Slashdot Mirror
MS Patent Applications Reveal Search Technology
eldavojohn writes, "In the roughly 90 patents they applied for on November 2, 2006, Microsoft reveals that it is apparently pushing its research in the search engine market. There are a few patents that reveal improved ranking methods and document classification but the real interesting ones revolve around linking related queries, optimizing search, identifying results that are spam, and using a Bayesian classifier to measure feedback from the user. If that's not enough, there's even a few I don't quite understand. Another notable Microsoft application for a patent is the model for assisting children in authoring stories so you can't accuse Microsoft of not thinking of the children. Microsoft regularly applies for many patents but never so many revolving around search."
This patent sounds like they've patented the idea of recording which search links are clicked on most often for a given query, thus providing feedback given a random session number of which links you clicked on, and if you came back and tried something else.
it would improve search results for future searchers, but I dunno if I like the idea of my search being tracked.
Not only do my searched probably already get tracked without my knowledge but I might be completely wrong about this patent as I only perused it.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Man, I can't wait to hear the excuse in the academic progress hearings when a student pulls out "Uncle Bill helped me find the info!"
Does anyone use MS' web search page? After its introduction with much noise I've never heard anything about that anymore.
-- Cheers!
Maybe it conincides with the opening of the Search Technology Center in China 1 year ago.
Some of the authors of the patent applications are listed as from Beijing, China.
Did anyone else read that as: (with my "")
Another notable Microsoft application for a patent is the model for "assisting children in authoring stories so you can't accuse Microsoft of not thinking of the children."
Mr. Period: Nine is the one that's right by ten!
Nine: One day I will kill him. Then, I will be Ten.
That hyperlink that has "understand" as anchor text has NOTHING to do with searches, it's a database related patent (being from MS, we can safely assume it's a SQL Server related patent).
And being on topic: everybody out there is already logging you, from your ISP, big brother, search engines, advertising sites/outlets, your various cards that give points at stores, you name it, you're being tracked. This is hardly worse. It's not like someone's going to sit there and manually check what you've clicked onto (they have no real reason to do that either, if anything search terms would be "incriminating enough" if it came down to that). If it gives significantly better results for common search terms (by showing those results nobody seemingly cared about lower), then why not? I think it's a pretty good idea, we'll see if the implementation lives up to it.
Google's been producing a number of offerings that go after an area Microsoft's long dominated (the Office suite and its components). Seems like it'd be a smart business move for Microsoft to try to push Google a little on its turf, especially since they've had a (admittedly, much weaker) search offering for a long time.
Also, it seems like advances in searching algorithms might be easily applicable to a lot of existing Microsoft products without even going into Google country.
And, hey. Microsoft likes to patent stuff.
Has microsoft been accused of not thinking of children? I think they understand that if the children only know how to use a microsoft operating system then when they grow up they'll continue to buy computers with microsoft.
They also design their gui with children in mind, or maybe children design their gui, one or the other
*DrugCheese rants*
This is hardly surprising. Microsoft has a ton of researchers working on all kinds of things search. At this year's SIGIR (Special Interest Group for Information Retrieval), Microsoft had the most papers presented by far. It is also interesting to note that SIGIR 2006 was not very far from Redmond - in Seattle. More about SIGIR 2006 at http://www.sigir2006.org/ (MS was also a "Diamond Sponsor" for the event).
Simpy
Software patents are proved that they are needless and very anticompetitive. They must go. Period.
I decided to post this under EVERY article about software patents, because no matter how good or bad example is, truth usually is that this patent will be never used in it's meant way. Can call me a troll, but after all sharade of Microsoft/Novell deal, after EU/EC fiasco, after all copyright extentions I have enough.
I call for political change in this field. Like it or not, guys, we must fight. And no more arguing that some software patents must be good, otherwise such silly concept would be never put into realisation, right?
And no more buts and "ohhs" and "but lobbies are too strong". I have never seen sysadmins and other IT people marching and protesting about ANY issue. We just wine and cry and when everything is happening in bad way, we all say "I told you so."
