Slashdot Mirror
Xerox Sues Google, Yahoo Over Search Patents
gnosygnus writes "Xerox Corp has sued Google, Inc. and Yahoo, Inc., accusing them of infringing the document management company's patents related to Internet search. In a lawsuit filed last Friday in the US District Court in Delaware, Xerox said Google's Web-based services, such as Google Maps, YouTube and AdSense advertising software, as well as Web tools including Yahoo Shopping, infringe patents granted as far back as 2001. Xerox seeks compensation for past infringement and asked the court to halt the companies from further using the technology."
that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox???
My guess is that Xerox isn't looking for any big payout, but rather some kind of cross-licensing deal for patents.
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
System for automatically generating queries
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979
Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6778979
The ironic thing is that, if I understand correct, Google Patent Search (what I used to find these patents) would be in violation of these patents...
Patent law is retarded. You can sit on a patent for 19 years and 11 months. There is no requirement to go after people to keep a patent enforcible. You can patent something and wait for the entire term of the patent for someone to actually invent/commercialize what you have patented, and then sue them at the 11th hour and take as much money from them as the courts will give you.
The exclusion of microsoft is interesting, perhaps MS already has a cross licensing deal with Xerox?
Dear Google, Yahoo, and anyone else who has more money than I do. I would like some of your money. Please give me some money or I will have to sue you for it. Thank you and have a nice day.
mmmm...forbidden donut
They probably tried to actually find something using Bing and decided they wouldn't have a case.
Good times, but how the mighty have fallen these days. I for one miss the idea of a pure research group.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
And once upon a time SCO was a respectable Unix vendor.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
You can sit on a patent for 19 years and 11 months. There is no requirement to go after people to keep a patent enforcible.
Citation needed. Where I come from, they have something called equitable estoppel. In this case, you're looking for laches.
Xerox is notable for failing to commercialise or profit from PARC's accomplishments, including the invention of the gui, laser printing, bit-mapped graphics, the mouse, and Ethernet. It is the most monumental example of dropping the ball that I can think of.
after discovery of infringement (maybe a couple years after the event), they could have attempted to come to an agreement with both entities. Negotiation might have broken down and now the patent holder's last recourse is an infringement suit.
Wouldn't be the first time that series of events occurred, especially when multiple patent-lawyer-loaded parties are involved, and it would create a legitimate delay before filing suit.
Be interesting to see what the details actually were, however.
If there's a better definition of a troll, I don't know what it is...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
...They practically invented the GUI.
...and if they'd be able to patent it, we'd still all be running DOS, since Xerox never came out with a GUI product. Such is the power of software patents to drive innovation (into the ground).
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
because, in order to be reminded of the quote about understanding recursion you must first be reminded of the quote about understanding recursion. and you were.
do not read this line twice.
I get your point, but need to mention that Xerox has been selling laser printers for many, many years. The book Dealers of Lightning claims that their profits from laser printing have easily paid for all of the research done by PARC.
Also, Xerox did not invent the mouse, and has never claimed to have done so.
I would suggest looking into the Ingres/Postgres historical code for prior art - or for that many, any of the pre-1991 database engines. If I remember correctly (from circa 5 years ago - the last time I looked at it) - the postgres code prior to the 1995 adoption by the PostgreSQL group had functionality in it under the first patent and was built during it's period before it became abandonware. I seem to remember similar functionality for text searches in DBase III, but I could be poorly remembering.
As for the second - as the link is not valid - I would examine LISP designs for prior art circa 1956. Other environments since have also had "Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge" - but LISP is one of the original to have this as an architectural component. I believe the 1945 paper used as a prototype for some of LISP design also had this, but I've misplaced the reference. (it's on one of the many, many fine lisp websites *grin*)
Without more definition than a title, any expert system would qualify and much of all the historical research into Artificial Intelligence.
*thinking* - expert systems may also hold prior art against the first patent as well.
IANAL,and I'm rusty as all anything- but I hope it helps someone.
Did you mean recursion?