USPTO Gives Google Patent For Doodles

theodp writes "After a 10-year struggle, the USPTO was convinced to issue Google a patent Tuesday for Systems and Methods for Enticing Users to Access a Web Site, aka Google Doodles. Among other things, Google explains that the invention of co-founder Sergey Brin covers modifying a company logo with 'a turkey for Thanksgiving' and 'a leprechaun's pot of gold for Saint Patrick's Day.' To help drive home its point, Google included an illustration showing the USPTO that hearts could be displayed on the Google home page for Valentine's, which would be deja-vu-all-over-again for the 394 lovers who used the UIUC PLATO system on Feb. 14th, 1975."

Comments

Prior art

[Shikaku]

10000BC, caves.

Re:Prior art

[Nidi62]

Yes, but this is USING COMPUTERS! That makes is a completely different, novel invention worthy of protection.

Re:Prior art

[equex]

VLC media player will turn into a Santa Claus-hat instead of the usual orange cone during xmas.

Re:Prior art

[Shikaku]

No.

Everyone replying seriously is whooshed. I wasn't serious. I RTFA after posting, knowing the title was a hyperbole.

Re:Prior art

[Moryath]

Prior, Schmior.

The patent, as shown by the myriad other examples given before, is BLOODY FUCKING OBVIOUS and never should have been granted if the US patent office were not goddamn overworked and judged on the "metric" of how many patents they grant each year.

Re:Prior art

[sconeu]

Oh come on. You know that you are supposed to defer to the PTO because of their superior knowledge!!!

Re:Prior art

[qmaqdk]

And not at all obvious.

Re:Prior art

[Theaetetus]

10000BC, caves.

Claim 1: A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising: instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, where the instructions for creating the special event logo includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images; instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating to the special event; instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page; instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the special event based on the user selection.

That's odd... I didn't realize caves were computer-readable mediums storing instructions executable by a processor for attracting users to a web page. I'll stop there, but if you want, I could step through the rest of the claim and point out why cave paintings don't associate search results with a modified logo, or provide documents.

Re:Prior art

[YoshiDan]

I modify the logo banner on the website of the company I work for on the holidays, in fact, I just created new artwork for easter... Am I in trouble? :p

Re:Prior art

[aix tom]

Well, you could call Morgs third cousin Glock a "computer", because he is the only one in the tribe capable of counting to five.
Then a wall or a stone tablet would be a "computer-readable medium".

And cute little Gnuutna could be classified as a "processor", because she processes all the meat the men hunt, and Morg and Glock can give her instructions to lure members of other tribes into the nets they have constructed over at specific sides of the cave, which would then basically be "performing a method for attracting users to a web page" by the "animated logo" of the shadow of a naked chick on the wall.

Re:Prior art

[rtb61]

Change accessing website, to accessing content and themed text adds hundreds of thousands of movie titles, music titles and TV titles to the list of prior art. So it should immediately be obvious where the idea was stolen from and it only be about for more than a century.

Re:Prior art

[gl4ss]

coca cola.
many other websites.

it's just another example of google being evil for sake of being evil and wasting investors money for the sake of not knowing what else to patent. I mean, this will not help android with it's patent troubles or are they going to cross license this? it's a funny novelty, but ehm, they shouldn't waste time on using lawyers for that, googles done enough of funny stuff.

also, for giggles, go check localised google home pages (for .sk for example) and then think.. did these guys hire the failed altavista portal gurus or what the f....

sigh.

[tverbeek]

very heavy sigh.

Re:sigh.

[WrongSizeGlass]

very heavy sigh.

Indeed. I googled stupid patents and it came up with 1,530,000 results. When I change it to stupid patents google I get 5,440,000 results. Hmmm, I wonder what that's about?

Re:sigh.

[rubycodez]

what's to keep them from "protecting themselves" by restricting small companies and other people,? I and thousands of other people and companies put enticing doodles on our websites long before google existed

Re:sigh.

[Nikker]

So instead of the USPO declining such stupid ideas Google gets to be the "Good Guys(TM)" and let you put hearts on your site during Valentines Day and snow flakes during winter? Wow that's great.

Re:sigh.

[repka]

I guess things like your comment would show up only under the latter search.

Re:sigh.

[erroneus]

I too would like confirmation on this assertion. Can it be said that Google has never initiated a law suit a party over patents? Can anyone refute this claim? (I know, proving a negative... so I am seeking a positive to disprove a negative)

Also, do we have any word or statement from Google that they will not sue another party for patent infringement?

Re:sigh.

[Lion XL]

It's about you sounding pretty dumb.......the words are queried by 'OR''s not 'AND''S.....so those extra 3mil+ words contained the word 'GOOGLE'.......

Re:sigh.

[EdIII]

You have no idea. I help administrate/develop a couple of websites and I was asked to start cycling out the background and logo depending on the holiday and time of year.

This patent is so fucking stupid it's ridiculous. Now Google is the only one that gets to do that? Really?

