:Uh... (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 4 years ago | (#30200408)

Surely an algorithm can't be patented. :/

Not as such (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30200700)

Not as such, but then again, all it needs to say is "on any one of a multiplicity of communication channels including, but not limited to, the internet" it then isn't an algorithm as such and therefore patentable!

Re:Uh... (1)

twr57 (976263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30270986)

Not as such, but if you're using it for something useful (control of an industrial process, for example, you can usually patent it for that use.

Re:Uh... (1)

gamecrusader (1684024) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206146)

Ultimate ending patent to every patent and copyright for the next 20 years.

The last and ultimate patent, the patent to end all copyrights, and patents and everything the human race can do besides movement. and working,

lets end this once and for all if no one does anythin about it just patent human languages this includes writing, and speach, that would be the ultimate patent end it all.

Re:Uh... (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30205572)

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.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30218180)

Yes, but now it's on the internet, so it's totally revolutionary, innovative, and patent-worthy.

O RLY? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196054)

In other news, I just sent in an anonymous patent patenting posting anonymous comments!

Re:O RLY? (1, Redundant)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196140)

I patent posting articles about patents related to patents!

Re:O RLY? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196412)

My lawyers will be contacting you with a cease and desist letter, very soon...

Re:O RLY? (0, Redundant)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30199114)

OK, but I have the design patent that covers the design of the anonymous display of anonymous comments discussing anonymous patents.

And yes it's anonymous.

No, they didn't (5, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196058)

They got a design patent. That's something complete different [wikipedia.org] from a regular patent.

Re:No, they didn't (2, Funny)

slacker22 (1614751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196120)

Article title should be "Google Display Patent Patent Display"

Re:No, they didn't (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196172)

How about Google Display Doesn't Display Patent Patent Display?

Re:No, they didn't (1)

slacker22 (1614751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196178)

Discard that...I'm still trying to make sense of it. The word display has lost all meaning...drugs are bad mmmkay.

Re:No, they didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196804)

Google Patent Patent Display, Won't Google Patent Display Patent Display Patent?

Re:No, they didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196884)

Google Patent Patent Google Patent Display, Won't Google Patent Display Patent Google Patent Display Patent? Go Ogle Google.

Re:No, they didn't (0, Offtopic)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196282)

mod +10 threadover

Re:No, they didn't (3, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30197936)

     They got a design patent.

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

Design Patent (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196072)

It's a design patent. Please learn how the patent system works before posting patent stories.

Re:Design Patent (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196096)

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.

Re:Design Patent (1)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196146)

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:Design Patent (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196154)

But lets not get into way of some good sensationalism journalism.

What do you mean? That is the only kind we have left!

Re:Design Patent (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196510)

What are you talking about? It wasn't even "edited" by kdawson!

Re:Design Patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30198998)

Claims? in a Design Patent?

Try Claim. Just one. That's all you get. 37 CFR 1.153 says it very clearly. "More than one claim is neither required nor permitted."

Amazingly succinct for a law.

Re:Design Patent (0, Redundant)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30199042)

I've been arguing this since I started reading Slashdot years ago (notice my 5 digit ID). It is utterly appalling how ignorant the editors of Slashdot are on this issue. Yes there are problems with the US Patent system, but you aren't going to constructively address them with this sort of drivel.

Re:Design Patent (1)

Earthquake Retrofit (1372207) | more than 4 years ago | (#30199122)

I've been arguing this since I started reading Slashdot years ago (notice my 5 digit ID). It is utterly appalling how ignorant the editors of Slashdot are on this issue. Yes there are problems with the US Patent system, but you aren't going to constructively address them with this sort of drivel.

My theory is that ALICE http://www.alicebot.org/patents.html [alicebot.org] has secretly taken over the editing on this topic.

Re:Design Patent (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30202590)

Even worse, not the only time. Remember Google's design patent on it's home page?

Re:Design Patent (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30207254)

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 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196104)

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:Yo dawg (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196514)

The above comment is a violation of Xzibit's Recursion, patent number 112358.

Google's strange stance (1, Redundant)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196108)

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 developers or users)

Here's what I have so far:

Re:Google's strange stance (5, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196184)

Just makes me think of an old Danny D'vito quote from Other Peoples Money.
"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."

Re:Google's strange stance (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196222)

This isn't a software patent.

Glad we all agree. So, anything new? (1)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196560)

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:Glad we all agree. So, anything new? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30199080)

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:Google's strange stance (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196624)

While this isn't a software patent you bring up a good point in regards to Google's patent strategy. They are in favor of reform but as long as everyone else is making software patents and similar patents they need to do do defensively to stay competitive.

Re:Google's strange stance (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30201712)

Here [beyondtext.ac.uk] is every corporation's stance on patents.

Yo dawg (0, Redundant)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196110)

I thought you'd like to patent viewing your patent, so we patented viewing your patent viewing your patent!

Re:Yo dawg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196284)

Don't you mean something like...

"Sup dawg, I herd you like to view patents, so we patented viewing patents so you can view patents while you view patents"?

Re:Yo dawg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30197360)

Sup dawg, I heard you like to view patents, so we patented viewing patents so you can view patents about viewing patents.

Google Lawyers Blasted Others' Frivolous Patents (0, Redundant)

theodp (442580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196226)

Reforming patents, promoting innovation: [blogspot.com] "Google and other technology companies increasingly face mounting legal costs to defend against frivolous patent claims from parties gaming the system...Low-quality patents and escalating legal costs are currently hurting the ability of U.S. companies to compete globally, and that in turn hurts U.S. workers and consumers."

and that's consistent (3, Insightful)

pydev (1683904) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196662)

This is a design patent; design patents are harmless.

