Slashdot Mirror


Location-Based Search Was Patented In 1999

greenbird writes "Another patent fiasco has begun. Wired reports that a patent on location-based Internet searches was filed in 1996 and granted in 1999 (patent is here). A patent troll company name Geomas acquired the patent and has filed suit against Verizon in none other than Marshall, Texas. They claim this is the first in what will be a long line of lawsuits. Geomas has amassed a $20M war chest in venture capital to use for getting rich off of a clearly obvious idea."

4 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lots of things are obvious after they have been done for the first time.

    Yes, but some things that are not obvious become obvious once a suitable infrastructure is put in place. So even if they did think of the idea before it was technologically possible to implement...the idea would have been thought of anyway once the Internet approached its modern state.

    At a bare minimum, a patent application should require a functional prototype. Stating "A device capable of faster than light travel" is not the same thing as inventing a device capable of faster than light travel, so why should the mere description of the technology be sufficient to patent it?

  2. Yellow Pages by borgasm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    um, the Yellow Pages ?

  3. Re:Slashdot exercise: prove it was an "obvious ide by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy would qualify as prior art. That it is fictional in no way keeps it from embodying those ideas.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  4. Re:Obvious? by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the US was building our strong economy you so cherish, it had much weaker IP laws. IP, especially in it's current form, doesn't do much for society in general, it allows the entrenched to stay so, and get fat on the losses of society as a whole. It stifled creative works, and basically creates a mediocre oligopoly of "art" and technology. Whatever's the safest bet for those who want to keep all their money, and make more. You wonder why Britney Spears is popular, and why Windows is at best passable, rather than brilliant and progressive in technology? People with intellectual property play it safe because they can protect their "intellectual" monopoly, and don't have to take risks with new things that might not go over well. Which basically makes everything play to the lowest common denominator.