Mind blowing stupidity. Now I have to inform several website owners of the patent when they ask this so they are at least informed of possible patent infringement.

Re:sigh.

[SadButTrue]

A quick google search for '"google sues" patent' returns less than 50k result which pretty much means it hasn't happened. First link was this, kind of interesting:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091110/0843176877.shtml

Re:sigh.

[mwvdlee]

What would be even better is if even Google didn't get the patent. Then Google didn't have to not sue anybody.
I've been doing holiday flavoured themes (including logo's) for my own website(s) long before I ever touched Google, and I got the idea from other sites that have been doing this far before. Perhaps some of these sites were the inspiration for Google to do the same with their own logo.
Either way the PLATO prior-art proves Google is in the wrong. The only honorable thing Google can do now is to release the patent into the public domain.

Re:sigh.

[jgagnon]

Searching for "+stupid +patents +google" (making them all "ands") gives 733000 results. :p

Re:sigh.

[colesw]

Well to be fair the PLATO system didn't modify their logo, they just added a "heart" to the top of the screen. Google actually makes custom logos.
A better example of prior art would be Blue's News
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/logos.pl
As you we can see the first christmas logo was for 2000, a few months before google submitted their application.

Re:sigh.

[EdIII]

The blame does not lie with Google. It does not lie with the unholy lawyers that would be (are) parasites on humanity by abusing the patent.

The blame DOES lie with the USPTO. They should have shredded the application, put in a box, shit in the box, and sent it back to Google.

I don't blame a child when they get into trouble doing something stupid that was condoned, supervised, and encouraged by the parents. I blame the parents.

****

If Google really was doing this for our benefit as part of their Do No Evil campaign then they should immediately come out with a press release announcing a FRAND patent license to the entire world that involves a zero dollar licensing fee. Even still, that would not be necessary if the USPTO was not so hopelessly fucktarded.

I'm not sure if it is hyperbole to claim at this point somebody could get a patent on breathing.

Re:sigh.

[Errol backfiring]

I think something along the line of:

"All Patents Are Stupid"

"But Some Are More Stupid Than Others"

Re:sigh.

[poetmatt]

Are you afraid to breathe because someone might patent it? That's a microsoft response.

Google hasn't sued anyone for patents, they don't need to. Get over the fucking FUD.

Re:sigh.

[poetmatt]

Are you a republican? they'd be proud of that kind of logic.

Let's try it this way, which has already been proven: has google sued anyone over patents?

Your focus is on fear, and thus idiotic.

hint: no.

Re:sigh.

[rubycodez]

I fear a patent office that commits blunders on the order of granting patents to breathing; if they are that stupid preservation of our ability and freedom to create and innovate are in very poor hands.

Ridiculous.

[tracygold]

Just ridiculous.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Dachannien]

So, did you read the patent claims, or just the typically misleading /. summary?

Re:Ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

The heart (or turkey, or whatever for the specific holiday) replaced the clock, not the company's logo.

So replacing the logo instead of the clock fulfills the “non-obvious” requirement of patents?

Re:Ridiculous.

[thetartanavenger]

So, did you read the patent claims, or just the typically misleading /. summary?

I agree I did, then read the actual patent claims:

A system provides a periodically changing story line and/or a special event company logo to entice users to access a web page. For the story line, the system may receive objects that tell a story according to the story line and successively provide the objects on the web page for predetermined or random amounts of time. For the special event company logo, the system may modify a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo, associate one or more search terms with the special event logo, and upload the special event logo to the web page. The system may then receive a user selection of the special event logo and provide search results relating to the special event.

I agree with the grandparents conclusion. Ridiculous.

How original

[Patrick May]

Aren't patents supposed to be for ideas that aren't obvious?

Re:How original

[WrongSizeGlass]

Aren't patents supposed to be for ideas that aren't obvious?

Hey, that's a pretty novel idea you've got there. Why not patent it? You can avoid the 'prior art' and 'obviousness' issues by simply checking the 'Super New Idea' and 'I Was First, Pinky Swear!' boxes on the patent application form.

Re:How original

[Opportunist]

Yeah, so? It never stopped any of the various computer related patents.

Re:How original

[shentino]

If penalties for perjury on patent applications were even half decent that would actually be a good idea.

Re:How original

[Aighearach]

The obviousness part is usually handled by the courts, not by the USPTO.

Lately they've done a great job. The most recent Supreme Court precedent says that it has to be non-obvious in the context of wanting to achieve the same result.

So if you apply that here, it would have to be non-obvious in the context of wanting to change the logo on special events.

It has received derision from some here that the court left open the possibility of business method patents, but they didn't give any examples and seemed skeptical. It would have to be an actual technology, not just a different way of doing things. The mistake most of these patents make is that they include intent as part of the patent. That makes it easy to challenge.

Re:How original

[Samantha Wright]

Remember how Sun built up its patent portfolio? Engineers would try to write the most inane shit in a contest to see what they could slip past the USPTO's radar. It was all in good nature... at the time. I suspect the Google Doodles patent must have come from something similar. It's obvious that if Google ever tried to litigate someone with it, the judge would spend most of his or her time laughing. If Google could patent "patenting irrelevant crap to test the USPTO's ability to detect said crap," they would probably try.

