Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Patents the Design of Search Results Page

Posted by kdawson on from the look-and-feel dept.

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).

31 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Do no evil by Frankie70 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Except occasionally.

    1. Re:Do no evil by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny
      What happens in China stays in China.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Do no evil by Fozzyuw · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Do no evil...Except occasionally.

      Since we're linking to Jeremy's blog post, I thought it might be worth while to also post Matt Cutts blog regarding this 'drama'. Matt acknowledges Googles mistake (and by Google, we mean a person(s) working for Google who first, thought copying a Yahoo! page was a good idea and 2) got through management approval to let it go live.)

      Matt also points out, probably more interesting, how Yahoo! is not entirely innocent when it comes to 'copying' what the competitor does. However, the comments on his page have an interesting discussion of which is truly worse? Copying UI/Layout/Design or Graphics/Layout/Design.

      This is a tough call for me (as a web programmer/developer). I can kind of go both ways on this one. Patents and such are always a difficult concept to talk about. On one hand, they protect inventor and innovators, while on the other hand they're a forced 'legal' monopoly of "If they make it, you cannot make it too". As an inventor, I'd hate to create something, be original, and have it copied. As an average everyday person, I'd hate for one company to control a product and prevent natural competition.

      In this sense, I cannot agree with myself on this situation. A photographer buys a Hamburger at a popular fast-food chain. Takes it home and opens it up and takes a photograph of it. 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). 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. Who's right? Who's wrong? Has a 'crime' (either moral, ethical, artistic, respectful, or legal) been committed?

      Regarding the Google vs Yahoo!, it raises another question... online media. Graphics/Photos (JPG, GIFs, PNGS, etc) are protected, but what about UI? Layout? Coding practices? If it 'looks' the same on a monitor, is it not like being a Photo? After all, I can take a screen-capture and make it one easily. So, should it be equally worse to copy ones layout or design? Or even use similar or the same color palettes?

      If I spend hours of time and money in R&D for the perfect usable interface, should my 'innovation' also be protected, the same as if I took the time to take a photo of something? After all, a layout/design is artistically placed in the same manner a photographer or painter choose the placement of objects in their shot and a designer chooses their color and brightness the same as a photographer or painter chooses theirs.

      Cheers,
      Fozzy

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    3. Re:Do no evil by TekPolitik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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>

  2. Look and feel patents, like software patents... by jimstapleton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    should not exist.

    that's what's copyright is for!

    --
    34486853790
    Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    1. Re:Look and feel patents, like software patents... by dsaraujo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if you're talking hypothetically, in a better world, copyright shouldn't exist either. Go ahead, mod me troll, but the world would be better. :)

      --
      Visit the RPG Search Engine
    2. Re:Look and feel patents, like software patents... by jimstapleton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      then how can people make a living out of creating things for the public to enjoy? How can we encourage those to do it, and do it well when otherwise they wouldn't have the time and resources? Copyright protection is important in the regards, abusable, yes, but the advantages are worth more than the contrary. Additionally, I'm speaking of this within limits, not the draconian rules that some with to apply to copyrights...

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:Look and feel patents, like software patents... by thebdj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      14 years vs. longer than our lifetime (there is stuff from my year of birth, 1982, that will not make public domain until long after my death). Hmmmm, let me think on that. Also, the design patents cover a lot of things that copyright and trademark were never meant to cover.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    4. Re:Look and feel patents, like software patents... by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong, Copyright does not cover look and feel of a software interface. Apple v Microsoft, and others.

      Design patents have existed forever. They are really no big deal. An item has to be almost exactly the same to infringe on them.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    5. Re:Look and feel patents, like software patents... by srussia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This reminds me of a conversation I had in a previous life some 7000 years ago.

      Og: Hey, I just got this crazy idea of connecting two round stones to the ends of a horizontal pole. It'll make it easier to haul stuff around.

      Me: Sounds great, but who will do your harvest duties while you build it? And how do you expect to get any money out of it, people will just copy you. I myself thought of this great tune, sang it to my wife and she loved it. But I'd never sing it public, they'd just learn it themselves and where's the money in that?

      Og: Ya, that's a good point. Forget about it then.

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    6. Re:Look and feel patents, like software patents... by Flwyd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Copyright infringement is the sincerest form of flattery.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  3. Look and feel patent? Prohibited long ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Weren't "look and feel" patents prohibited in Lotus vs Borland? I thought this matter was settled long ago.

    1. Re:Look and feel patent? Prohibited long ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Design patents aren't "look and feel" they're "exact look". Unlike utility patents, a design patent covers one thing and one thing only: the decorative appearance of something. So I can make a doorknob that looks a particular way, and since it's a physical object and not a play, song, book, whatever, it's not copyrightable but with the design patent, I can prevent other companies from making the exact same doorknob. But I can't stop them from making a "kind of roundish square doorknob", which was the idea behind the feel part of the "look and feel" patent attempt.

    2. Re:Look and feel patent? Prohibited long ago. by TheDoctor_MN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

  4. padding the patent portfolio by sreekotay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:padding the patent portfolio by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google will never enforce the patent, so its probably moot...

      That is some scary thinking. Of course it would be silly for them not to enforce the patent now, they don't need to. What happens down the road though when google is not doing so well and stockholders and calling for blood? They will leverage any assets they have to turn a profit, they have little other choice. Then we will see just how damaging these "patent portfolios" can be.

      We will never see IBM, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon, or any other company with a huge patent portfolio go out of business under the current patent system. If all else fails, they will turn into the ultimate leech, a patent holding company bleeding off of everyone else. They stockholders will demand it, to not leverage an advantage they have when other people's money is at stake is criminal in the eyes of business.