Not any more. At least, for me. Let's do it guys. Let's work for a change. You can support fight in Europe (http://swpat.ffii.org/) or you can try to build consensus and inform people in your home. Inform people in polite way about the issue, don't force point of view. Describe what consequences are here for all that.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
That's what computers are for, silly!
Call me skeptical, but this looks like an extension of the Microsoft "wizard" mentality. "It looks like you are trying to draw a circle. Would you like me to draw you a circle?"
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Go to digg, asshat.
With Google being quiet about most of its search algorithms, I can see Microsoft potentially using these patents to 'sell' licenses to Google. It'd be a no-win situation for Google - either buy a license for the technology, Microsoft sues them for patent infringement, or reveal (enough of) their search and ranking algorithm to show that they aren't in violation.
On the other hand, can trade secrets (I'm thinking Google's algorithms) be used to show prior art without exposing such secrets to the general public?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Weren't patents supposed to be an act of charity? Like lending the small guy a hand?
I mean have no right to prevent people from doing stuff because "you thought of it first", this is the adult way of saying "I saw it first then it's mine"!
I think innovation is screwed in the US.
Down with patents
Syllable 0.62 is here at last!!!
We will destroy them or any startups with litigation with broad ranging patents.
I'm slowly working through the meat of these patents but the first one in the list Ranking results using multiple nested ranking appears to document the current state of the art in search. That is that ranking algorithms are applied in stages to progressively filter results. It doesn't appear to describe anything new.
This Patent application for a system to analyze and compare of portfolios by citation submitted by Microsoft sounds like it might actually help a patent examiner find prior art for all these Microsoft software patents. It describes a system for classifying documents and finding and analyzing relations (citations) between two sets of documents. Although that does sound a lot like PageRank and anchor text analysis doesn't it?
It is just me ?
Why Microsoft can't produce better code than OSS, Google ?
When some one success some where Microsoft respond via Patents, Copyrights and other pesky lawyer methods.
Is Microsoft a software house or what ?
Why any IT Media person doesn't ask this to Ballmer or Gates ?
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
These patents are so amazing that Slashdot can't find anything to say.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
The patents were published on Nov. 2, 2006. They were filed 18 months prior to that---around April 2005. That may seem like a nitpicky point, but it could be very important in May of 2025.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Yea watch out Google MS are going to be patenting your ass.
Unless of course Google patented them first. Here to hoping they did
Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuK
Google filed 31 patents in their lifetime. Granted they are younger and smaller than MS but does this represent a different thinking about IP?
A bayesian filter is statistical analysis, right? so, see this comment. If the average slashdotter, me, comes up with this idea in the brief time between reading a story and getting bored with the discussion, IT IS A STUPID PATENT.
Btw, since i can document i had the idea first, the patent should not apply to my friggin' projects too. Friggin' patents.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
There should be a law... that if a patent is not used (licensed, or product that brings in income; income appropriate to the prices they'd charge for the patent license) or defended within 12 months, it becomes public domain.
Also charge a property tax on the patent (you're holding `property'!) that's proportional to how much the patent is "worth" by the corp's determination (ie: they can claim the patent is worth $1, and pay very little tax, but then they can't sue someone for millions for violation (or charge more than $1 for licensing of the patent)---on the other hand, they can claim it's worth 1 million and be able to sue others for 1 million, but then they'll have to pay a property tax on that 1 million). The first 12 months are a grace "tax free" time (for those 1 million dollar ideas from a poor inventor).
If patent is registered by an -individual- not associated with any corporation (not holding a `manager' position in some corp), then the 12 month period turns into 3 years. If patent is transfered to corp ownership, the 12 months kicks in.
Patent expires in either case after 3 years for corps and 5 years for individuals. Dates cannot be extended.
In other words, if they still have the patent after 12 months, they're making money from it (appropriate to the patent's value), AND they're paying property tax on it (appropriate to how much it is worth to -them-; if someone violates their patent, there's a cap on how much they can be sued for). Otherwise it's public domain and they can't sue anyone.