Re:How original

[gstoddart]

The obviousness part is usually handled by the courts, not by the USPTO.

Oh, Really?

The feds don't seem to agree:

The US solicitor general, which represents the federal government in the Supreme Court, on Friday filed an amicus brief in support of i4i, saying that the US Patent and Trademark Office should not be second-guessed by a jury.

If they take away recourse to the courts, then they better get the obviousness part sorted out before they grant the bloody thing. Because, as it stands right now, you can patent things which everyone else feels is obvious ... the USPTO just pushes it through and lets the courts decide so they can get paid and move on with filling their quota.

Re:How original

[Aighearach]

Because a backwater of the executive branch keeps asking the court to change it's mind and let them do whatever they want, doesn't tell us anything about, or contradict, precedent.

Re:How original

[gstoddart]

Because a backwater of the executive branch keeps asking the court to change it's mind and let them do whatever they want, doesn't tell us anything about, or contradict, precedent.

I hope you're right, I really do. But, I really have visions of the Solicitor General establishing a new precedent saying that the USPTO's decisions should be final.

That would be bad.

Re:How original

[Aighearach]

That's not who establishes precedent.

Re:How original

[gstoddart]

That's not who establishes precedent.

Sorry, yes. I'm hoping the courtswon't use the amicus brief to establish a new precedent that sides with the solicitor general that says the USPTO shouldn't be second guessed by a jury.

For more specific legal advice, contact a lawyer. ;-)

Re:How original

[Maximum Prophet]

Aren't patents supposed to be for ideas that aren't obvious?

Hey, that's a pretty novel idea you've got there. Why not patent it? You can avoid the 'prior art' and 'obviousness' issues by simply checking the 'Super New Idea' and 'I Was First, Pinky Swear!' boxes on the patent application form.

You forgot "on the Internet".

All ideas are patentable if you add, "On the Internet" to them. It's like a game...

Re:How original

[517714]

I made that mistake too, paying attention to the spin from the summary/article instead of what the brief says, someone was kind enough to point it out to me.

"The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard also furthers the reliance interests created by a patent grant by affording the patent holder enhanced protection against an erroneous jury finding of invalidity. By allowing a lay jury to second-guess the PTO's judgment even in close cases, the preponderance standard would diminish the expected value of patents and would reduce future inventors' incentives to innovate and to disclose their inventions to the public."

It comes off as really inflammatory until the third or fourth time you read it. He doesn't say take the jury out of the equation, he is advocating that the standard the jury should use in overruling the Patent Office should be "clear and convincing evidence standard" instead of the "preponderance standard" that Microsoft is arguing should be applied. So he's douchey , but not evil douchey.

Re:How original

[gstoddart]

It comes off as really inflammatory until the third or fourth time you read it. He doesn't say take the jury out of the equation, he is advocating that the standard the jury should use in overruling the Patent Office should be "clear and convincing evidence standard" instead of the "preponderance standard" that Microsoft is arguing should be applied. So he's douchey , but not evil douchey.

Ah ... evidentiary standards and what constitutes proof ... not what I was really thinking that was saying at all.

Then I thank you, and I cede the point that the person I responded to made, and subsequent replies.

Though, I'm still not clear if Microsoft wanted a higher standard of evidence or lower ... I should think a higher benefits them as they're the defendant, so much better for them if it's harder to prove. So, I've probably just answered by own question.

Re:Computer Doodles

[GoNINzo]

And it helps to be signed into post correctly. Oh well. Please support an Alan Turing Google Doodle. Submit the idea to proposals@google.com.

Self defence?

[walterbyrd]

Have hyper-litigious, like Microsoft, created an environment where every silly idea must be patented just out of self defence?

If Google did not patent this, Microsoft would have; then Microsoft would have sued Google over it's use.

Re:Self defence?

[noahm]

If Google did not patent this, Microsoft would have; then Microsoft would have sued Google over it's use.

People still have this delusion that Google is not evil. Amazing.

Re:Self defence?

[TC Wilcox]

Have hyper-litigious, like Microsoft, created an environment where every silly idea must be patented just out of self defence?

If Google did not patent this, Microsoft would have; then Microsoft would have sued Google over it's use.

What makes you think Microsoft has anything to do with this? I mean, come on.... We have a story about google patenting something stupid and somehow it is Microsoft's fault?

Re:Self defence?

[PortHaven]

Microsoft is a moderate sort of evil. Apple, now Apple is pure evil.

That's why they've had so much difficulty producing a white iPhone. They'd build them, and they'd all turn black due to Apple's evilness.

Re:Self defence?

[517714]

Mi©®$oft is just as evil as Apple, those Wall Street boys are just trying to appeal to capitalists to get AAPL over $500.

Re:Self defence?

