Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Flickr Patenting "Interestingness"

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the yeah-thats-unique dept.

tjcrowder noted that Boing Boing is reporting that Flickr has filed for a patent on a system for determining "interestingness". From the patent application abstract: "Media objects, such as images or soundtracks, may be ranked according to a new class of metrics known as "interestingness." These rankings may be based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the media object, the number of users who have assigned metadata to the media object, access patterns related to the media object, and/or a lapse of time related to the media object." So basically, nobody else can use tags to label files. Totally original thinking from the folks at flickr. *cough*

4 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. umm... no? by geoffspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're not patenting tagging, and there's no reason to think you can't use tags if the patent is accepted. The patent may be really stupid, but if we're going to get editorial comments, can they at least make sense?

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    1. Re:umm... no? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed.

      I really wish Slashdot would stop doing this. Taking a patent, making the most ludicrous assumptions about the scope, and then criticising these assumptions as ludicrous. It doesn't help. It undermines the anti-patent argument.

  2. Commentary wrong ;) by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So basically, nobody else can use tags to label files. Totally original thinking from the folks at flickr. *cough*

    No, it just means you can't tag a file "interesting" ;)

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  3. I think that's an oversimplified summary. by artifex2004 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tags are only a part of the interestingness. They want to patent a method for looking at patterns of popularity over time.

    Part of their patent has claims on methodology, and part on a computer program designed to make use of that methodology (to cover the implementation requirement, I'm sure). And as I was reading just the initial page, I could imagine a pseudoequation forming in my head using the variables of time, popularity, content, etc.

    I'm no patent attorney, but this sure sounds like trying to patent an algorithm. Not tags.
    Now, whether they should do this is a good topic for debate -- but let's make sure we at least know what they're doing before debating it.