Slashdot Mirror
Google Patents Search Algorithm
blastedtokyo writes "Google gets the first web search patent. According to this News.com.com article, Google was able to patent how they crawl and rank web pages. They claim "an improved search engine that refines a document's relevance score based on interconnectivity of the document within a set of relevant documents.""
Let's start screaming about how evil patents are and... oh wait, it's Google (and /. loves Google), so we'll get "Thank God they're this innovative and patented it before someone else stole it."
It's not really their Search algorithm, it's their method of comprehensive PageRanking.
They basically measure Web pages as either 1) portals, or 2) authorities.
Sites like Kuro5hin and *nix have a lot of "Google juice" (i.e. weight in their ranking system) because they have so many links to other sites, while also garnering a slew of links to their main page.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
They thought of a way to improve upon an existing invention. They were the first to do it. They want to make money from their idea. It's only logical for them to seek a patent. I guess congratulations are in order!
Google(for now at least) have been very good about the way they handle their business. They're not exactly evil. Hell, patenting their algorithm is probably a good idea now that AltaVista has a new owner.
Patents are a tool for creating temporary, artificial monopolies.
With that said, aren't you glad Google might be able to stay on top and profitable, instead of having to resort to banner ad revenue, etc?
Google didn't invent the concept behind PageRank, just its name. See my E2 writeup on citation analysis for more.
I am not quite sure of the purpose of this article since most patent articles are intended to point out the ridiculousness of the patent system, but this seems like a pretty legit patent to me. They developed a technology that is superior to their peers, that they developed completely in house w/out ripping anyone off. This passes my shadiness test. If anything, we should all be happy now that Google will be publishing some of the details for their system.
While this is a bit more of a relevant patent than Amazon's 1-Click it's still a bit vague (are most patents?). Of course Google is part of the Good Guys(TM) so let's see how the general /. reacts.
Oh, and here's search results for 'Google patent' on Google news.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Google's way of doing thing was certainly not the first way to search, it is not the most obvious way to search, it is not the only way to search, and it might not be the best way to search (something better likely will come along). In other words, I don't think this patent will harass many others at all.
This is nothing near as bad as Amazon patenting message boards attached to sale items, or "one-click shopping" being patented.
I think that as time goes on, a companies ability to operate without the necessary business operations like patents will diminish. I guess what it comes down to is that if they want to stay at the top, then they have to have patents to protect their IP. Does it mean that some of google's shiny armour will be tarnished? Yes it does, especially in the eyes of all the geeks out there who see patents as the Great Evil. However, the company will remain in business for quite some time, allowing them to keep operating business as usual. So far, business as usual is good enough for me.
Polluting the Internet since 2003...
http://percep
Wow.. an internet patent that might actually make sense. It's not "A method to search through an index of web pages for relevant links to a user request for specific information." But the improvement on it. And it's generally accepted that Google DID improve web searching tremendously and have a unique method of doing it. Of course, this means it will be struck down immediately by some small company that gets a broader patent (see above) and sues them.
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
mixed feelings here, I'm sure for everyone. No one is happy when ridicolous patents are filed, but is this a ridicolous patent?
An invention is something new, or an improvement on an existing invention. Google's algorithm is an improvement on an existing invention. However in order to obtain a patent, there must be no prior art and it must be non-obvious. I don't necessarily beleive that the later two fit in this case.
The description of this patent seems more general than it needs to be, so I'm sure prior art can be found to fit the general description of this patent.
at least we can still use
At least the patent is not so about a "common sense" technology (at least, not was in '96), and I don't think that google will sue the other search engines that refines a little the PageRank concept (like i.e. <a href="http://teoma.com">Teoma</a>) but to avoid someone else patent this or something very related.
Back when Page and his Stanford pal created Google, they had planned to just simply create a really snazzy and useful research project. From day one and for a couple years, they assured everyone that they would never sell-out and their algorithms and code would remain in the public view.
However, things changed, and they quickly hopped onto the dot-com bandwagon. With this privatization, they closed all their notebooks and journals and stopped teaching others how to implement a great webcrawler and search ranking system.
They made out well, but I feel that the CS community lost a great number of resources. I'm proud of Google and I use it a lot, but I just wish they'd have remained a bit more loyal to the open source community that they started off with.
If it weren't for open BSD code and free database software, Google wouldn't exist today. Don't forget that.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
remeber, kids:
patents !=evil.
certain uses of patents =evil.
Aaaagh! Patents are bad! Patents are bad!
(Psst - hey, Google's getting one.)
Uh, well, (grumble) I guess that's okay then, er...
Bring on the wave of apologists.
--riney, Karmakaze
I thought a decent portion of the page ranking statistics came from stats collected from the google toolbar ?
anyhow from what I've seen if you take a site like slashdot that has thousands of outgoing links, your page ranking is going to bloat possibly higher than what it actually is from the referrers that end up being logged.
Fear Breeds Knowledge
This patent targets a specific algorythim which Google arguably invented (I don't know whether they did or not, but seeing as how no other search engine has ever come close to their power, I bet that they have).
This isn't one of those overly broad patents where every search engine is covered. Patent descriptions are conjunctive; to infringe, you need to infringe on every term. So building a search engine based on $FACTOR is okay, as long as $FACTOR is not "page interlinking".
..google, you will feel their wrath
Live web cams
This may possibly be the first patent article on slashdot that won't have a general lament about the state of the uspo, if at least one of few.
No, but IMHO this is an example of a valid software patent. The fact is, a "decent developer" didn't come up with this idea and methodology -- or at least, didn't come up with it and patent it before Google's Krishna Bharat did.
I'm in two minds about this. Should Google get a patent for this? Google have innovated here, and thus the patent is a valid way to reward the effort they put in to designing the system, in exchange for the idea entering the public domain after the patent expires. While the duration of patents in IT related areas needs to be drastically shortened if they're to serve their original purpose, I'm not inherrently opposed to patents like this. The question then becomes, is it sufficiently obvious to anyone in the field that it shouldn't be patentable? Well, it's a tough call. The fact is that no one had done anything like that before Google. If it was so obvious, why not? My personal view is that it's obvious enough that if Google hadn't done it, someone else would have done within a couple of years. So while I don't think the patent should have been granted, I don't think it's as cut and dry a matter as it may at first appear...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Thanks to blogging, the web is filling up with more and more, shall we say, "crap"?
