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).

Comments

Do no evil

[Frankie70]

Except occasionally.

Re:Do no evil

[elrous0]

What happens in China stays in China.

-Eric

Look and feel patent? Prohibited long ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Look and feel patent? Prohibited long ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

padding the patent portfolio

[sreekotay]

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

Re:padding the patent portfolio

[finkployd]

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

Re:padding the patent portfolio

[finkployd]

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

Prior art and my previous patents

[AlHunt]

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.

But Carbon Copy (of Lotus) was OK?

[dpbsmith]

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.

RTFA

[Frankie70]

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.