Slashdot Mirror
Will Google TV Owe Royalties For Universal Search?
An anonymous reader writes "Google TV, TiVo, iTunes and virtually every big consumer electronics maker have promised 'universal search' engines that enable users to quickly find and play movies, music and other content, no matter where it is stored. But Crestron Electronics, a developer of home automation systems, just filed a patent for 'Searching Two or More Media Sources for Media.' In other words, universal search, specifically for both local and cloud-based content."
Yes, but they added "on a TV".
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
The whole point of search is to look in more than one place, otherwise it would be called Google retrieval.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc725/sched725.htm
Check subclasses 48-53 as well as subclasses 133 and 141.
The office is well aware of this sort of art, there are existing patents which search the interent as well as local sources such as DVD players, PCs, PVRs etc to create combined electronic program guides. They are found in the above sub classes.
this is not news.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
This AC is right, the Act does not mean prior art no longer counts. Citing:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless:
'(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
'(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date[3] of the claimed invention.
Dilbert RSS feed
What Crestron seems to be trying to patent here is some very basic set arithmetic that is fundemental mathematics that predates even the first paper on relational databases.
This is yet another "invention" that sounds like an undergraduate computer science homework assignment.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The article indicates that a big portion of the patent covers prioritizing the search results based on a number of factors. One of the main factors listed as price. Google's search doesn't factor price into the rankings, so it likely both wouldn't infringe and would not be an example of prior art.
Have you never used Google Shopping, or Advanced Search? Sort by Relevance, Sort by Price.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Not only are you wrong (see the other person(s) who replied to you), but first-inventor-to-file doesn't even go into effect until 16 March 2013, and then only for applications filed on or after that date.
"What would you do if you had 1 million dollars?"
"Search two sources at the same time."
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.