If "what's popular" is "what's important" according to Google, then how long will it take for the mountains of interlinked banality to make that method useless (or at least make more informative search results harder to find in all the noise).
Don't get me wrong -- I like Google's system, and it's an oustanding site. I just worry about the world's ever-shallowing and more self-referential culture, and its effects on the future.
What's wrong with what Google is doing? They're simply trying to keep an "edge" on the market. The reason why they're the best search engine out there is because they figured out how to make a better way to rank pages. They deserve to reap the benefits of that invention without anyone else cutting in on their business.
As for the "googling" incident, I just think they're attempting to defend their trademark. If you don't do that kind of stuff, you lose your trademark. Kinda like how Kleenex and Xerox lost theirs (everyone says "may I have a kleenex?" or "could you xerox this?" and so it became colloquial and no longer a trademark).
All Google is trying to do is cover their ass. If they decide one day to try to patent the search engine, then there'll be reason to get up in arms.
I find it interesting that because it's google, some /.-ers are saying essentially "good for them!" But at the heart of it, it makes no difference who it is or what their intention is.
Kids, software patents are bad, mm-kay...
...they will be interested in patenting web content next. I can see it now, "No really, we are the ones who came up with the idea that websites could have 'information'."
----- "It's all fun and games 'til somebody puts an eye out, then it's just funny."
This should be a good thing. Google has genuinely improved the concept of the search engine, but their methods have been fairly secretive. Now with this patent protecting them, aren't they required to fully disclose those methods?
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
...because they're Google. But if it were Microsoft patenting "an improved method for giving help to users", say maybe the help files vs. man pages, people would flame about prior art, talk endlessly out of their anuses about how Bill Gates is trying to wrest control of the tinfoil hat co-op from Mac users, and generally be nuisances.
/.ing while in class, but honestly, people. Google gives a C&D letter, we all golf clap and say "way to defend your IP!" Someone else does it, and we all run to chillingeffects to boycott / whine / gripe / whatever.
I love
Here's a thought... get off your hobbyhorse, and start evaluating things based on FACTS, not the general feeling of techno-elitism you get from pretending you're cool because you get jokes written in PERL.
And mod me -5 Troll, if you want. But it's the damned truth, and you know it.
-theGreater.
Now that they've patented their technology, surely that means that it's open to public scrutiny and therefore abuse as people exploit it's shortcomings.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
"...methods and technology for providing search results in response to an ambiguous search query."
"...methodology and technology for delivering search results that use analysis of Web page usage."
I think the next patent they will file will be for "Web Ranking Terminology Bullshitting".
There is probably nothing immoral in what they have done. You forget that a patent also protects the inventor from someone who is immoral from patenting that invention and then making the original/real inventor pay.
If a patent is genuinely valid, why shouldn't someone protext their invention? They took the risk and spent money developing it - they don't want someone else immediately** getting the benefit of their effort for no cost.
(**Obviously after ~20years a second party can use the technique. That's the basic idea of the patent system - it publishes things which would otherwise be kept as trade secrets, thus advancing technology, in return for a limited monopoly)
Simon
teamhasnoi
100 teamhasnoi Road
teamhasnoiville, MN 55000
Thanks.
I definitely think so. I mean other search engines have yet to implement it effectively, even though they know in a broad sense how it works (IE they rank pages based on links to the page). I think the 'easily implementable' test can be executed as follows: do you know how to do this? Or if youre not a programmer type, could one of your programmer friends implement this? This is an entire system google developed, not some inanely simple idea some marketing guy thought he was a genius for thinking of (people like to buy things by clicking on as few pages as possible). I feel this is an excellent example of what a software patent should be, especially since the trickiness is in the implementation, as well as the idea.
Don't get me wrong, google does a great job is easily my favorite search engine. However, does it bother anyone else that they are trying to patent an algorithm? Patents are for specific devices/solutions to problems, not methodologies for solving said problems. An algorithm is an idea; a mathematical or verbal expression of understanding. As such there should never be a patent granted because it could never be enforced. In order to enforce a patented idea you need to control how people think. (ah the 1984 references) Short of mind control, you cant stop people from sharing an idea or using it themselves, or modifying it for the betterment of such an idea.
So what will come of this? Less choices for users?
Good thing with these software patents is that eventually we will have one and only corpotation for every specific service, and users don't have to pore over hard choices.
(This sig intentionally left blank)
Not really sure when Google first started using this method of web indexing, but it seems to me that at least they are patenting it fairly soon after they came up with it. I also don't know of anyone else with pre-existing examples of this --- unlike 3/4 of the other "web patent" crap that's been claimed by various and sundry organizations...
Normally I would wine paste a bunch of anti-patent stuff here. However, I really like Google and am willing to give them a pass on this one. They really do provide a good service and have to make money somehow!!!
Since when did filing for and receving a patent become "evil?"
I hope they aren't planning on trying to enforce this patent.
But that's exactly what patents are for: protecting your implementation of an idea from being copied and used by someone else for profit. You don't want them to sue some "JerkSearch.com" when they just ripoff Google's algorithm and then try to make some money from it?
As for the trademark, they actually expect to be able to restrict how people speak?
The previous /. article involved asking for their trademark to be respected -- that's all. How do you get "restrict how people speak" from this?
Jeez people, is it possible to get away from the pervasive "all IP is bad" groupthink around here?
Patent graph theory right away!
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
There's a reason I only ever use their search engine now. Well two reasons. One is that about half the time I run searches there, what I'm looking for is the first thing on the list. The second is they are very not obnoxious about their advertising. And I've probably clicked through more google ads than any other banner ads on the net. That's right, I'm much more likely to follow information that looks like it pertains to what I'm looking for right now over some obnoxious Javascript ad (Which usually make me turn Javascript off and reload.)