I thought it was Don't be evil (0, Redundant)

MarcLeeT (1591255) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196240)

Not be slightly evil.. I guess google needs some sort of balance..

Prior Art (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196242)

Jeff Bezos already has a patent on patenting patents.

I get dibs... (0, Redundant)

ksemlerK (610016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196296)

I wish to patent the patenting process. I also want to patent patenting the patent process. Ad infinitum.

Google, google, google. (0, Redundant)

HazMat 79 (1481233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196342)

That is a lot of googles in one paragraph. Read it out loud and it is a word twister.

the pittsburgh steelers lost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196396)

they suck. their city sucks. if you like them you suck too.

here we go stillers. here we go.

Good God (1, Interesting)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196416)

Enough is enough! A good corollary would be a tax on paying taxes. No, Google, is not to blame but the system and the lobbyists that built it should be blamed. Software patents are anti-competitive and end up hurting innovation. Software patents are going to cause the computing industry to go the way of manufacturing - the US will no longer be a leader in development.

Re:Good God (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196714)

That's interesting. I've now read several times that Google isn't to blame. I don't recall to ever read the same when Microsoft patented anything.

Re:Good God (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196852)

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... (2)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196446)

that things are getting to be ridiculous right about now.

it's a design patent (3, Insightful)

pydev (1683904) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196634)

Google isn't "patenting displaying patents", they are getting a design patent on the look of Google Patents. Design patents are harmless; they just mean that if you display patents, it should be visually different from Google.

So (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196790)

Does this make google evil now?

Why Is Everyone On Here Pro-Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30196824)

Seriously - Google is a bigger Monopoly now than Microsoft ever could be. Be careful out there, no matter who you are backing, your enemys enemy will prove to be, more than often than not, just another enemy.

Re:Why Is Everyone On Here Pro-Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30199508)

Because they've done a lot of good, and only a small amount of evil (certainly not more than you'd expect from a company of that size). Perhaps you don't remember, but it used to be that every single advertisement was this horrible offensive thing which would pop up, gobble up your screen and give epileptic sufferers palpitations, and heart attack patients seizures. Then google ads came along and decided that ads should be these unobtrusive, in-line text affairs, and since then, horrible flashy ads seem to have retreated to the dodgier parts of the 'net. They've also given loads of money to Mozilla (which is helping to free us from IE hell), and run good community projects like "Summer of Code". The minute they start being more evil then beneficial, we'll start hating them - but until then, we didn't exactly sign a binding contract for who we should support and who we should hate and so will change at any time.

Your argument seems to be we should hate them for being big. If this is the case, then that's so stupid I can't even work out how I could respond to this and have you understand.

Design Patents - What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (3, Interesting)

theodp (442580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30196890)

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:Design Patents - What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30198454)

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 why Gucci and Versace are not too fond of it. They develop and create, and someone takes their idea and copies the design. I'm not even talking about brand damage here (i.e. when the knockoff is sold as the real item but of worse quality).

I know the idea of IP is not very well received here, and I myself don't like the insanity it reached, but neither do I negate the importance of a company's ability to recoup their invested resources.

Re:Design Patents - What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (1)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | more than 4 years ago | (#30200232)

that sounds to me rather like the corn laws, but being passed by a company and not the government.

Re:Design Patents - What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (1)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30201850)

"This is going to hit consumer pocketbooks."

No, it's going to hit Ford's pocket book.

modJ down (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30197180)

same w$orthless milestonEs, telling

a batter patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30197974)

damn.. I'm going to patent the patents. Everyone patenting something should pay me with his first son.

Not irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30198428)

Not irony. It would be irony if it caused the Google Patents to not display unintentionally. This is technically called Alanis irony, where there is no irony, merely potentially humorous contrast.

It's a feature, not a bug (1)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30199006)

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.

Brain = Fucked (0, Offtopic)

_0rm_ (1638559) | more than 4 years ago | (#30200568)

Congrats there! You have just fucked my brain.

All right, line's been crossed (1)

paragon1 (1395635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30202746)

What we need now is for someone to figure out a clever, original way to prove the entire patent system is broken and being abused. And then patent that method.

Google's coverage is not up-to-date (1)

KristinAtIntellogist (1684620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30202992)

The reason that Google Patents cannot find this document is that the database is not as up-to-date as it could be. The latest patents they seem to have in the database were issued in October 2009. They are about a month behind, and the USPTO publishes issued patents once a week. Although the system is better than the USPTO's patent search in many ways, USPTO is better for patents issued in the last month or so.

OUTRAGOUS PATENTS (1)

gamecrusader (1684024) | more than 4 years ago | (#30206050)

This has gone way to far, become way out of control, it’s starting to decompose our rights, the world and our country. Shouldn’t the government start investigating outrageous, abusing the use patents?
Isn’t the patent office also regulating who gets a patent and what the patents are for? Can't the government regulate what the patent office’s do?
I thought the government should work for the people, protect our rights, and pursuit of happiness, and the right to succeed, which is starting to be forgotten
It should be against the law abuse patents, as people are doing, what Google has done, and another person patented podcasts.
I thought the government enforced it, same with the patent office which obviously they're not doing. This can hurt the people of the United States, and keep people from being able to succeed.
*****If anyone in the government who reads this has any influence or able to revoke patents could you please, please try to do anything, anything at all about people/corporations/organizations who abuse the use of a patent or copyright for that matter, this is going too far, can’t someone try to stop these outrageous patents? Please, please try to do something, Why let someone tarnish what all people can do, try to succeed in life, not by taking the rights of others for their own personal, business gains.*****

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?