[TC Wilcox]

Patents are only meaningful *because* of others. If I were the only person in the world, I wouldn't patent anything as no one else could beat me to the punch and require me to pay them fees, etc. The fact that another company exists that may patent the idea first and extract payment is quite a logical reason to consider a patent. This of Microsoft as an example of a hyperlitigious company used as an example. As a discussion as to why one might patent an idea such as this, bringing up being first to do so due to hyperlitigious company's is a good point of discussion.

You disagree I see, but bringing up Microsoft is apropos.

But why call Microsoft out specifically? Why not any other software company? Does Microsoft litigate more than other large software companies? How about other groups that spend as much on research as they do? Does Microsoft have a higher percentage of stupid lawsuits than say, Apple, IBM, or even Google? And if this story was about Microsoft instead of Google would you say that they have to do it to defend themselves from the stupid patents of other companies (for example, Google)?

And besides, the stupidest Microsoft patent lawsuit that I can think of is long filenames in FAT, but even that is a very different from doodles. Is there another stupid Microsoft patent lawsuit that I am forgetting?

To me, as someone who has never worked at Microsoft (despite being offered a job) and almost never uses Microsoft products, it sounds like Microsoft bashing.

Re:Self defence?

[walterbyrd]

What makes you think Microsoft has anything to do with this? I mean, come on.... We have a story about google patenting something stupid and somehow it is Microsoft's fault?

I said companies like Microsoft. Amazon, Apple, Paul Allan, and others play the same game. I guess MS came to mind because of MS silly patent lawsuits against Android device makers.

Re:Self defence?

[praxis]

This started with the statement by walterbyrd was (sic):

Have hyper-litigious, like Microsoft, created an environment where every silly idea must be patented just out of self defence?

If Google did not patent this, Microsoft would have; then Microsoft would have sued Google over it's use.

I would argue that Microsoft has had it's share of stupid lawsuits, but that's not really the point. Yes, like any other company in the United States with the trademark and patent laws there, they are hyper-litigious. I do not think invoking them as an example was meant to imply any sort of hierarchy of hyper-litigiousness. If I were to make a statement saying "Have untrustworthy people, like X, created an environment where..." I do not mean that only X is untrustworthy and no one else, or that X is the most untrustworthy, only that they are a member of the class.

I personally do not care which member of the hyper-litigious one specifies as X, the jist of the comment is that hyper-litigious companies have created this environment where patents become necessary protections and defensive maneuvers almost required in the business. I don't personally agree with that, I think one could also argue the other direction that the way the intellectual property law exists it forces companies to be hyper-litigious and therefore one feeds the other and vice versa.

Is there a culture of Microsoft bashing on Slashdot? Yes, certainly. That's something I've come to expect over the years and have decided to look beyond it. I think in this case, Microsoft served as a convenient example that fit the poster's agenda, but the crux of the post was about intellectual property laws and enforcement thereof and how that contributes to today's environment.

Now sure why you seem to be reading it as Microsoft's fault, it's a systemic problem and yes Microsoft is part of that problem, but certainly not the only or most egregious. It just happens that Slashdot readership tends to bash Microsoft whenever it can so when citing an example, Microsoft (correctly) fit the bill but you are right, there are hundreds of other and maybe better examples. On other sites, the culture would probably lean towards using some other example, but not here.

Re:Self defence?

[MaDeR]

Drink Google kool aid, drink.

Next Up

[foobsr]

A method to leave people speechless.

CC.

10 years

[srussia]

Aren't patents supposed to be for ideas that aren't obvious?

Filing: 2001
Granting: 2011

Obviously it wasn't that obvious.

Re:10 years

[C_amiga_fan]

Filing: 2001
Granting: 2011

You think ten years is a long time? Back in the Dialup days of the 80s (35 years ago) it was common for BBSes to change their logos to celebrate holidays. For example "TNT BBS" might suddenly become "Turkey and Tater Tots" BBS for a day. Google's idea is no more original than multitasking, or multiple screening desktops.

Aside-

Also back in the 80s, my telephone company (AT&T) tried to charge an extra fee because I owned a modem that connected my computer to the phoneline ~16 hours a day. They argued I was abusing my "unlimited local calling" privileges, and should either pay $20 extra each month, or 10 cents per call. i.e. Pay my fair share. I threw the letter in the trash.

Unlimited means unlimited. Now the modern ATT and others are trying to charge extra if you use your cellphone to hook-up your computer. Some ideas get recycled again and again.

Re:10 years

[Maximum Prophet]

Unlimited has always meant "You can do whatever you want with it, as long as we allow it." It has never meant, "You can use as much of it as you want". Well, at least not to the lawyers. To us regular folks, unlimited means without limit, where limit is any restriction or disallowance.

Re:10 years

[Theaetetus]

Filing: 2001 Granting: 2011

You think ten years is a long time? Back in the Dialup days of the 80s (35 years ago) it was common for BBSes to change their logos to celebrate holidays. For example "TNT BBS" might suddenly become "Turkey and Tater Tots" BBS for a day. Google's idea is no more original than multitasking, or multiple screening desktops.