Very similar to Google's method, I've seen CNN and USA Today run ads disguised as news stories in their tech sections. Unlike google, which clearly marks the ads, CNN and USA Today are simply compromising their journalistic integrity. As if those two words have been put together in a single sentence since Cronkite left the industry.
Where was I? Oh yes. In principle, software patents offend me. Well... and most of the rest of the slashdot population apparently. Being able to patent something that doesn't have a physical presence (Be it programs or math or business processes) is counter-productive. Especially since the patent office seems to rubber stamp every application that hits their desk. Hey. If you don't like it, write a civil nastygram to your congresscritter. Do NOT use the word "Fuck." That tends to turn them off. And in extreme case, get you visits from very grumpy people who seem to have something against doors. We're starting to see some technologically clueful folks in office, so the more people who write, the higher the chance that someone in the know might get the message.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Having a patent on it means that Google will be the only viable search engine for the next twenty years if it chooses not to license the patent. Is that what we really want? I could see four or five years, but twenty years is a good percentage of my lifetime. Google is an innovative company, but who's to say somebody couldn't do it better after a few years by building on the idea. The first implementation almost always sucks compared to clones.
Does this mean we have to hate google now? I don't want to go back to Altavista...
Think fuel injectors, for example, which are made by several suppliers, but have a patent holder who gets license revenue.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
So, the bright side of this patent is that perhaps it will keep others from focusing on Google's obsession -- the reference popularity contest. But like any patent, it is subject to abuse, not that we know at all how Google intends to enforce it.
I have requested improvements to Google's algorithms for years to make it more possible to search for a specific thing, rather than just a popular thing, but they don't have engineers, apparently, who understand these basic needs.
AltaVista lets you wildcard, search for one word NEAR another word, use common words as part of a phrase, and construct a variety of very useful filters that are impossible with Google's popularity engine.
AltaVista used to be the best out there, but compromised their own usefulness. If AV indexed more pages and had not dropped their usenet coverage, it would still be the most useful engine by far to an advanced searcher -- one looking for very specific things. I still go there often. Just because the masses use Google does not make it quality or best for advanced users. They have stagnated for years now. The masses use a lot of things produced by monopolists who are no longer required to innovate or even improve to the level of the competition.
What a coincidence. Today's UF topic covers patent obsession. Check it out. Although amazon.com is the target of the joke, it shows how patent-obsessed software companies can be. I'd say it sure does a good job satirizing it. Who knows? Maybe Google will be targeted in tomorrow's strip.
That is not the patent for PageRank. PageRank had already been patented by Stanford University, before Google was created, when it was a community effort.
This new patent is a patent over an improvement of PageRank, what they call now LocalRank and NewRank. It is designed to stop competitor from developing pagerank-like technologies. Armed with that kind of patent, they can stop Teoma, open-sorce Aspseek and others from developing similar technologies.
What they are tryng to do is extend patents over citation ranking and peer-review, something that has been around since the creation of the first libraries. This is NOT good. This means no more money from the suits to any citation-ranking related effor in any start-up, fearing litigation. It means no more installations of open-source Aspseek (Google Appliance's competitor )in corporate environments, because of fear of litigation.
This is sad.
google is not all that bad...but software patents should be requiring applicants to include their source.
I'd argue that they're probably one of the most respectable internet services companies operating. They don't go for the 'pay for position' revenue scheme, and while they do have sponsored links, they're clearly labelled and generally actually somewhat relevant to what the searcher is looking for. I have found a couple of companies to do business with while looking at their site.
If they're able to demonstrate an original concept in their analysis of data (eg, html), and have made use of this process to specifically achieve a result not duplicated elsewhere, I would argue they deserve the patent, especially in comparison to the dumbass patents that the USPO has been issuing to others.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
May be, may be not.
a ci je/F/F3/F3_f.pdf
Some have been talking about similar techniques since before this patent was filed:
http://www.carnet.hr/cuc/cuc2000/radovi/prezent
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/856618/0
We live in a capatalist society.
Money needs to be made to survive.
No Comment.
Mod parent back up.
This unwarranted love-fest with Google is silly. Answer the question. Oh, if you mod this parent down, perhaps no one will see the criticism and Google will never have to think about fixing their broken engine. That's good thinking.
These moderators appear to have never used an engine such as Altavista that could properly filter a search.
Google: hire some real engineers.
I've seen quite a few comments already about people who are willing to turn the other cheek, because it's Google.
This is wrong. If a patent is bad, it should be slammed no matter WHO gets it.
BUT...the counterpoint is that this is NOT a bad patent. You may all remember when google first came out. We were using it early on, because even in early beta, it was MILES better than any other lousy search engine. (not even considering the cleanliness of the page.) What they had was an innovative, new, and non-obvious way of searching the web. That's patentable stuff!
FURTHERMORE...this isn't directly a software patent--it's a patent on an algorithm. That gets into a morally squishy area for some, but it's a clearer area at least than patenting a piece of software.
So let's not turn the other cheek--let's put the Google patent under the knife, and find that it comes up...acceptable.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Kinda like how Kleenex and Xerox lost theirs (everyone says "may I have a kleenex?" or "could you xerox this?" and so it became colloquial and no longer a trademark).
?!?!?
Both are still very much trademarks. You may use the words in conversation, but I can't make a photocopier named "Xerox."
What Google is doing is stupid. Mostly because, "to google" refers only at this point to USING GOOGLE!. (Not search)
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
That is not the patent for PageRank.
PageRank had already been patented by Stanford University, just before Google was created, when it was a community effort.
This new patent is a patent over an improvement of PageRank, what they call now "LocalRank" and "NewRank". It is designed to stop competitor from developing pagerank-like technologies. Armed with that kind of patent, they can stop open-sorce Aspseek, Teoma and others from developing similar technologies.
What they are tryng to do is extend patents over citation ranking and peer-review, something that has been around since the creation of the first libraries. This is NOT good.
