Slashdot Mirror
Google Patents the Design of Search Results Page
prostoalex writes "ZDNet is reporting that USPTO issued a patent to Google, Inc. for 'ornamental design for a graphical user interface'. This is not, as ZDNet points out, a software patent (which is usually issued as a utility patent), but a design patent, which governs the look and feel of the product and prevents others from directly copying it." Ironic, given Google's recent slip-up of copying a Yahoo page. In news on the flipside, Google has launched a patent search service (in beta).
should not exist.
that's what's copyright is for!
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Uh Oh... too bad
In theory a problem for all the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em (*ahem* confuse 'em?)" school of search destinations, but.. Google will never enforce the patent, so its probably moot...
----
graphically speaking
graphically speaking
I don't believe this.
Years ago, there were Lotus 1-2-3 clones, which copied not only the general visual appearance but the actual menu layout, sequences, names, and functionality.
One of the more famous was literally named "Carbon Copy." That was the product name. Really.
Lotus took the company to court and lost. IIRC The court ruled that it was OK to copy the look, feel, and details of the Lotus product's menus, because there was no other way to produce a competitive product.
How the heck can a perfect functional duplicate of a complete menu tree be OK, but a vague organization of elements on a web screen be copyrightable?
This is not a case of Google being evil (although they are), this is a case of a sea change in what the United States is willing to grant IP protection to.
But at least it was the Google News screen. I was afraid maybe they'd gotten a patent on the spare, lean, mean Google Search screen and that it would now be compulsory for everyone else to have a cluttered web page.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Not according to the principles of design patents. Like the previous poster said....design patents cover the EXACT LOOK AND FEEL of the covered thing. Very hard to infringe, and very easy to work around. Put the text entry field in a different place in the browser window, and voila, the Google patent doesn't apply. Let's not get worked up in a lather over this folks. Cheers, Bob
A photographer buys a Hamburger at a popular fast-food chain. Takes it home and opens it up and takes a photograph of it.
OK, that photographer has copyright in the image
A 2nd photographer see this photo (on the 1st photographers website) takes a hamburger from the same food-chain, and shoots a drastically similar photograph (the pickle is on the other side).
There has been actual copying and this is a breach of the first photographer's copyright.
A 3rd photographer cooked his own hamburger, and decided to take a photo of it, and has never seen photographer 1 or 2's photos, and his photo turns out to be almost the exact same image of the 1st photographer.
This is not a breach of copyright since there was no copying. Proving that there was no copying may be difficult though. When there's a design patent, the equivalent of this 3rd photographer's actions would be illegal for violating the patent, even though in no possible objective sense could you suggest the 3rd photographer has done something wrong.
Design patents are evil like any other patent - the very concept of exclusivity even when somebody else independently invents the same thing amounts to perpetrating an injustice. It makes conduct illegal when the person engaging in that conduct has no knowledge of the circumstances making it illegal. Such laws can only be justified where independent invention is very unlikely and proving copying very difficult - factors which sadly do not apply for most patents.
Fortunately design patents have much shorter duration than invention patents./p>