And were those logos links, or were they just ascii text? Did they have "one or more animated images"? Were search results associated with the logo? Could the user select the logo and receive a customized document related to the holiday?

I remember the dialup days of the 80s, too, and also remember that they were only 25 years ago.

Re:10 years

[bmo]

1. What is a picture but an arrangement of colors?
2. It matters not what creates the image. Paint, photographs, ASCII
3. With ansi.sys, we had color and special shapes. The C64 people had their own set of color graphics.
4. With ansi.sys we had animation.
5. Insert old DEC heads saying "we had animation too"
6 Customized document? You mean the motd?

Now before you get into "hurr durr, but it was ascii" there was other graphics. Prodigy used NAPLPS graphics, and there were various BBSes that used NAPLPS. They were few and far between, but they existed.

I remember the 80s too, and if you think the 80s weren't prior art, you're being disingenuous.

--
BMO

Re:10 years

[Theaetetus]

1. What is a picture but an arrangement of colors? 2. It matters not what creates the image. Paint, photographs, ASCII 3. With ansi.sys, we had color and special shapes. The C64 people had their own set of color graphics. 4. With ansi.sys we had animation. 5. Insert old DEC heads saying "we had animation too" 6 Customized document? You mean the motd?

Now before you get into "hurr durr, but it was ascii" there was other graphics. Prodigy used NAPLPS graphics, and there were various BBSes that used NAPLPS. They were few and far between, but they existed.

I remember the 80s too, and if you think the 80s weren't prior art, you're being disingenuous.

No, not disingenuous at all... Respectfully, you don't understand what prior art means. Yes, the 80s are prior art - there was art, yes, and it was prior, yes, so it's prior art. The question is whether there's one item of art - one publication or other record - that fully anticipates each and every element of the claimed invention. That's anticipatory prior art, and frankly, there was nothing in the 80s that did that.
Alternately, there are many items you mention that taught or suggested different elements of the claims. Those can be put together to show obviousness, but first you have to explain why someone would see all those things and immediately say "oh, animated logos on web pages." Yes, you had ansi.sys... And BBS's had logos. But was anyone animated BBS logos using ansi.sys? Would anyone think of using ansi.sys to animate a BBS logo? And does the user get the MOTD in response to clicking on an animated BBS logo, or is it automatically delivered responsive to them signing on?

Yes, you've got prior art... But you still haven't gotten each and every element of the claims, nor have you explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine them to get the claimed invention. You haven't made even the beginning of a case of obviousness.

Re:10 years

[bmo]

> But was anyone animated BBS logos using ansi.sys?

If you never saw an animated BBS logo/login screen then you really didn't use BBSes, did you? That was one of the main points of ansi.sys - to provide animation. Come on, seriously, if you deny this, I can probably dig through Facebook and find an old WWIV/Telegard/Renegade BBS operator to tell you you're full of it.

WWIVnet was full of ansi animation.

>And does the user get the MOTD in response to clicking on an animated BBS logo,

How is "clicking on the logo" any great leap from the motd after sign-on?

>nor have you explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine them to get the claimed invention.

1. have an image - animated or not
2. have the image display a message when clicked

It's as if hyperlinks on images never happened before 2001 and Google's filing. I'm not going to go 'round digging up prior art. You can find it yourself on the wayback machine with nearly every web page published before 2001 and after the advent of Mosaic.

--
BMO

christmas

[hosecoat]

i patent putting lights up on my house at christmas and wearing green during st paddys. I call it Systems and Methods for Enticing Strangers to Associate based on Appearance.

Great...

[roc97007]

Google just patented the Message of the Day...

idiocracy tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't every post about the USPTO automatically have an "idiocracy" tag?

Re:idiocracy tag?

[Dachannien]

The idiocracy mainly comes about from Slashdotters who don't know (a) how patents work or (b) how to examine patent applications.

The USPTO is hiring. If you think you can make a difference, and you're a US citizen with at least a Bachelor's in an engineering field, and you can relocate to the Alexandria, Virginia, area, you might consider applying.

Re:idiocracy tag?

[IgnitusBoyone]

Why I am a huge advocate of patent reform is this worth giving up my pay check for? Can, I just do it part time like if I reviewed work for journals. How much does a USPTO officer get paid?

Re:idiocracy tag?

[ArundelCastle]

The USPTO is hiring. If you think you can make a difference...

I sincerely doubt they are hiring people who think they can make a difference. More like people willing to cope with the backlog for 10-15 years.
Perks include: "Meet Our Customers" Junkets, Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays. And Taco Tuesdays.

Re:idiocracy tag?

[Dachannien]

Caveat and mea culpa: I just checked the website at http://www.usptocareers.gov/ , and it turns out that the job vacancies are currently closed. Probably something to do with Congress still not passing a real budget, and the USPTO doesn't want to have people relocate to NOVA if the government is just going to shut down immediately afterwards. Hiring will undoubtedly start again once the budget situation is resolved, especially if Congress also passes the patent reform bill that would give the USPTO fee-setting authority and access to all the collected fees.