Basically, this means no more money from the suits to any citation-ranking related effor in any start-up, fearing litigation. It could mean also no more installations of open-source Aspseek (Google Appliance's competitor )in corporate environments, because of fear of litigation.
This is sad.
Google is a pretty good dumb word matcher but it falls flat on its face with verb tenses. For example: "run", "running" and "ran" are different words for Google. The reason is simple - Google makes no attempt to understand language - english or otherwise. Why is this? Because it is difficult, ambiguous and computationally expensive. The ultimate web search tool has to definitely improve in this area.
It used to be a lot worse; a couple of years ago I'd be lucky to get any acccurate results on this search at all. It is an improvement that the majority of results are accurate.
I didn't pay a search engine optimization service to make this happen. I didn't use any tricks like "doors" either. It cost me no money, but it did take time and hard work to achieve it.
I explain everything I did in How To Promote Your Business On the Internet.
What's my secret? No secret at all:
- Put stuff on your site that people find interesting and useful
- Ask people for links, and give them reciprocal links in return.
That's it. But read my article for the full discussion, as well as an explanation of why I'm telling everyone my secret.Other pages I have that you may find helpful are:
-
Market Yourself - Tips for High-Tech Consultants
-
Search Engine Submission Form Index
My most popular page is a C++ style guide called Pointers, References and Values.and finally, from my K5 diary, A Webmaster's Strange But True Tale.
Thank you for your attention.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Unfortunately in technology the usefulness is gone long before the patent expires.
If we had 2 or 3-year patents, I think that would be much better.
Engineering and the Ultimate
I remember when there was a time that when I thought about what a "patent" was, I would think of a specific invention, like a microwave, or VCR, or TV. But now most patents seem to be more along the lines of vague methods and unclear descriptions, which seem to have more of a shotgun effect, rather than a more precise one. Everyone else is saying it, so I'll jump on the bandwagon too. The US patent system needs a swift kick in the ass.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
read the patent
Seriously people, please start thinking for yourselves:
Just because the patent office is screwed up, does not mean that every patent is bad.
Just because microsoft is a monopolistic empire, does not mean that every action of their's is bad.
Just because linux is open-source, does not mean that it should be the only os used by anyone.
A patent is like a baseball bat made out of rubber. When you're competing against other companies - you both get out your set of rubber baseball bats and hand them over to your lawyers who proceed to pummel eachother. After a while - one of the sides will tell their lawyers to stop since they're running out of money (lawyer batsmen are rather expensive). The side who gives up looses - the winning side buys the looser for 5cents (since they're bankrupt).
/m
These are the current rules (in the US, but also to a varying degree in the EU) of the "game" called free enterprise. They are quite senseless and arbitrary - but you have to adapt since lawyers equipped with rubber baseball bats exist whether you want them to or not.
Ultimately, every people has the responsibility for its government (if you cant handle this responsibility - then you become a refugee) - and subsequently also for the laws passed. If the rules of the game are ignorant, they are so for a reason. And since ignorance is usually expensive - in the long run, someone will allways have to foot the bill. Bad policies allways have a monetary cost.
Amazon, Google are naturally doing the right thing since their primary task is to generate profits for their owners - it is not to make policy or specify the rules of the game (the government is supposed to do this on behalf of the voters).
The politicians are obviously doing the right thing since they're basically excercising their mandate of doing what the average joe has given them authority to do.
- so I guess that makes the average joe the bad guy/gal. At least the responsibility lies with the same people who are going to pay the price.
It kinda reminds me of a favourite quote: "if you think education is expensive - you should try ignorance!"
There seems to be a lack of understanding about the original purpose of the patent system. The the distant past, knowledge was transferred from artisan to apprentice and through guilds. Back then, as now, people were very protective of their intellectual property, as it was their livelihood, so it would not be stored anywhere. If the person were to die without passing on the knowledge, it would be lost forever (like Damascus steel).
To try and stop knowledge from being lost, governments introduced a patent system (first patent recorded in 1449) so that the creator of the knowledge would still get a fair financial reward for the item.
IMHO there are 2 problems with the existing patent system implementations.
1) As the technology becomes more complicated, those who verify patents are not skilled enough to accurately judge their validity.
2) The time limit of patents is too inflexible. Many technology patents should have valid lengths of 5-10 years.
No one can improve on basic relevance
Er, Google did improve on the relevance of the seache results. That's why people use it. If all seach systems where equivilent it wouldn't matter which engine you used.
If Google's system is much better than most others, becuase of the work they put in to make it better, don't they deserve to be protected from other people ripping it off?
Mant
As an independent software developer, I cringe every time I read about a new software patent. It scares me that I can sit down and code something and not know if I've infringed on a patent. I don't have an army of lawyers to make sure I haven't infringed, or to defend against someone who just claims I have infringed.
Aren't patents supposed to promote invention and science? As far as software is concerned, I think they're slowing us down.
First, that was the nicest C&D in the history of them, if you can even call it that. They politely *asked*, not demanded, webspy to change their definition to mention Google's trademark. Had that been M$, they would have sent over Vincent and Jules to go midieval on their asses. Ezekiel 25:17 would have rained its vengence upon them. Nah, Google did that nice. I agree, they might not have had to do it, but it was the kind of grey area that makes lawyers nervous. Overall, they did OK.
Second, Google patented more than an "improved method of helping users." This isn't like Amazon, where they basically patented efficiency (thanks, USPTO). Google didn't patent *all* ways of serving up better results. They patented their fairly specific method, which they were in fact the first to practice. There were a lot of search engine companies at the time - if it were obvious, someone would have been doing it. So I think it passes muster there.
I do agree that people tend to kneejerk on this site, but there were a lot of people during the C&D discussion who kneejerked against google too - so I don't think this blind acceptance of google is really a problem here. Blind hatred of M$ is more likely.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Just for those who didn't see it. UF has a good comic take on this
Google is really breaking out the lawyers lately... They are currently threatening a non-profit (no advertising, no pop-ups, not for sale) site, which clearly was not google.com or associated with google.com (gewgle.com) for trademark infringement, bad faith under UDRP, and more. We have gone back and forth a few times, check out gewgle.com's legal section or just gewgle.com
Now if they would only actually unbiasedly use the technology.
