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.
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.
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
..google, you will feel their wrath
Live web cams
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...
...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/
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.
Do you realise that the Google search you link to, shows your comment as the top result? Its a Google loop!
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.
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
they can make money, and still put the source code in the patent! software patents disregard the original concept of patents...namely, you have to SHOW what you are patening, including the inner workings of the discovery/invention. if they want a patent, then include the source.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Dude, that is the WRONG way to look at this.
NOT ALL PATENTS ARE BAD. If Jeff Bezos patented a specific algorithm for searching Amazon.com, something radical that no one has ever conceived, he should be awarded a patent.
What you're thinking is this:
Jeff Bezos patents a "method of picking your nose by sticking one finger up it and turning 90 degreees", we get mad at him and coplain that the patent system is broken.
Google patents "a method of typing text into a box and clicking submit", you ignore it JUST because they're Google. Wrong attitude.
This is a GOOD PATENT. Google built an algorithm, an algorithm so complex that no one has been able to figure out how it's done. No one has been able to copy it, no one can imitate it. Long, hard hours by the Google team has paid off. They produced a patentable product, and they deserve a patent on this product. They're not stifling innovation, they're protecting their work.
The basics of patents:
patenting a widget is a GOOD PATENT
patenting a method of using the widget IS NOT
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
This isn't one of those overly broad patents where every search engine is covered.
Most aren't. The difference is with Google we already know this, and don't jump to conclusions when we read "Google has a patent on crawling the web!"
Spin is everthing.
read the patent
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.
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
I think you thoroughly missed the humor of the post that you replied to. You see Slashdotters, as a general stereotype, fall over themselves to gush praise on Google and to assuage themselves that Google is a benevolent force that represents all that is good (despite several questionable practices. Anyone remember the competition where Google got kids across the land to give them new search techniques virtually for free?). These people seek out and fervently debate any post that casts anything but pure heavenly light on the forces that be at Google. On the flip side these same people spittle bile in a trembling rage at the mere mention of software patents, particularly about something as trivial as what we're talking about here. This is the sort of paradox that is causing heads to pop from the contrasting pressures like a giant whitehead bursting at its skinly bounds. Can you hear that? [pop!] [pop! pop!] [pop!] That's the sound of hypocrisy claiming some victims.
Note: I like Google. Neigh, I love Google.
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)
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"
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
(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.
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.
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?
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