Slashdot Mirror
US Dir. of Citizen Participation Patents the News
theodp writes "Ex-Googler and now White House Director of Citizen Participation Katie Stanton is charged with promoting open public dialogues. Last Thursday, Stanton and Google snagged a patent on displaying financial news. Google explains that Stanton's invention — Interactive Financial Charting and Related News Correlation — will 'facilitate and encourage the user's use and understanding of financial information,' which does jibe nicely with Stanton's appointment to Obama's New Media Team. Too bad it'll be encumbered by a Google patent until 2027."
where's the digg button? I see twitter and facebook, no digg...
Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.
Examples:
SmartMoney
MarketWatch
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
The summary doesn't go into specifics as to what has been claimed. Basically, Ms. Stanton worked at Google, and was part of the team that developed Google Finance. What's been claimed here is essentially the placement of flags at points on the stock chart, along with some other specifics of Google's stock chart presentation.
Laying aside opinions on the patent system and this patent in particular for a second, I would say that the title is highly misleading: the "news" is not patented, nor was the filing made by the named inventor of record in her capacity as Director of Citizen Participation. Google is obligated to list all individuals who played a dominant role in the inventive process, and apparently it was felt that Katie Stanton was just such an individual.
Since I consider Google Finance to be a fantastically well-designed resource that communicates a lot of data very succinctly, I guess I'd say that this recommends Ms. Stanton's ability to communicate information, even in a very abstract sense. That said, I suspect that this is the last I will ever hear of her, or the office of the Director of Citizen Participation.
TEABAG!!!
As others have pointed out, this patent is basically describing the sliding, adjustable window and news flags features of Google Finance, so it's unlikely that this patent would play much of a role in Ms. Stanton's new job. But if the government wanted to use the invention described in the patent for some reason, it has an automatic license to do so. 28 USC 1498(a) gives the federal government (NB: not state governments) a license to use any patented invention. The patent owner can sue for reasonable compensation but cannot enjoin the government from using the invention.
As a side note, 28 USC 1498(b) gives the government a similar right to use copyrighted works. In that case the copyright owner's damages are limited to reasonable compensation plus the minimum statutory damages, so no overinflated damages for government copyright infringement.
So she worked at Google and got a patent in 2006? Nothing unusual about that. Why is this news?
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
What happens if we don't "participate" Comrade Obama?
What's next? A Council of Americanism?
I recommend learning and reading over passive propaganda any day.
Try these non-political books: Naked Economics and Learn to Earn.
Leave the passive stuff to the sheep.
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
Picky, picky, picky, but new patents issue on Tuesdays.
Right you are...guess I missed the Tweet that announced the move. Was a replacement named?
Have you ever seen Google sue offensively? Cuz I haven't. It seems Google uses their patents for defensive cases (i.e. so someone else can't sue them), not as a patent troll. At least, that's been the rule so far.
And if that happens, I foresee a big jump in the sales of torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers, and boiled rope.
See the writings of Karl Denninger for more information.
Be who you are...and be it in style!
You do not have to worry about these silly liabilities such as patent infringement.
The only person who loses is the American worker.
Time to fire the incumbents in 2010 and 2012.
http://saveie6.com/
( Oil | Corn | Stock | Gold ) prices ( rise | fall ) on ( Middle East sabre-rattling | earnings release | Lindsay Lohan arrest | natural disaster ).
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Don't bother reading the summary - it's a bunch of twaddle.
Here is what the patent covers:
1. A system for providing financial information about a target entity in response to a user request, comprising: one or more computers configured to provide a user interface including: a main chart for showing a graph of financial data over a first time period; a second chart displayed concurrently with the main chart, and for showing a graph of financial data over a second time period that includes the first time period; and a user-adjustable viewing window displayed on the second chart, wherein the first time period of the main chart is defined by placement of the user-adjustable viewing window on the second chart.
Patenting a government process while on government time? I didn't think that was even legal, but if it is, then 'we the people' own the rights to the patent anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Patents filed these days receive a 20 year term from the earliest effective filing date. In this case, the application was filed 24 February 2006. That would mean its expiration date (assuming the assignee pays the maintenance fees) would be 24 February 2026.
However, due to delays by the USPTO, there is a patent term adjustment. The USPTO calculated it at 686 days, which would mean that the patent actually expires (approximately) 11 January 2028.