But first let's state for the record that this patent isn't exactly evil.
Google would have done this anyway with out the patent. Or better said they HAVE done it with out a patent.
So here we hold up the honnest application of patents. A company with a lagit invention has a pattent. Horray for google.
I'm douptful Google will ever have a chance to enforce it's patent. So why get one?
Becouse someone else may patent it and force Google to spend money proving they already exsist.
Kinda like Fantacy Plaza BBS stores one click shopping about 10 to 20 years prior to Amazon.
I don't actually exist.
I assume you aren't opposed to patents on physical objects. Let's take the light bulb. Say I'm Edison. I have a choice between patenting "a device for converting electricity to light" or "a method for producing said device". Which of those is more likely to stop all progress in the lighting industry for 20 years? Which one is a patent on an algorithm? That's right, we'd rather someone patent the algorithm so that someone can design around the patent.
Any method, process, procedure, etc. IS an algorithm, just not specified as well. What makes an algorithm unpatentable just because it's implemented on a computer? In order to fight software patents, we have to find a real answer to that question. Just saying "an algorithm is a theorem" doesn't work.
Google deserves a patent because I love Google and they are not Microsoft or Amazon. What better justification is there?
Seriously though, this is a valid patent because it documents a new, usefull, and unique idea. The patent makes no proprietary claims about any of the trivial processes Google may employ in delivering it's product, just the core, non-trivial, methods used to generate it. Although the patent does mention the site and the systems required to support it, it is clear that it is the unique search functionality that is patented and not the website or it's infrastructure. Quite unlike the Amazon patent I ranted about yesterday.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
The second result, Be software, showing up just means that people linked using 'To Be or Not to Be' which makes sense considering the name of the company and that they went out of business. The fourth result, 2Bee or Nottoobee, is just a play on words with your phrase and hardly 'flat out erroneous'. Even if you consider those two links invalid, I don't see any links close to being erroneous anywhere else in all 950 search results which makes for an error rate of much less than a 20 percent.
I am wondering what the /. reaction would be if Linus found a way to obtain a patent for the linux kernel. Would he suddenly be viewed as an equal to Bill? Or would he be praised since after all, it was an innovative invention and he deserves to be rewarded.
I'm basically pointing out that there are too many fanatical lemmings out there.
Indeed, you are right. They once were in danger of becoming general use terms under trademark law but their respective companies saved them. A quick "googling" ;-) pointed out my error. Here's a link to the BitLaw.com article describing what I meant to say, look under "generic", the last section: http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/degrees.html.
More appropriate examples would have been aspirin and cellophane. Both were once trademarked names but fell into general usage... now anyone can make "aspirin" or "cellophane" and sell it under those names. Sorry about the error.
Of course they are invalid; they did not contain the phrase I was looking for. Flat out erroneous? Certainly. If I had wanted "2bee..." I would have searched for it. Also, the be.com page does not even contain a variation of the phrase at all. Thus, I looked for a phrase and two of the first set of results shown did not even show this phrase. Error. error.
I did not go into the other 950 results. I thought that the first page of links were supposed to be more relevant; instead of the least relevant. I didn't mention the more recent Google downgrading of their service of where it damages my search strings when I attempt to do them; if I search for a certain word and it is not found, I often get this mispelling change and results I never wanted come up (of course, since Google decided to search for something I did not ask for in the first place).
I am deciding which alternative to Google to use, just as, despite being a book collector, I never buy from Amazon.
ALL software patents are wrong: this one, the one that stung Microshaft the other day, Amazon's, LZW, ALL of them. You can't pick and choose when to apply your morals (*cough* *Tony Blair* *cough*), if you do then they aren't morals, they're just slogans.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Heh. Thanks for backing up my shoot from the hip comment with facts ;-)
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
They told us almost a year (IIRC) ago, on April 1, 2002, that they used a bunch of pigeons. Now they apply for a patent on a sofware algorithm. Where are the pigeons!
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
THe clause in the constitution that authorizes congress to set up a patent system specifically states that the greater good of society as a whole is the intention, not maintaining some sort of fictitious ownership right.
So, you are dead wrong, and the poster is completely correct. The question to ask is, does the patent help society as a whole? Is the incentive necessary in order to get google to publish how their technology works in order for others to build on it?
In this case, I think the answer is a definite 'yes'. I'm very wary and suspicious of software patents, but google's patent here is reasonable.
For cryptography, I'm not so sure. The main result of cryptography patents is that the cryptography isn't used by anybody until the patent expires. And, in order for anybody to trust the cryptographics scheme, the author has to publish how it works anyway.
Remember, the object here isn't creating some specious 'ownership' right over an idea. The object is to encourage people who create these ideas to do so in a manner that benefits society the most.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Ever heard the expression "I liked $PRODUCT so much, I bought the company"? It's impossible for a public corporation[1] to set an infinite license fee for a patent or copyright. In theory, the maximum possible license fee is the price of a controlling interest in the company.
However, this does not change your point that copyrights and patents pose a problem when the copyright owner or patent holder sets an unreasonable license schedule.
[1] Google is not a public corporation.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I might be naive to think of Google as one of the last remaining non-evil powers out there, but maybe the reason they are doing this is not to profit from it, but to protect themselves... Say someone ends up patenting something similar enough to Google's techniques and that they end up suing them, Google will have the patent in hand to argue. Having this patent for starters will probably prevent this from ever happening (and save them the money from - yuck - legal expenses) so good for them!
/* TAANSTAFL */
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The only demonstrable example of a Microsoft patent that I can remember [relates to] CSS
Oh really? I remember a little fight about the ASF format.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I did a report with a freind in high school (1993) about cyberspace and how to 'map' cyberspace. In the paper we suggested that it should be mapped like a giant Venn diagram... this would be achieved by looking for key words in documents and modelling them like strings attracting each other... I think we even mentioned that www links could also be used as springs to pull similar documents together... (the only access to the web we had beck them was to telnet to a machine at cern which gave a lynx like interface, at the time mosaic only ran on x-windows and we didn't have access to any unix machines)
We could never get the scheme to work out... the main problem is figuring out how many dimensions such a space might have... and of course after that you have to run a massive prgram to put all of the "springs" into equilibrium...