The above would stop corps from registering unworthy ideas that they plan to sit on for future litigation. Yet still provide a few years lead and profit for the corp.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Patent description:
A unique system and method that facilitates improving the ranking of items is provided. The system and method involve re-ranking decreasing subsets of high ranked items in separate stages. In particular, a basic ranking component can rank a set of items. A subset of the top or high ranking items can be taken and used as a new training set to train a component for improving the ranking among these high ranked documents. This process can be repeated on an arbitrary number of successive high ranked subsets. Thus, high ranked items can be reordered in separate stages by focusing on the higher ranked items to facilitate placing the most relevant items at the top of a search results list.
Nanson's method:
Candidates are voted for on ranked ballots as in the Borda count. Then, the points are tallied in a series of rounds. In each round, the candidate with the fewest points is eliminated, and the points are re-tallied as if that candidate were not on the ballot.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
others are, too. Prior art can be found, though I have only ever released a couple of screenshots on a site (in 2003) that no longer exists.
This is such bs. (So far from what I am reading), a bunch of techno-mumbo-jumbo used as a wrapper to disguise the obviousness or actual pre-existence of software and hardware that only need cobbling together, not unlike taking a door off the hinges and using it as a snow mobile ski in an emergency and then finding it has real-world application, but is still NOT non-obvious.
It is definitely NOT non-obvious. Much of this can be obviated or nullified by putting together:
-Ace-CAD handwriting/drawing tablet
-Database of permitted scenarios (Character A has attributes that would not normally allow action A; B says or hears or does something that makes Character A, C and E tell or allow overhearing by Character D; meanwhile Event A happens because Character B did not perform an action within a period of time....)
-BBS-like features to support moderation in real-time or at-reading
-Collaborative writing tools such as:
Power Structure:
http://www.google.com/search?q=power+structure&ie= UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Celtix:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtx
- A little bit of *(pod?.. Apple is seeking ownership of almost anything with pod in it)casting
- Some electronic or manual dice-rolling, not all that different from playing Dungeons and Dragons or Electronic Battleship
(Others can add examples here:)
But, I will keep reading this patent and maybe I will find out I jumped the gun, but I have deep revulsion for the USPTO just handing out patents to keep the cash flow coming. I will concede that since ms spent all this money (not even a drop in the bucket) maybe they thought this through, but somehow I doubt it and strongly suspect they are trying to encroach upon the process of creativity -- in areas already practiced WITHOUT patents being sought: HEY, microsoft! There is a REASON many of these screenplay companies are not openly warring with each other: they thrive better on low-level competition and incremental improvements they can afford to make. With you coming on, you THREATEN that ecosystem! But maybe this fishy-assed patent will merit some legitimacy after all... as much as I would like to see it reversed.
A few nit-picks:
Further, story generating system 30 may utilize one or more tools that may make generating stories fun to motivate users to operate system 30 for generating stories. For instance, story generating system 30 may request users to correctly spell the names of the images they desire incorporating into a story before allowing them to access the desired images to promote learning.
Excuse me! Any decent database that denies the ready access to wild cards will DEFINITELY deny access to or prevent the return of the data set sought out. Rather than making data trawling FUN, it most definitely will be a harrowing and nerve-grating process.
Further, story generating system 30 may allow users to easily manipulate sophisticated three-dimensional images, such as for changing the perspective view of the image presented in a graphical user interface, prior to incorporated the images into the story.
BS, again. While **I** have not filed a patent on something like that, I **HAVE** been for YEARS been toiling and actually using Lotus Approach for building
my own screenplay application. I have image fields denoting sets and locations uses, but though **I** lack the programming skills to embed hotspots, others for YEARS have embedded hot spots on overlays and pictures in browsers and thick-client apps. Nothing NEW here, msoft!
It should be appreciated that story generating system 30, interface module 32, story collaboration module 36, and story publishing module 38 are illustrated in FIG. 3
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Fixed bad quotation marks selection which did not print; forgot to mention on-line language translation services and applications [0032] references to changing languages on behalf of the users. However, most language conversion would not be trusworthy enough (contextual references would be needed, and many of us who watch foreign or translated films and movies in their native and in the english subtitles and who as our friends to verify the similarities or differences know that much is lost in translation. It is the reason I watch foreign films in their native audio and follow the body language and intensity with less priority on the english on the screen.
