Google Patents Caching MLK Day Search Results

U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by TechGuys · 2012-01-16 03:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

These granted software patents are ridiculous. Patenting detection of trending topics and search queries? Jeez. Companies like Google and Apple are collectively abusing the system and patenting every single thing they can think of, most of which are outright obvious.

The worst thing is that like copyrights, U.S. is trying to spread patents (including software patents) all over the world. They've been trying to get European Union to join them for a long time now. At least we've still resisted, even though it is getting there.

And you know what will happen? Countries like India and China will only strengthen their positions. When companies in the US and Europe have huge overhead costs going to lawyers, have to avoid good techniques in their products because someone has patented it already, and are spending time in courts, Chinese and Indians will just laugh and grow to dominate the world markets. U.S. knows this. They know it very well because after all, they blatantly ignored all European copyrights and that's how they got their power. And don't think even for a second that the Chinese don't know history or are afraid to use the same advantage. In a way US is like the old media companies and RIAA/MPAA.. so adjusted to their ways and existing powers that they just can't move forward with the rest of the world anymore.

It's time to get rid of all software patents and this constant abuse by corporations.

Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by stranger_to_himself · 2012-01-16 03:54 · Score: 2

These granted software patents are ridiculous. Patenting detection of trending topics and search queries? Jeez. Companies like Google and Apple are collectively abusing the system and patenting every single thing they can think of, most of which are outright obvious.
It's not the corporations' fault in this case.. the fact that software patents exist mean that you have patent the obvious before somebody else does.
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 03:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Companies like Google and Apple are collectively abusing the system and patenting every single thing they can think of, most of which are outright obvious.
Google isn't abusing the system. They're trying to protect themselves from people who are abusing it, like Apple and Microsoft. The patents that they have filed and acquired are solely for defensive purposes. Google has never used a software patent offensively, and is very outspoken about the need for patent reform: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=google+patent+reform
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Synerg1y · 2012-01-16 04:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Technically, it's the creators of the patent system's fault for not envisioning the internet, search engines, code base, or virtual data. You can then go on to blame the government for not having a better system for revising the patent's system's faults. Or you can do nothing...
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by youn · 2012-01-16 04:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

I remember a similar argument said about microsoft because for a long time it did not use its patents in an offensive way... including to stiffle competition... what is to stop google from changing their mind next year? or simply to sell their patents to a more litigative (If you think this can not happen, just look at the recent sale of novell patents)

--
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by swalve · 2012-01-16 04:59 · Score: 1

If it is so obvious, why didn't you patent it first?
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-16 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

We're not building a big army because we want to invade anyone, we're building a big army so that we can defend ourselves against those other bad people. We can tell that they're planing on invading us, because they've been building big armies...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Dragonslicer · 2012-01-16 05:28 · Score: 2

We're not building a big army because we want to invade anyone, we're building a big army so that we can defend ourselves against those other bad people. We can tell that they're planing on invading us, because they've been building big armies...
Replace "because they've been building big armies..." with "because they started invading us last year".
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Synerg1y · 2012-01-16 05:29 · Score: 2

Imagine this, who do you think submits all those patents? They probably have a dept. that gets paid for doing this, of course they'll try and push everything through, realizing the sad state of the patent dept. If it was your job, wouldn't you try too? It seems dumb to submit these patents, but 1. somebody's gotta eat 2. its only possible because of the flaws in the patent system, not in google's business model. In a system where the checks and balances don't add up, isn't it safe to assume that human nature would dictate taking advantage of the situation?
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Synerg1y · 2012-01-16 05:30 · Score: 1

There's bigger implications to google "changing its mind" on its current benevolence than patents :)
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by FreakyGreenLeaky · 2012-01-16 05:47 · Score: 1

Exactly. This nonsense will continue for some time and eventually it will implode. Just a matter of time. Unfortunately (US) companies don't seem to have much of a choice...
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by mrclisdue · 2012-01-16 06:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

What I'd really like to know, TechGuys (aka a few other aliases), is why, in your first-post-same-timestamp-as-article-100+word diatribe, did you fail to mention Microsoft, even once? Why did you not lump MS in with Google (always first) and Apple in this statement:

Jeez. Companies like Google and Apple are collectively abusing the system and patenting every single thing they can think of, most of which are outright obvious
Was this simply an oversight, Insightbites? An error of omission, DCTech?
Pray tell.
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by viperidaenz · 2012-01-16 06:22 · Score: 2