But since when are "idea" patents about ideas that actually work? Would this paper be enough to prove that google's pagerank stuff wasn't a new idea and should never been given a patent. (I mean c'mon the basic idea behind Pagerank was pretty obvious, the hard part was getting it to work)
People who patent ideas like math or computer algorithms are slime balls. They are killing the free sharing of ideas that made the scientific revolution possible. Where would we be if Newton patented gravity and Calculus? If Einstien patented relativity would anyone even bother to learn all of the complexities of general realtivity?
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
patenting requires that the patent holder disclose the discovery sufficient that a person "knowledgable in the art" can implement it. They DO NOT require that the discovery be liscensed....
The patent holder has exclusive rights to the discovery for the term of the patent , and can prevent others from using it if they choose.
What G**gle is doing is basically quantifying word of mouth.
What probably makes it special and innovative is that it has the words using a computer somewhere in the definition.
Not at all. For example, I spent about 1 year (on and off) working on an invention after which I made a patent application. Once filed, it might be 2, 3, or more years before it makes it into the market. With what you're proposing, the patent would have expired long before it was useful!
The system has to benefit the inventor.
(Psst - hey, Google's getting one.)
Uh, well, (grumble) I guess that's okay then, er...
Since your definition of apologist is likely anyone who disagrees with your prima facia absurd allegations, feel free to count my as one. Coming from someone who would post such utter nonsense (and the idiot moderators who would mod such idiocy up) that would be a compliment.
Slashdot is a community of people, voicing their own opinions in often vehement dissention to one another. It is not a collective gastalt or hive mind with one opinion, one sense of what is good and bad, or even one sense of what is 'politically correct' and what is not. It is a diverse group of people, ranging from the cheapest Microsoft shilling whore to RMS, from devout communists to zealous libertarians, from athiests to religious fundamentalists of various flavors.
Allegations of "Slashdot hypocracy" are as oxymoronic as "Peaceful Acts of Terror" and "Progressive Presidents by the name of Bush."
Back on topic, speaking for myself (and not the whole of slashdot, as you imply but in truth no one person ever can), my opinion of patents are that they are bad. Very bad. Software patents make the issues raised by all patents more obvious, and the problems more apparent (and the flaw in the reasoning that led to patents more obviuos), but these issues exist in less acute form in all areas of scientific endeavor and research, and are largely responsible for our having been far behind in aviation development at the start of world war I (as documented by none other than the US federal government itself), and for our having hydrogen vehicles (mostly buses for the moment) only now, rather than 30-40 years ago when they were invented (and the patents suppressed by the automotive and oil industries), for disruptions in AIDS and cancer research, etc. etc.
Patents are bad. They were bad when they were given to Thomas Eddison. They were bad when they were given to online book purveyors with delusions of grandeur, they are bad when they are given to Microsoft, and they are bad when they are given to Google.
About the only good patents which could possibly be granted would be those granted to an organization such as the EFF or the FSF, where the patent is used to specifically (and defensively) undermine the very proprietary system it perpetuates, in much the same way the GPL has done to copyright. Alas, I don't see too many such patents being applied for, much less granted, despite the fact that the vast majority of the "inventiveness" in the industry comes from exactly those quarters (to then be granted by the imbecels at the USPTO to copycats as 20 year monopolies).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What probably makes it special and innovative is that it has the words using a computer somewhere in the definition.
Don't forget _automatically_.
Any human can play Go. But if you come up with an algorhythm to let a computer play Go by itself, then that's a patentable invention.
Google uses page ranks to sort the results of a search. It doesn't use that information to include or exclude sites. If you search for somthing specific, you'll get a hundred or so links which will then be sorted based upon popularity. What's wrong with that? Google's search is actually pretty advanced with good options and filters. It could be better, but when it comes to real world useage, Google gives me the best results. That simple.
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
I think the timing could be worked out, for example, either saying something like 2-3 years after patent is granted, or 2-3 years after market, with a maximum of 6 years no matter what.
15 years is waaaaay too long.
Also, do you think the time-to-market might be shortened if you knew you had a more limited time?
Engineering and the Ultimate
Jesus of Nazareth did not die so we could enjoy eggs and chocolate bunnies!
Nope, he died so we can enjoy chocolate eggs and meaty bunnies!
I've had this sig for three days.
No, it isn't. Maybe you missed the word "PENDING" in the older article.
In this one it is no longer "PENDING".
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
I don't think you should judge an individual patent on whether it helps society as a whole, but rather judge a whole class of patents. If you extend the patent system to a given field (such as software) then some of the patents granted will have a net benefit to society (taking into account incentives to develop the 'invention' in the first place, the negative effects on competition, and many other factors) and some of the patents granted will have a negative effect overall. You should ask, taking all patents in the particular field together, is it economically worthwhile for the USPTO to start granting patents in this field?
I think the Supreme Court ruled that the USPTO did not have to individually assess patents on whether they 'promote progress in science and the useful arts'. Rather, it is the job of the patent office to implement as a whole the system decided by Congress, and Congress must choose the boundaries of the patent system to promote progress.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
FUCK Google for this....
Digitizing natural proceses should not warrant you a patent....
hell, what if va patents software development change-control procedures just because they own a fucking website.
NO SIG
A) The algorithm is highly useful.
B) It required a significant amount of risk and technical effort to make it worthwhile.
C) The scope of the patent really just covers what it is that they've added, i.e., the ideas that they are supposedly deriving from are not being locked up.