      Finkployd

    2. Re:padding the patent portfolio by finkployd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Google will never sue over patents for the same reasons no software giants sue over patents. Because everyone is violating them. Google sues Microsoft and Yahoo, Microsoft and Yahoo sue right back. If Google or Microsoft, or whoever, is "not doing well" a stupid move like getting sucked into patent litigation would just be finishing off the job.

      You did not think that through all the way.

      Google will sue over software patents the second that the income they could expect to get from those lawsuits exceeds the income they expect to gain from their software. Right now they feel that building their software portfolio is a much better revenue stream, but that does not mean that things cannot change.

      That's why the only people you see initiating patent lawsuits are these little patent clearinghouses that buy up patents from small software companies, but don't own any IP. That way they can sue over patent violations, without having any IP that can be sued back for patent violations.

      Right, but do the math. Creating software is significantly more expensive (and fraught with uncertainty regarding future income) than licensing a patent. If Office and Windows sales dropped so low that MS felt it could get more money by not selling any more software and instead using it's vast patent portfolio to export money from those who do produce software, doing so would be a no-brainer.

      Finkployd

  5. Prior art and my previous patents by AlHunt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry - I already patented putting words on blank web pages. Also graphics on blank web pages. I took out a 3rd patent on putting some combination of words and graphics together on a blank web page.

    The entire content of the World Wide Web is in violation of my patent rights. E-mail me for the address to which you may send payments.

    Assholes.

    --
    1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    1. Re:Prior art and my previous patents by spellraiser · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh yeah? Bring it on!

      --
      I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
    2. Re:Prior art and my previous patents by AlHunt · · Score: 2, Funny

      >Oh yeah? Bring it on!

      Only on /. will someone know where to find a blank webpage. Clearly, I need to call my patent attorney... :)

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
  6. Fun Queries by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.google.com/patents?q=slashdot&btnG=Sear ch+Patents
    http://www.google.com/patents?q=wtf&btnG=Search+Pa tents
    http://www.google.com/patents?q=peanut+butter+jell y
    http://www.google.com/patents?q=drm&btnG=Search+Pa tents

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
  7. Design? Google? by popo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Design" is a dangerous word to use here, since it seems to me that what we're
    really talking about it "organization". Afterall Google's result pages are
    about as graphics-lite as a page can possibly be. Furthermore, they're affected
    by client-side issues from screen-size to font settings. So the look of
    the results page is in many ways a matter of client side rendering.

    So I'm guessing we're talking about patenting the "organization" of data, and not
    the specific visual identity of the search results themselves. So.... I'm not sure
    I see the originality here. Google's advantage over previous-generation browsers
    was ultimately speed and a kickass search & pagerank algorithm. But ultimately
    the organization of the results doesn't seem entirely dissimilar from other
    search engines.

    And since this wasn't awarded a "utility" patent, we know we're not talking about
    anything that has functional value -- just "visual originality". Take away
    the Google logo and IMHO there's a whole lot of "visual originality" to the
    results.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  8. But Carbon Copy (of Lotus) was OK? by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:But Carbon Copy (of Lotus) was OK? by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.


      I've never heard of Carbon Copy. The only lawsuit I know of over a product with the degree of copying of 1-2-3 that you refer to is Lotus v. Paperback Software over VP-Planner, which Lotus won, on copyright grounds.

      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.


      The court in Lotus v. Paperback actually ruled the exact opposite, on the basis of the fact that there were successful competing products that didn't do that.

      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?


      Patents are not copyrights and are governed by different law. The reason people seek these kinds of patents now is that efforts to use copyright to protect general look and feel and short of fairly exact copying (such as that at issue in Lotus v. Paperback) failed in the 1980s and 1990s, (e.g., in Apple vs. HP and Microsoft, and in Lotus v. Borland), which have led companies to seek different means of protecting this aspect of their product from copycats; I don't think is a case of a change in what the US is willing to grant IP protection for so much as a change in what companies are seeking a particular kind of IP protection for, as a direct result of the failure of a different kind of IP protection to protect it.

  9. Patent Search is much more interesting by starseeker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Google patent search beta could be big news. If anybody can get relevant patent search results out of that mass of legal speak, it's Google. I expect it wouldn't constitute a legally valid patent search but it could be Very Helpful.

    The usual favorites:

    http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6368227&id= hjwMAAAAEBAJ&dq=swinging+on+a+swing

    http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5443036&id= OfwkAAAAEBAJ&dq=exercising+a+cat

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  10. RTFA by Frankie70 · · Score: 5, Informative


    On the subject of them "copying" a Yahoo page:

    Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, that's a template provided by Microsoft? You know, since it's pitching the IE7 upgrade and all that.


    From the article,
    Quote "And I've checked with our PR group to make sure that this wasn't just a template that Microsoft gave to all partners. It's not." Unquote.

    1. Re:RTFA by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 2, Funny

      Comment
            We have a name for that:
            Quote "Natural Language XML" Unquote.
      Uncomment.

  11. Yet another Google beta by LoonyMike · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet they're also trying to pantent the concept of "releasing beta products for widespread usage".

  12. A whole day of fun by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    Patents 1 - 10 of 75 on cock sucker. (0.00 seconds)

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  13. Design patent definition by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since so many people are confused as to what a design patent is :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

    And for those of you too lazy to even click: "In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of what can be protected with design patents."

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  14. Please, Google's actions are NOT bad here! by Bamafan77 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Google is different from all other software companies and show that you CAN do business without resorting to "questionable" tactics. There's an obvious explanation here if you people would only care to look. The difference here is that...well you see......hey is that Britney Spears over there?!

    *runs for the hills*