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?"
Publicly lobbying for reform on patents they themselves own, doesn't this seem like a more defensive move than a necessarily malicious one?
I'm sure every doctor protesting tort reform has liability insurance regardless. Why shouldn't Google get some insurance of their own? It's a cut-throat world out there, after all. If you don't tread carefully, you'll get shut down.
It's been a long time.
Google only acquiring the patent is NOT evil.
Now, if they bust out an army of Google patent lawyers and start suing everything that has an input box and a submit button... then I'd have to agree. But for now, it could just be a brilliant plan to showcase how NOT evil Google is, and how RETARDED the patent process can be.
And besides... what if some malevolent entity decided to patent this before Google did? Then we'd all be in for a heap of trouble, because this other entity would be doing it just to troll patent infringement lawsuits all over the place. At least now Google could potentially prevent that kind of behavior... But again, goes to show how dumb the patent process really is.
RTFS. It's a design patent, not a software (utility) patent.
I'm not sure that distinction matters in this case. Designers are directly limited, but they'd use software to implement the idea. Software developers who make web pages are limited, despite this being a design patent.
I remember reading somewhere that there are processes in place for a patent submitter to deprecate a patent and forcefully render its content public domain. Am I remembering incorrectly? If not, then that would surely be a sign of goodwill as it would render the given content unpatentable.
That this is a stupid patent and may, in fact, be prior art, doesn't mean Google's motivations are nefarious. Indeed, if you are correct that it is prior art, then all the more reason for Google to apply for this patent even if they have no intention of enforcing it. If Google could receive the patent despite prior art (or lack of originality), then another organization could possibly have done the same thing and then turned around and sued Google. If you had billions to lose and were working in a broken patent system, you would apply for some dumb patents too, just to cover your ass.
They probably should have published it as prior art, but prior art doesn't seem to mean much in this world. The USPTO seems to ignore any prior art and then issue the patent anyway. Then Google would likely get sued and have to spend the money to defend the lawsuit (likely in East Texas) and then get the patent invalidated. It is cheaper to file for it themselves then try to defend a lawsuit later. I honestly don't believe that's the reason they have done this. I wish it was, and I hope it does show how ridiculous the patent system has gotten, but I doubt that was the main reason google applied for this patent.
Actually, what I did there was the opposite of "polarize", because I smooshed everything into one big group, in the middle. I don't know what the right word would be, though.
What I also did, more importantly, was take the piss out of Google, and apparently offend one of their fans (you).
I'm curious what basis you have to believe that "the people in charge at Google have more 'moral' business ethics than most'. Did you take a sample of businesses and rate the ethical practices of each? Or have you worked there, and seen how Google Sausage is made, and compared it to other companies for which you've worked?
I'm going to wear my colors, here, and guess that you're responding to the hard work that Google's brilliant PR department has but into their carefully polished corporate image.
But let's make this fun, I'll going to and make this simple challenge:
What evidence can you provide to support your claim that Google is ethically superior to most other businesses?
and if you're game, you show me what you've got. (Feel free to define those terms however you want, it's your assertion, anyway.)
You need to ask yourself two question:
1. When has Google sued or threatened to sue anyone over patent violations?
2. When has Microsoft sued or threatened to sue anyone over patent violations?
I don't think Google has _ever_ even threatened to sue. They've been sued, on a number of occasions, but I can't find any references to them actually doing the suing.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has been shouting for years that Linux violates 238 of it's patents. Although they've toned it down recently. They've also sued TomTom just this year, over patent violations.
It's not just "Microsoft has a patent, so they're evil!......Google has a patent, so they're showing the stupidity of the patent system!"
You've got to take into account the history of the patent holder, what previous abuses they have subjected customers and competitors to, among other things.
There's a reason the punishment for a second offence is bigger than the first offence. Because courts take into account the history of the offender. You're not doing that.
You're complaining about foebois and fanbois, while you yourself are blinkered to the big picture.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......