What more do you really need to know? Regardless of what language you wish to put your claims in, that they've just made a "context shift" or what have you, it is a worthwhile effort and it is the kind of effort that requires the potential for substantial profits to secure continued efforts. People don't take risk without at least the potential to profit and the greater the potential reward the greater risks people are willing to take. Are you really going to argue that the idea was obvious or easy? If so, then explain why no one did it before, when billions of dollars and many years were (and are) being spent on such internet technology. There was a considerable lag time between the appreciation of the need for a good search engine (and the resources to develop them) and google's appearance. What's more, keep in mind that:
a) Google's core methodology is no secret now
b) The patent's life is limited.
c) The ideas that they presumedly derived from a still as open as they were prior to this patent
d) This country produces far more than any country despite the fact that we arguably "share our toys" less than most countries, even more than countries with much larger populations (even technically educated ones)....
Now I agree that there are dangers in allowing people to patent any and everything, e.g., well known sorting algorithms and other fundamental building blocks, but this clearly is not happening here.
Like anyone is going to be successful at out-g**gling G**gle any time soon, EVEN using the technology outlined in this stupid, frivolous patent. G**gle is G**gle for the huge search database that they created AS WELL AS the technology, and the brand-bulding they've been doing for the last 5-6 years. ANY entity hoping to outdo G**gle will have to go beyond what G**gle has done, with more advanced technology, or via a better search database. That, AND they will have to do all the brand-building, which will take YEARS. Effectively, this patent will never be much more than a minor nuisance to anyone seriously intent on building a better search engine service. However, for the rest of us, when G**gle starts losing money to other competitors, that patent becomes a weapon of revenue extortion, a la BT, Unisys, et al, and they will wield it indiscriminantly against everyone in order to survive. ..and don't hand me that "slashdotters are geeks who don't understand the concepts of real life outside of their parents' basement" stereotype bullshit, either. I have a mortgage, and PLENTY of real-world bills to pay, and I STILL call bullshit on the need to patent the obvious "to make money".
Bullshit. There, I called it.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
As the squirrel would say.
So if this algorithm gets patented as many have said what other algorithms will line up. Algorithms do include programs and simple thought processes. So in a short construed sense-war tactics can be patented in the future. Yeah I know a bit off but many cases in America are based off of previous verdicts.
So theoretically this patent is for a set of switch positions, pixel colors and how to combine them all...I wonder how many inventions would have been stifled about four hundred years ago if they could patent them.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Who are you arguing with?
My post had nothing to do with the validity of google patenting their technology, so there is really no point in arguing with me on this. Not sure why you've got your panties all in a bundle over my post.
I'm certain you could have found a better place for this rant.
No Comment.
People are already taking advantage of google's spider - this press about google's patent will no doubtedly lead more people to catch onto googles ranking system.
If one had to judge that way, one could reach no other conclusion than to say that software patents as a whole have been a colosally bad idea.
Not that this is wrong, but that's the conclusion one would have to reach.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Yes, and the point is that the patent office cannot distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' patents in a certain field (such a judgement would be far too subjective), so it comes down to a binary choice: grant patents on computer programs, or not.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
They are never good. Ever.
Period.
I can explain it in a few sentences. A 12 year old can understand the concept.
Let's assume the patent office is staffed with an army of experts who are ceritifed geniuses with eidetic memories - they never grant a "frivolous," redundant or overbroad patent. This is already so absurd I can't write it without chuckling, but let's grant them that much. It doesn't matter.
If I want to write unencumbered code (you know, the only kind you can sell, as a software developer), I have to be able to memorize, or search (with 100% accurracy, heh) the entire database of software patents. I also have to keep up with every new patent as it is granted (and if I'm sharp, applied for). That's only... I dunno, a few thousand a day? Since this is impossible, every piece of code ever written in the past, present or future is a ticking time-bomb of patent litigation.
Dear sir,
We have discovered (by means we will not disclose) that your code violates our patent on commenting inside of curly braces. We deign to offer you the possibility of paying us for the privelege, at $50 per slash-mark.
Don't want to pay up? Think our patent is overbroad? Heh. We'll have a wonderful time listening to your arguments in the 15-year-long civil lawsuit that we'll slap on you, and anyone you ever did business with. I hope you won't have trouble coming up with the $5 million or so you'll need for legal fees!
Have a nice day,
Joe Patentholder
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
The patent notice contains a U.S. patent number. When entered into the USPTO search engine, a patent number calls forth a complete description of how to implement an invention.
Will I retire or break 10K?
About the only saving grace in the patent system is the fact that they still expire in less than a human lifetime. Funny that Congress has seen fit to quintuple the length of copyrights, while leaving patents unextended. (Hope I don't give anyone ideas)
behind in aviation development at the start of world war I (as documented by none other than the US federal government itself)
That's one of my favorite funny stories. The irony of the heroic status given to Orville and Wilbur, in comparison to the money they were denied, calls the "capitalist" nature of the US into question. (US Aviation development wasn't degraded as much as it might've been, because the government took away the Wrights' patent while it still had more than 5 years left.)
Just try to imagine the "fair market value" for a concept like "the airplane". Tack on the price of victory in WW1 and WW2, and of beating the Soviets to the moon. Then scale all that up from 1903 to 2003 currency. We're looking at one trillion dollars.
(Of course, back then situations were different. Patents didn't apply internationally, so there were a different set of problems. An inventor in Britain would create something, and then US companies would market it, while other Britons are barred)
Although they own many patents that cover a variety of the web (including a patent that covers all toolbars which return metadata, eg. the Google toolbar). The B&N suit was simply for the fact that B&N had completely copied their site. Usually when you want to establish patent you sue a small company that can't afford to defend themselves before you go after the big guys.
Here is a pretty picture of prior art. This is from a project spearheaded by my friend Tom. We did it in 2000, and the words in the nodes are from web pages about The Simpsons. The Simpsons nodes had readily separated themselves from the monster truck nodes and the professional wresting nodes.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
So there was similar (but not identical) work going on at the same time with Google & Clever, and there was earlier work going on with the work done by Pinski & Narin. I'm not sure what the exact terms of the Google patent are -- I haven't read it yet, sorry -- but if prior art is going to turn up it seems like this is a good place to start.