Finally, a recent court decision (Wyeth v. Kappos) concluded that the USPTO was calculating patent term adjustment incorrectly. This means that the patent may be due a (slightly) longer adjustment. Ultimately, I'm not entirely sure what the correct expiration date is at this point.
In any case, the expiration date is definitely not in 2027.
Community. The of playing your Corporate declined in market Of the waaring If you have FreeBSD at about 80
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
The constitution doesn't stop the white house - do you think a patent is going to?
I would say that the title is highly misleading
Well of course it is. This is very typical of articles posted by timothy.
we are talking about a government by, of, and for the rich people
There, fixed that for you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He's organizing a secret Bolshevik style plot to overthrow the government by passing health care legislation! And hiring people who used to work at companies that file patents! Or something...
Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.
since when has that stopped companies from patenting the "technology" they "invented".
When employed at Google, Ms. Stanton worked on user interface design, and yes her employer sought a patent for one of her inventions (that she created as part of a team of other workers).
She was required to assign her interests in the invention to her employer---that's 100% standard.
I'm not aware of any employer that say: "Oh, if you invent something, you get to keep it or patent
it yourself, or give it away as you see fit...."
Does this previous employment, which anyone in their right mind would consider an important
resume line, now eliminate her from serving in the White House? Does the fact that
she's creative, and had to earn a living, prevent her from later working in the public
interest in government?
We should hope not, since government surely needs talented people.
Is there some sort of "purity test" implicit in this article? I.e., anyone who has ever applied
for a patent---either personally (at enormous expense), or because of one's work---is NO LONGER
qualified to work in any position that lets them give something back to society? I think
that's the tone of this submission. That's certainly the conclusion one draws from the wording.
Yes, the patent system is complex, outdated, silly and not what we need. But do you know
what else we DO NOT need? Patent trolling on slashdot. We also don't need silly
"purity tests" that only allow patent virgins to work in public office.
What we DO NEED is talent, creativity and passion in public officials. I'm glad that highly
talented people like Ms. Stanton can decide to change her career, give up the high paychecks,
and work in government, serving the public. It's a shame there are idiots (and I use that
word carefully) who diminish her public service, because she once worked for a company.
What would the article author have us think? Perhaps only starving artists should serve in
government? Well, that wouldn't do, since the good ones bother to register copyright on
their valuable works.... Perhaps that will be the article author's next topic to attack.
Perhaps then we should have government ranks only filled by those who never held a job in
a large company, never did anything of value (worth having their employer seek patent protection),
and never wrote or composed anything of value, else they'd have tarnished themselves with
a copyright notice.
Obama's administration submitted a Bilski brief, and Obama's made a statement about wanting to enforce US patents overseas. I'm starting to document the administration's software patent related stances here :
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
after you left the company. I received the approval for one about 3 weeks after I left the company who really owned the rights to the patent. I was just one of the "named inventors" even though I had a mostly administrative and management role in its creation. I had been working for the company to secure that patent with appropriate lawyers for 2+ years.
So what? I get that some FOSS types really don't like patents, especially software patents, but where's the news in this story? It's not like she raped her dog. Nothing especially heinous, unusual, or hypocritical happened here.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Like so many others. First - genuine growth and competitiveness by innovation. Next - if lucky to reach the level of political corruption - corporate impotency, relaying on brand strength, monopoly, dubious patents and legislation. This phase is characterized by outsorcing and growth by takeovers; Apple (ex. ARM cores under A4 brand in iGlutton), and Microsoft all meet here. Third - an empty corporate shell managing the last asset - brand.
I have already no great expectations of Google who tries to exterminate Firefox (new YouTube codecs) and attempts draining money from the government (pushing patents into public services), like in this example.
I was annoyed at the title malfunction, too.
Anything that is copyrighted to the U.S. government can be freely disseminated and it's fair use. I would think the same applies to patents.
My erroneous conclusion was that the Dept. of Citizen Participation was somehow protecting a portion of content, probably in an effort to get them to participate in something or other, like, I don't know, a discussion board, without worrying about getting sued for copying a paragraph from an Associated Press article.
And beyond being closer to correct, I would think that "Google Patents the News" is more likely to attract attention than the Director of some obscure governmental department that I've never heard of before.
I almost skipped it.