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."

Comments

Glancing at the first one quickly

[Tokerat]

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.

Re:Glancing at the first one quickly

[Fry-kun]

actually, google sometimes changes the result URLs to redirects like "google.com/redir?url=http://example.com" (not just like that, but you get the idea).
then their server is set up to send an HTTP redirect message to your browser whenever you click on that link - you get to the page and don't even notice that your click was logged

yahoo does this all the time (and for whatever reason they redirect between their internal sites multiple times - a redirect inside another redirect.. *shrug*)

Re:MS' search page

[omicronish]

Does anyone use MS' web search page? After its introduction with much noise I've never heard anything about that anymore.

I use it, although in all honesty, it's about the same as Google search for me. Results are good enough that I'm happy. However, I do like Live Image Search far more than Google Image Search. Live Image search has infinite scroll (no more clicking Next), the images are more relevant in my experience (try "Al Gore" on Live and Google), and it lists related people. It also has my favorite feature: you can add images you've found to a scratchpad. This is quite useful if you want to gather images while searching.

Software patents must go, period

[Pecisk]

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.

Re:Software patents must go, period

[donaldm]

I can read the frustration in your post but IMHO you are not a troll. Sorry have not read your URL yet but will do after your post (looks interesting though).

In many ways I agree with you because I think the average person feels so powerless in the face of Mega/Giga dollars that companies like Microsoft wield to push through patents in software that to people in the field feel are trivial and obvious.

I am very anti software patents because they are based on maths and logic which should not (IMHO) be patentable. Patents based on maths and logic do reduce the ability of human mind to innovate or even think freely for that matter. Yes I know the arguments that companies like these use and in nearly all cases they are just FUD, unfortunately the Law listens, because in many respects most Lawyers and Judges don't have the technical knowledge and work on precedent.

The main problem I see with software patents is that the patent is written in legalese and the actual science would be poorly understood by the patent lawyer although it just may be possible that the lawyer has a degree in Law and Science (hands up if you are one). Many software (and also many non software ones as well) patents are fairly vague but all encompassing and can be interpreted in a variety of ways but always to the advantage of the person/company who had the patent written for them in the first pace.

Even a person who understands the science finds a patent difficult to read because it is written in a language they are not normally familiar with, so it can be difficult to determine if you are infringing.

Unfortunately patent law reform will only come from the judiciary with the support of the appropriate companies and I don't see this happening anytime soon since they have so much to loose at the feeding trough.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Hook `em young

[gzearfoss]

They also design their gui with children in mind, or maybe children design their gui, one or the other

They tend to design guis with ease-of-use in mind, especially aiming for the least-common-denominator, which oftentimes happens to be kids. For Joe Non-Techie, it's easier to understand a dog asking questions about searching, than a bunch of tickyboxen with technical descriptions. (Personally, I hate that animated character, but my Grandfather finds it easier to use and makes the computer seem friendlier. (Good grief - I'm defending the search character. I don't know what I'm smoking, but I'll be sure to pass it around.))

Re:MS' search page

[gamlidek]

A hit is a hit is a hit, regardless of the intent. You might not like it but the numbers aren't false.

That may be. But how many non-false hits were unintentional and thus serving useless search information to someone that just says "whoops, I meant to type in the .com at the end" and ignores the results? Or better yet, how many hits resulted in an intentional search? *That* would be a more useful number. I've always had a problem with how folks quantify how well a thing is on the Internet by the number of hits it gets. Hits have the potential of being arbitrary and artificially inflated, as the original poster stated, and in my opinion provide little useful information.

/gam/

Prior Art

[David Off]

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?

Re:What Happening in Microsoft

[b0s0z0ku]

. It is actually better than google in that the results are about equal but you get less spam ads and there image search leaves googles stuff for dead.

You mean the "look" of the image search site or the content returned? I see very little difference in the content returned. But the look of the site sucks. It's much more data-intensive, and thus slower, even over a broadband connection. And who the hell needs images that expand in an animated manner when you mouse over them or flashy menubars? The only thing that M$N search might have going for it is the search macros feature that allows for the creation of more customized searches. Google, OTOH, is fast and viewable on any (even ancient) browsers. M$N search seems like more bloatware from a company that specializes in it.

-b.