The part time program is extremely limited in scope. Also, you have to relocate so you can attend the training academy and interact with primary and supervisory examiners while you're still a junior examiner.

Starting pay for examiners depends on your incoming education or experience. People fresh out of college with a Bachelor's will generally get paid at GS-5 at a high in-grade step, and if you have a Master's or other qualifying job experience, you could come in at a high GS-7 or GS-9. Top end for primary examiners is GS-14, achievable in 4 to 6 years. After you've been there for a long time, this puts you close to the statutory salary cap. In any case, sticking around long enough will put you into six figures.

Translation into actual numbers:

http://www.usptocareers.gov/Pages/Misc/SalaryRates.aspx

Benefits are extremely good. In addition to the standard benefits that all federal employees get (great health care, life insurance, pension, 401(k) equivalent with 5% matching, and 4/6/8 hours of paid annual and sick leave per biweek at 0/3/15 years of service), the USPTO has the federal government's flagship telework program which allows qualifying examiners (GS-12, fully successful rating, and having passed the certification exam (which is similar to the patent bar exam but shorter)) to work from home. Before that, there is a very flexible flextime schedule that comes close to letting you arrive and leave as you please, as long as you get in your 80 hours per biweek.

There are downsides, of course. One, it removes you from true engineering such that if you stay long enough, you'd better be interested enough in patent law to make a career out of it. Two, your work is metered based on a production quota, and if you have trouble meeting your quota, it can be stressful. Three, the work itself can be mind-numbing, as in many tech areas you'll be examining applications drafted with a tenuous grasp on the English language, and claim language is often intentionally vague.

And one thing to keep in mind is that you can't really make as big a difference as I let on earlier. You can do a superb job searching for prior art and making solid rejections, but ultimately, if you can't come up with a legally sound rationale for rejecting the claims, you have to allow the application. The USPTO is bound by the law, and if you try to make up your own reasoning for rejecting a claim without case law to back it up, you really just end up making more work for yourself. And if you spend too much time searching and searching for things that are extremely obscure in the prior art, you won't make production.

Re:idiocracy tag?

[Maximum Prophet]

And if you spend too much time searching and searching for things that are extremely obscure in the prior art, you won't make production.

That sounds like the problem, right there. If I can approve a patent and move on and get 1 point, or search, search and search then deny a patent and get 1 point, guess how I'm going to play the game.
Patents should be for extraordinary stuff. Denying a patent should at least get you a party with cake and ice cream. (:-)
There should be bonuses for every successful search and denied patent.
If the Patent office relies on case law to deny patents, then that's another big problem. Most obvious stuff that people are doing and have been doing for centuries doesn't have a lot of case law, because it's FREAKING OBVIOUS.

Re:idiocracy tag?

[theantipop]

Well at a certain point it's just not feasible to continue to search regardless of the quota. Besides, if the claim is obscure that's all they're getting legal coverage for anyway.

Re:idiocracy tag?

[Dachannien]

If the Patent office relies on case law to deny patents, then that's another big problem.

For the most part, this means in a general sense. Case law isn't usually relied upon for the specifics of a rejection, but rather for the underlying framework to support the logic behind a rejection. The most basic example is the Supreme Court's decision in KSR v. Teleflex, which reinforces earlier case law set forth in Graham v. John Deere, which established the factual inquiries required for determining obviousness:

1. Determine the scope and content of the prior art (i.e., conduct a search of the prior art).
2. Determine the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art (i.e., what differences are there between the claimed invention and what's disclosed in any single reference).
3. Determine the level of ordinary skill in the prior art.
4. Determine whether there are any secondary considerations that might point away from obviousness (for example, if there has been a long-felt need for the solution to some problem, but it hasn't been solved directly by the prior art, then the solution offered by the inventor might not be obvious; usually these sorts of things are provided as arguments by the applicant after a rejection is made).

Following those determinations, most obviousness rejections consist of finding ways to combine multiple references in obvious ways to arrive at something that falls within the scope of the claim, usually by taking one reference as a starting point and using the teachings of other references to modify that first reference.

Finally, there has to be a rationale for bridging the gap between what the prior art teaches directly and the modifications suggested by the examiner. For a long time, this rationale was limited to finding some "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM) for the change, i.e., a reason why the change would be beneficial, but the key in KSR was to say that there are valid rationales other than TSM. The Supreme Court gave six other example rationales in addition to upholding TSM as another valid rationale, and most of these additional rationales provide for finding something obvious when the change isn't necessarily beneficial, but is an arbitrary change where both the original version and the modified version function in a similar fashion.

A trivial example might be if the claim read, "A car having two headlights, wherein the headlights are high-intensity LED lamps."

In such a case, one could find a car having two headlights in one reference, a high-intensity LED lamp in another, indicate the modification of the car reference by replacing the headlights with the high-intensity LED lamp, and provide the rationale that the substitution doesn't change how either the car or the lamp function and that the result of the substitution would be predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art. Result: obvious.