So you're saying the researchers at HP are not experts in their field? I'd like to see you do better. If the test for obviousness was "an expert in the field..." then no patent would ever be granted. Search cache algorithms are not trivial.
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-01-17 02:02 · Score: 1

If it is so obvious, why didn't you patent it first?
With the exception of the large software corporations, who has the money to patent every obvious thing out there? How many of these people can afford to defend their patent?
Bill Gate's greatest fear was that someone in a garage was already working on the next online revolution. Software patents like the one that was mentioned in the TFA puts most of those fears to rest. If you reduce the number of potential competitors by making it expensive to enter the market while making it a liability minefield, you make it easier to forecast what your current competitors are doing and work to stay ahead of them.
Software patents mostly benefit the established market holders (e.g. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, etc.), lawyers, venture capitalists, and investors in technology portfolios (patent trolls). I see nothing wrong with patenting a specialized machine which is controlled by software (ie. some hardware/software combination), but I believe patents for software only solutions (ie. algorithms) should be abolished.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-01-17 03:02 · Score: 1

Let's be clear about one thing- IP lawyers are succeeding in creating a parasitic lifestyle on our industry and on our lives and futures.
They impose themselves as non-value producing entities on an industry and then begin siphoning off money from that industry.
They do not add value, they remove value; they do not promote progress, they retard progress. There are so many dollars being thrown off from any given product, and lawyers have conspired to insert themselves into that revenue stream, directly and negatively effecting your bottom line.
This parasitic lifestyle is as good an example of the 1% staging a systematic assault on the 99%.
In fact, The imposition of a software patent regime is as clear cut a case of the 1% consciously organizing to cut off economic opportunity from the 99% as you're going to find outside of a smoke filled room in Texas.
There are about the same percentage of software developers who favor software patents as there are climatologists who don't believe in global warming. 98% of software developers want to write software, create a product, and add value.
Precious few look at the patent troll lifestyle with envy and wish to pursue a career litigating over simple minded applications of middling value.
But for those that do favor software patents, just exactly how do you propose to win at this game?
That the realistic cost of acquiring a software patent starts at 15-30k and goes well north of there.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/
although note that one IP lawyer comments that "In Los Angeles it is not unusual for partners to charge in excess of $600/hour which makes your estimates on the low side."
which is more than you're likely to make from your patent:

The cost of patents is greater than the revenue they generate. âoeAbout 97 percent of patents generate less revenue than the patent costs." Return on patent costs. How much does it cost to patent an invention? (Andy Gibbs, CEO of PatentCafe.com Inc., quoted in Celia Lamb, âoeNew program at Sierra College aims to help would-be Pre Plastics,â Sacramento Business Journal, February 7, 2003)
But never mind that, now that you have spent more than your likely savings on your one single patent, exactly what is it you're thinking about doing with this patent?
Licensing it? Do you think that licensing is automatically negotiated and enforced by the government?
No, you're going to pay a lawyer an hourly rate which is two to ten times what your own hourly rate is to approach, approach and then re-approach company after company none of whom are even slightly sympathetic to your request for a taxation on their profits and will, in fact, do everything they can to resist any kind of licensing deal, including using the tactic of exhausting the rent-seeker's financial ability to pursue rent.
Oh so let them use your "intellectual property" you'll sue! For millions! Well, good luck with that. Because you're sure as hell not going to be doing that on your own unless you're in the 1% or can find some subset of 1% who are sympathetic to your quest to join their ranks via litigation.
The cost to sustain an infringement claim starts at one million US and goes to 5 million and beyond. So unless you're befriended by some part of the 1%, you're not going to be enforcing your "intellectual property rights" anytime soon.
So what do we have, really?
We have a system which has the net effect of imposing an impossibly high barrier- call it a poll tax- upon the most vibrant and valuable form of economic participation our economy has - starting a company.
And who created that barrier?
Highly paid (1%) lawyers working for highly compensated (1/10 of 1% ) CEOs.
And what does that barrier do?
Discourages
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-01-17 03:19 · Score: 1

YEah Google needs to start actively campaigning for the abolition of software patents.
You see what they did with SOPA and PIPA . They can do the same for SW patents if they want to.
I like Google. Who else have we got in the corporate world, IBM? Snark.
Google shares my values generally and certainly on the important issues AGW, freedom of speech, net neutrality. They need to seriously take stock here and make a decisive move here. It's not enough to play a crooked game well and reluctantly . They have to start fighting for what they know is right and just.
Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by masterme120 · 2012-01-17 03:46 · Score: 1

Because obtaining a patent is expensive and defending it is even more so.

