Slashdot Mirror
Google Patents Its Home Page
theodp writes "A week after new USPTO Director David Kappos pooh-poohed the idea that a lower patent allowance rate equals higher quality, Google was granted a patent on its Home Page. Subject to how the design patent is enforced, Google now owns the idea of having a giant search box in the middle of the page, with two big buttons underneath and several small links nearby. And you doubted Google's commitment to patent reform, didn't you?"
Or... it's a cunning ploy to show how idiotic Patents are in this day-and-age.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Anybody else notice that the slashdot reply function is a box in the middle of the page, buttons underneath and a bunch of links around it?
In retaliation, goatse has now patented mooning, and also all images of anuses.
That's not evil, that's a public service.
So next time I hear someone talk about intelligent design, I'm going to ask them to show me God's patents.
They should patent "The use of beta software for extented periods" too.
I'm going to apply for a 'facial configuration' patent: A nose with two eyes above and to either side, with a mouth beneath. Then I'll SUE YOU ALL!
Smivs on the intertubes!
I have rabies. I can't help it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
No, they did this to stifle competition.
Yeah, now all the search engines will have to think up another page layout. You know what would be really neat? A search bar at the top of the page, and a newspaper-like layout beneath it with navigation links, major headlines, and mail. Or, there could be a big-ol' search bar over a scenic canyon with a river and plant-life. I sure hope some of them take me up on these ideas to combat Big Bad Google's competition-stifling patent on the minimalist page.
I summarised the invention for anyone who doesn't want to read TFP.
<html>
<body>
<center>
<h4>Google</h4>
<p><input size="55"/></p>
</center>
</body>
</html>
I know what a trademark is. How does that change what I said - why do we need trademarks to protect "decorative, non-functional elements of a design"?
Please read up on design patents.
Citation needed, since your statement denies the obvious purpose of a design patent. Please don't nit-pick over what "similar" means, unless you're contracting to present legal advice to every Slashdot reader.
No, I will absolutely nit-pick over what "similar" means, and I'm not contracting to present legal advice to any Slashdot reader. If your entire argument hinges on "don't examine this word too closely", then it's really not much of an argument, is it?
see: Evil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
Google doesn't have to spend money to defend a patent suit in East Texas. It would be cheaper for them to buy East Texas.
Three little Slashdot trolls are we,
Raised in a place that's basement-ey,
Filled to the brim with mockery,
Three little Slashdot trolls.
Everything is a source of fun
Nobody's safe, for we care for none
Your outrage is a joke that's just begun
Three little Slashdot trolls.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.