NOT non-obvious; I am evolving such a thing, and
others are, too. Prior art can be found, though I have only ever released a couple of screenshots on a site (in 2003) that no longer exists.
This is such bs. (So far from what I am reading), a bunch of techno-mumbo-jumbo used as a wrapper to disguise the obviousness or actual pre-existence of software and hardware that only need cobbling together, not unlike taking a door off the hinges and using it as a snow mobile ski in an emergency and then finding it has real-world application, but is still NOT non-obvious.
It is definitely NOT non-obvious. Much of this can be obviated or nullified by putting together:
-Ace-CAD handwriting/drawing tablet
-Database of permitted scenarios (Character A has attributes that would not normally allow action A; B says or hears or does something that makes Character A, C and E tell or allow overhearing by Character D; meanwhile Event A happens because Character B did not perform an action within a period of time....)
-BBS-like features to support moderation in real-time or at-reading
-Collaborative writing tools such as:
Power Structure:
http://www.google.com/search?q=power+structure&ie= UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Celtix:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtx
- A little bit of *(pod?.. Apple is seeking ownership of almost anything with pod in it)casting
- Some electronic or manual dice-rolling, not all that different from playing Dungeons and Dragons or Electronic Battleship
(Others can add examples here:)
But, I will keep reading this patent and maybe I will find out I jumped the gun, but I have deep revulsion for the USPTO just handing out patents to keep the cash flow coming. I will concede that since ms spent all this money (not even a drop in the bucket) maybe they thought this through, but somehow I doubt it and strongly suspect they are trying to encroach upon the process of creativity -- in areas already practiced WITHOUT patents being sought: HEY, microsoft! There is a REASON many of these screenplay companies are not openly warring with each other: they thrive better on low-level competition and incremental improvements they can afford to make. With you coming on, you THREATEN that ecosystem! But maybe this fishy-assed patent will merit some legitimacy after all... as much as I would like to see it reversed.
A few nit-picks:
"Further, story generating system 30 may utilize one or more tools that may make generating stories fun to motivate users to operate system 30 for generating stories. For instance, story generating system 30 may request users to correctly spell the names of the images they desire incorporating into a story before allowing them to access the desired images to promote learning."
Excuse me! Any decent database that denies the ready access to wild cards will DEFINITELY deny access to or prevent the return of the data set sought out. Rather than making data trawling FUN, it most definitely will be a harrowing and nerve-grating process.
"Further, story generating system 30 may allow users to easily manipulate sophisticated three-dimensional images, such as for changing the perspe
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Use the Canadian method: when you're sued for patent infringement, you have to prove damages. IANAL, but here's my understanding. If you hold a patent on some item X but never make any implementation of it, you are able to sue for the extent of your damages: $0.
"[0032] By way of example only, a first user may have entered text in their default language, such as English, for the first collaborative dog callout 406(1), such as "This is fun!," which may be presented in the other user's default language, such as French, in the second collaborative dog callout 406(2) in the second collaborative user interface 60(2), such as "C'est amusement!.""
:-/
In what strange universe does 'This is fun!' equal 'c'est amusement!'
They were probably looking for 'c'est amusant!' and that ain't exactly the ideal translation either. The damn patent isn't even accurate
Personally, my feeling is that until they are able to demonstrate that they can produce an acceptable translation between languages (even using a human, frankly) they should not be provided with a patent that hinges on that technique. Incompetence all round.
MOD PARENT UP!
Oracle implented an ability to embed "hints" within a query that forced the query optimizer to make some basic assumptions (such as requiring that a certain index be used, for example), in the 90's.
Another, less well known database, Ingres (now FOSS), already had a statistical optimizer in the early 90's: the optimizer would collect histogram information (as most modern databases do) about the distribution of rows within a table and use that information to limit the execution plans that could be considered by the optimizer. Ingres also had an ability to retain the execution plan from a previous optimization and reuse it later, when the same query was issued, which is another feature mentioned in the patent application.
Informix probably had something that would qualify as prior art as well, but I'm not familiar with their database product.
When all is said and done, it seems to me (as a DB person but certainly not a patent expert) that there is plenty of prior art for the exact kinds of things Microsoft is talking about in this particular application.