Re:Idea!! by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-16 03:49 · Score: 2

No, but you can patent misleading and irrelevant headlines! Did you know Google is going to patent having employees named "Martin Luther King", soon? What about customers with the same name? No? Slashdot can fix that!

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

Re:Idea!! by ameen.ross · 2012-01-16 03:50 · Score: 1

Too late, the patenting office already did that, and making lots of $$. Nice try though!

--
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)

hmm, patent-commenting system by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 03:50 · Score: 1

Is there any kind of comment-system regarding these patents online? Like, my (published) thesis-work from1997 exactly covers the stuff mentioned above, with restriction that there are exactly 2 priority-levels..

Re:hmm, patent-commenting system by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-01-16 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is there any kind of comment-system regarding these patents online? Like, my (published) thesis-work from1997 exactly covers the stuff mentioned above, with restriction that there are exactly 2 priority-levels..
Then submit it to the patent office as prior art, patent it yourself and start claiming royalties.

Re:Idea!! by dreemernj · 2012-01-16 03:51 · Score: 2, Funny

"Your honor, you can clearly see in Xzibit A that we have patented patenting patents..."

--
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg

Way to be racist slashdot... by ProppaT · 2012-01-16 03:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Please reread that last sentence and decide to delete it. It's racist and it's debatably slander towards Microsoft implying that they a) assume that all MLK Blvds are dangerous or in bad areas of town and b) their patent actually goes so far as to always exclude MLK Blvds from walking paths. You're not defending your point by linking to that St. Petersburg Times article, either.

--
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."

Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Entropius · 2012-01-16 04:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

There's some truth in it. In every city I've been in with a MLK Blvd, it's somewhere you don't want to be. I've heard a black comedian say as much in a piece. When moving to Baltimore, a friend of mine -- who's quite liberal, has gone to the Occupy protests, etc. -- told me: "Look, here's a map of town. See this diagonal road? It's MLK. Don't go on the other side of it."
Perhaps not all of them are this way, but enough of them are.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Richard_at_work · 2012-01-16 04:03 · Score: 3, Funny

What rubbish - I never took it to be racist at all, what I took from it was that on MLK day, it's probable that streets named after the man may be in use for other things, such as street parties, and as such you would want to avoid those streets if you actually had to travel on that day.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by MightyYar · 2012-01-16 04:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you follow the links in that line, you will be relieved of your innocent impression.
But I don't think it is "racist" - it's an old joke popularized by Chris Rock, and the fact is that many MLK-named roads are in bad parts of town. Pointing out that we have racial problems in this country is not in of itself "racist".

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Oswald · 2012-01-16 04:24 · Score: 1

Then perhaps you should have clicked on the supplied link to see what they really meant.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-01-16 04:28 · Score: 2

Please reread that last sentence and decide to delete it. It's racist and it's debatably slander towards Microsoft implying that they a) assume that all MLK Blvds are dangerous or in bad areas of town and b) their patent actually goes so far as to always exclude MLK Blvds from walking paths. You're not defending your point by linking to that St. Petersburg Times article, either.
Can you explain why MLK Blvd being dangerous is racist? Bearing in mind that I'm a non-US citizen and that in most countries that I've been to or lived in, bad neighbourhoods are 'dangerous' irrespective of race.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Troke · 2012-01-16 04:38 · Score: 2

As a frequent traveler, there is quite a bit of truth to the danger of MLK boulevard. While they aren't always in bad neighborhoods, there does seems to be a high frequency of MLK blvd appearing in areas that business travelers would be wise to roll up their windows and lock their doors. Something along the lines of "Liquor store, pawn shop, liquor store, pawn shop, liquor store, OK fellas, time to roll up the windows."
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Oswald · 2012-01-16 05:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Neither. Given the widespread white racism at the time of King's death, it was politically impossible to rename any street held dear by the white majority to honor the man. Pretty much without exception, MLK Blvd runs through a black section of town. Economic realities being what they are in the U.S., that section is frequently run-down.
Sucks, but that's how it is in the places I've been.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-01-16 05:10 · Score: 1

I didn't read it as racist, I read it as a childish implication that Microsoft or Google are racist.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-01-16 06:01 · Score: 1

There's a reference in the links, if you choose to follow them:

When a white friend told Chris Rock that he was on a street called Martin Luther King and asked what he should do, Chris Rock answered, "Run!" At another time and on a more serious note, Rock said: "I don't care where you live in America, if you're on Martin Luther King Boulevard, there's some violence going on." He is right.