Of course, if it turns out that there are specific challenges to installing a high-intensity LED lamp as a car headlight, then there may be some non-obvious territory available to the inventor, but they would have to further limit their claim to include their solution for those challenges.

Re:doesn't this cover ANYTHING?

[Sonny Yatsen]

No, it only covers special event logos.

Re:Enforcable?

[Sonny Yatsen]

It's actually even narrower than merely a special event logo. The first claim covers special event logos that includes one or more animated images. The claims only covers their animated and their interactive doodles, but doesn't cover doodles of just static images. Thus, their Pacman doodle is covered, but their July 4th doodle consisting of a painting isn't.

Not that it isn't still pretty bad. It's a dumb patent, but it's also really narrow.

Slashdot will be in violation

[IICV]

Slashdot will be in violation of this patent in about a week and a half :)

Re:Slashdot will be in violation

[Samantha Wright]

The ponies aren't coming back. It's... it's time to let go. *sniff*

IBM also files lots of dubious patents

[billrp]

It seem Google is just following IBM's path of patent anything/everything - just in case. In one very narrow band of technology that I'm familiar with, IBM files about 5 patent apps a year, and each one that I've read is simply common knowledge and widely implemented by the other 100 or so people in the world also familiar with this technology/engineering.

Re:IBM also files lots of dubious patents

[IgnitusBoyone]

It is sad that the system supports this mentality. Its fairly expensive to get a patent if you are not established, but rather trivial if you already have a legal department.

Read the claims

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent is very narrow and specific, and is unlikely to be useful in court. For example: the doodle needs to be based on a standard company logo, as opposed to a logo for a product or service, or other image. The new logo must be created to reflect a special event. It has to modify the original standard company logo, and it must include one or more animated images. There must be a link or search results associated with the image, which are triggered by selecting the image, and they must be related to the special event.

Dangerous Patent

[frinkster]

In any patent litigation, the inventor(s) of a patent can be deposed by the defendants. In this particular patent, the other side can force Sergey Brin to sit in front of a video camera for hours and answer all manner of questions about Google Co. The relevance of those questions is given a lot of latitude. Then, that video and a transcript become public documents in the lawsuit.

This is not something Google wants to do.

Don't be evil... ok

[scorp1us]

But what the hell is this?

How about don't be ridiculous too?

Holy Shit I Hate that Fucking Thing

[dcollins]

It being patented is just doubly stupid.

So if I have enough money

[future assassin]

I could just come up with "if user does this, then something is done when sensing a users action, which entices the user to perform an action, which leads that person to some place of my choice.

SO can I patent this

Say I have an e-commerce site and the lowest profit margin I need to make is 30% on each sale/item.

A user at my sites selects one or more items and when all those item(s), minus the shipping cost come out to 30%+ profit margin the shopping cart software then gives the user free shipping (also notifies the user with a "You qualify for Fee shipping" message) or possibly give the user discount on shipping just to make them feel better.

Re:So if I have enough money

[Em Adespoton]

Thank you so much for making this prior art just now (assuming someone else hasn't already submitted a patent for this).

coalition for patent fairness

[kiehlster]

And they say Google is a partner of the coalition for patent fairness (http://patentfairness.org/). What a joke.

Re:coalition for patent fairness

[EuclideanSilence]

There is a difference between wanting to change the rules of a game, and playing a game as if the rules have changed. You can be very much against a certain policy, but as long as it is in effect there is nothing hypocritical about exploiting it at all. In fact, the person who is most against the rule should be the one who has the most right to abuse it against those who favor it, since if he had his way it wouldn't exist.

Pants.

[Barryke]

I misread .. and here to tell you that "stupid pants google" gives 13,800,000 results.

Re:Pants.

[ghmh]

Actually at the time of this comment "stupid pants google" only returns 3 results. 2 are from facebook, and the third is the comment I'm replying to now.

Another example:

• google is evil : About 64,700,000 results
• "google is evil" : About 222,000 results

Patents will become worthless

[ckeo]

By patenting these kinds of ridiculous things you are making the world laugh at you.
In time a real company with something really worth patenting, will not be able to protect their invention because nobody else in the world will
take American patents seriously. I cringe when I read about stuff like this and when you combine it with the criminal element in the American
corporate environment, it does not give people a favorable impression/outlook on American's in general.
Here in Canada American is rapidly becoming a dirty word.

Re:Patents will become worthless

[Sentrion]

I think this is Google's attempt at satire - a spoof to show how ridiculous the patent system really is. Kind of like when they came out with TiSP.

I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Google's just doing this to embarrass the USPTO. Now that it's been granted, though, I'm sure the patent office will defend it to the hilt. Triple sigh...

former patent examiner here

[Anonymous Coward]

you must take the claims as a whole. claim 1 states: A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising: instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, where the instructions for creating the special event logo includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images; instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating to the special event; instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page; instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the special event based on the user selection.

EVERYTHING listed there is required. it's a pretty narrow patent if you ask me. it's stupid and in my opinion dubious, but they're entitled to it. i'm a former examiner and i've come across many, many outrageous applications. this one isn't all that absurd though.