If you *ahem* Google for Clever, you'll find plenty of hits.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
You're not strictly correct. Patents confer limited monopoly rights on the owner of the patent, and can be subject to abuse (i.e. the patent holder can refuse to license). In this case, the courts (in the EU at least) can step in and force a patent holder to license. This is the "social contract": you get the monopoly right but you cannot abuse it. There are (in the EU) situations in which patent holders can grant exclusive licenses, mostly these relate to where the exclusive license is necessary to commercialise the technology (e.g. in a start up situation).
Lots of things would be different without patent law, see all the /. handwaving about how bad it is. However, consider how much that is disclosed in patents would otherwise be trade-secret? I think the anti-IP/patent crew usually fails to consider that trade-secret (e.g. closed source) is a fundamental form of IP.
In fact the restrictions & freedoms of patent law are very much like the GPL, one of whose intents is to ensure that source code remain available. In exchange for placing a restriction on the distribution, the author is enforces that the art of his or her work remains open.
I don't expect this will be a popular thought among the denizens of /. which is so heavily populated with people who thing free==GPL. The Perl Artistic license or the BSD license provide freedom without restriction, compare this with those the (anti-patent) GPL.
proprietary: GPL: BSD
tradesecret: patent: public domain
Last I'd like to point out that GPL is *forever*, while patents expire. Once expired, patent IP becomes public domain. GPL can change at the author's discretion, however in the (intended) complex situation of packages with dozens or hundreds of significant authors, it seems unlikely for most systems to do so.
After a patent expires *anyone* is allowed to practice the art, and to do so without further disclosure or license. Again, GPL is forever, that's not good or bad but it does have consequences.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
The google algorithm kicked ass right off of the starting blocks and it's still kickin' ass today.
They should have titled the patent "A method of ranking web documents that can't easily be subverted by jerk webmasters solely out for personal gain".
How do you close a Function in VB? I don't remember How do you close a Subroutine in VB? I don't remember. How do close a Do Loop in VB? I don't remember. How do you close an If statement in VB? I don't remember.
OTOH, a simple curly bracket ends all of them in C/C++/Java. I'd like Visual Basic a lot more if it adopted the bracket syntax convention. I can't stand VB syntax, but I like the ease of creating pretty forms in VB. Meh.:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
The google patent is very specific and legiit. They're not patenting "ranking pages by popularity" they're patenting a method. If you want to make an algorithm to do the same thing go for it, get a patent, and compete w/ google. They're allowing that.
-1 Moron.
Google didnt' patent "the search engine". Their method was designed by them and is theirs. Just like CompuServe owns LZW compression in GIF images. You are free to make your own similar page rank method to compete with Google's. If you think there is no other way to do it then you don't belong in the search engine business. Don't want to be in the search engine business? Why do you care then?
It's sad when the word "patent" suddenly makes a company "the enemy". Patents have plenty of valid uses and that's the reason they exist. Google hasn't abused this patent yet. Stop pointing your little FUDing finger until they do.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I beg to differ, at least for the European patent system. For the European patent system, "schemes, rules and methods for performing metal acts, playing games" (...) "as such" are excluded from patentability. We're talking a computer programme here, which can in most cases be patented, provided it has a further technical effect. This would be absent in learning a computer to play Go.
In Japan, you'd probably fail to get it patented as well.
For the US, you're probably right, as we all know.
As for the "googling" incident, I just think they're attempting to defend their trademark. If you don't do that kind of stuff, you lose your trademark. Kinda like how Kleenex and Xerox lost theirs (everyone says "may I have a kleenex?" or "could you xerox this?" and so it became colloquial and no longer a trademark).
I believe the phrase is "Only in America[TM]"
Fortunately, in more sane countries, we still say "pass the tissues", and "where is the photocopier?".
on ways to present results by classifying them into categories derived from ontologies: US 5,924,090
The only reason to allow patents in the US is, as the US Constitution states, "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Does anyone seriously think that Google would not have developed this approach if it couldn't patent it? I certainly don't. Google is constantly trying to tweak its approach, and doesn't need any patents to do so. So, the government is supporting yet another monopoly over an idea, without receiving really anything useful in return. Making the patent application public isn't useful, for example; the 20-year term is essentially eternity in the software business, so it's unreasonable to believe that supporting this monopoly will improve innovation overall. The primary innovation will be other people working around the patent, instead of working to improve on the idea.
Thus, patents for software continuing to fail to promote innovation in software. Innovation in software happened for decades without software.
Professors Bessen and Maskin, two economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), have demonstrated that introducing patenting into the software economy only has economic usefulness if a monopoly is the most useful form of software production. This is concerning, because few believe that a monopoly is truly the most useful (or desirable) form of software production. Bessen and Maskin also demonstrated a statistical correlation between the spread of patentability in the United States and a decline in innovation in software. In particular, between 1987 and 1994 , software patents issuance rose 195%, yet real company funded R&Ds fell by 21% in these industries while rising by 25% in industries in general. Go read their report. Other information is available at places such as the wikipedia entry on software patents.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
In reality, the process usually takes much longer than 18 months. It's not uncommon for patents filed in 1996 to issue now, giving them a life of only 13 years.
Of course, it is not that obvious since I have encrypted it with a tripple-transversal Fournier encryption algorithm so it shows as something else.
Don't worry about it. In fact, if you even think about this algorithm and the real ID, it might be taken as a violation of the DMCA.
I do not hope they patented the gravity as such. It would be a nuissanse to pay Google to be able to walk on the ground.
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
First, yes, you are correct that it is no longer a secret if patented.. it's available to anyone to read up on.
They are NOT required to license it to anyone, or to allow anyone to use it for any reason; they have a patent on it, that means they can literally dictate how and when their patented method is used. They are under no obligation to allow anyone to use it.
Secondly, they may not be trying to bilk people out of their money, and could be only covering their own asses.. but what happens a couple years form now when someone, say, buys the assetts of the future bankrupt google company? Nothing prevents them from using the patent differently.
I'm not calling google a snake, just pointing out inaccuracies.