Re:former patent examiner here

[ckeo]

I'll take your word for it.
I'm not able to read that sort of mix due to my eyes going crossed halfway through the first sentence.

Re:former patent examiner here

[darkonc]

..... i'm a former examiner and i've come across many, many outrageous applications. this one isn't all that absurd though.

Oh, now that's scary!

Re:Prior art, more recent and more applicable

[frovingslosh]

Google home page for Valentine's, which would be deja-vu-all-over-again for the 394 lovers who used the UIUC PLATO system on Feb. 14th, 1975

So...

[qmaqdk]

What would it take for the USPTO to reject a patent application (one which includes the phrase "on a computer")?

Re:So...

[517714]

Poop ... on a computer ... but you would have to give it a lousy title or it would get through.

Re:So...

[Xacid]

Compoopter.

Re:Prior art, then how about this

[frovingslosh]

So from the /. blurb there is this prior art: Google home page for Valentine's, which would be deja-vu-all-over-again for the 394 lovers who used the UIUC PLATO system on Feb. 14th, 1975

I know I'm safe

[PsiCTO]

My grade one teacher had nothing good to say about my doodles, so I know that I'll never entice anyone to view my site.

(yes, I'm old enough not to have gone to kindergarten... maybe that would have changed me into a taget for the "murder" of Google lawyers).

Are you ignorant?

[walterbyrd]

People still have this delusion that Google is not evil. Amazing.

Maybe you have not heard about Microsoft suing andriod makers over such silly patents as the idea of an index, or a graphic that displays while a page is loading. Or the dozens of other equally silly IP extortion scams launched by Microsoft.

Google may not be perfect, but Microsoft's IP litigation is in a class by itself.

Re:Are you ignorant?

[noahm]

People still have this delusion that Google is not evil. Amazing.

Maybe you have not heard about Microsoft suing andriod makers over such silly patents as the idea of an index, or a graphic that displays while a page is loading. Or the dozens of other equally silly IP extortion scams launched by Microsoft.

I didn't say anything at all in Microsoft's defense.

Google may not be perfect, but Microsoft's IP litigation is in a class by itself.

Again, I'm not making any claims about Microsoft. I'm simply expressing amazement that people still see Google as this benevolent entity that only ever acts in the public's best interest (or at worst, defensively, as you seemed to imply) Google is a publicly traded multi-national corporation that is driven by the need to expand markets and increase revenue. If they did not see monetary value in this "invention", they would not have applied for the patent, offensively, defensively, or otherwise. Their application for this patent was not done out of altruism.

When you get down to it, whatever the motivations, this is a bad patent.

Re:Are you ignorant?

[LordLucless]

Strawman. Nobody ever claimed it was altruistic. OP claimed it was defensive.

Re:Are you ignorant?

[noahm]

And my claim is that it doesn't excuse the creation of yet another bad patent. Defensive bad patents are still bad patents.

Re:Are you ignorant?

[LordLucless]

But still necessary. If you want change, you need to change the system. Preventing companies from taking up defensive patents just means they're more likely to get sued. The problem's not with Google's behaviour, it's with the system that requires that behaviour.

Re:Are you ignorant?

[noahm]

If google only filed defensive patents, I might agree. But they've got an immense patent portfolio and have used it extensively for purposes far beyond defensive.

Re:Are you ignorant?

[LordLucless]

Examples? Had a quick look, but didn't see any examples of Google suing for patent violation. All I could find were articles about Google being sued, or Google suing to overturn other companies' patents.

Re:Are you ignorant?

[yuhong]

BTW, on the topic of defensive patents, look up what happened to Amazon's 1-click patents on Slashdot. I read that MS's patents filed before 1996 or so was intended to be defensive too, but one of them was invoked in the B&N lawsuits.

Re:Are you ignorant?

[MaDeR]

Another retard that thinks "hey, someone else are bad too or even worse" is good defense. Newsflash for you: no, it is not.

Re:evil? No, not yet.

[walterbyrd]

Any tech company, especially a tech company that Microsoft is specifically targeting for legal harassment; would be stupid not to arm itself with every silly patent it could dream up.

Big difference between MS and Google - at least so far - Google is not using silly patents to harass it's competitors; which is more than Microsoft can say.

Just filing a patent is not necessarily evil, even if the patent is silly.

Re:Don't be evil - google is not being evil

[walterbyrd]

Unlike MS, Google is not actually filing harassment lawsuits against it's competitors.

When Google starts doing that, then it may be fair to call google actions evil.

Does IBM use those patents to harass competitors?

[walterbyrd]

Does IBM use those to patents to file frivolous lawsuits all of time? Does IBM aggressively use those patents for to harass and intimidate it's competitors?

If IBM does not do those things, then I would think that is a very significant difference between IBM, and Microsoft.

Special events, indeed.

[Waccoon]

So, they patented a KISS doll for corporate logos.

The summary made me think Google patented oekaki. Now that would've made me mad.