What bother me in TFA is that the last sentence says

patents issued to Microsoft and Google for avoiding walking or driving down Martin Luther King Boulevard!"
and the links lead us to

Microsoft Patents Bad Neighborhood Detection

IBM Patents Real-Time Auto Insurance Surcharges
And a column about MLK-named roads and avenues being violent. There's no mention of Google in any of the linked articles, so WTF was the submitter on?
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by viperidaenz · 2012-01-16 06:27 · Score: 1

The only reason it is not racist is because it is being told by a blank man.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by xswl0931 · 2012-01-16 06:34 · Score: 1

Who's racist now? Blank Man was played by Damon Wayans, not Chris Rock.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by MightyYar · 2012-01-16 07:18 · Score: 1

The only reason it is not racist is because it is being told by a blank man.
Presuming you meant "black".
It is not racist, it is history. Most of the "MLK" streets are in what were predominantly black neighborhoods in the 60s and 70s. This makes sense - that is where the blacks that were demanding it lived, and at least some of the whites didn't care what the streets were named in those areas. In some cities (Philadelphia), the whites resisted naming any street after MLK until about 5 years ago. To Philly's credit, it's actually a very nice street.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by viperidaenz · 2012-01-16 08:10 · Score: 1

yes, I meant "black". It was a lame attempt to refer to this
Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by JeanPaulBob · 2012-01-16 10:09 · Score: 1

The MLK Jr. Blvd here in Austin, TX is an interesting exception. When Austin faced the decision to rename 19th St to honor MLK Jr, the political realities that you mentioned were overcome when an African-American community leader literally died of a heart attack in 1975, in the middle of a speech advocating the renaming.
It had been recommended that, west of I-35, the street should remain "19th St". It would only be renamed in east Austin--Austin's "minority district". East Austin would honor Martin Luther King, Jr.; central Austin would not. Dr. J J Seabrook (African-American pastor and president-emeritus of Huston-Tillotson University) was arguing before the city council that the entirety of the street should be renamed. In the middle of his speech, he suffered a fatal heart attack.
The council voted to rename the street across its entire length.
Last year, the MLK Jr Blvd bridge across I-35 was named in honor of JJ Seabrook.

Not "software patents" here... by Entropius · 2012-01-16 04:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think it's a little misguided to read this article and say "trololol, software patents, we should kill those." Yes, we should -- but this patent isn't bad necessarily because it's on software.

This patent's bad because it's obvious, which is a far broader problem with the patent system. Anybody who understands what caching is and who was presented with the problem "Hey, we're getting overwhelmed by holiday-specific searches on those holidays" would come up with something like this as a solution.

Re:Not "software patents" here... by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 04:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Something like this" is not covered by the patent. One particular implementation of a trend-prediction system is covered, down to the exact formula used to determine the need for a cache of a particular term's results. Something else, like using a moving average, would not be covered, and may work well enough to do the job.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Not "software patents" here... by Anguirel · 2012-01-16 08:12 · Score: 1

Let me resolve your misconception with a story. A man has a sink with stopped up drains. He calls a plumber. The plumber comes over, wanders around a bit in the basement, taps on a few pipes, then smacks one really hard with his wrench. The drain starts working again immediately. "That will be $50" says the plumber. "But you just hit a pipe! That's not worth $50!" replies the man. "Oh no, I hit the pipe for free. The $50 is for knowing which pipe to hit, and where."
Having an algorithm to sort is obvious. QuickSort, a specific sorting algorithm, is not necessarily obvious, and is certainly not the first sorting algorithm devised. The specifics of how to detect and appropriately promote more recent results to be cached for spikes in activity is not the same as "cache to avoid being overwhelmed by holiday-specific searches". An updated algorithm for detecting surges in activity and how to cache is potentially new and interesting.

--
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.

There's black people, and then there's n by tepples · 2012-01-16 04:03 · Score: 1

In every city I've been in with a MLK Blvd, it's somewhere you don't want to be. I've heard a black comedian say as much in a piece.

But earlier in the same routine, Chris Rock used the N-word repeatedly to refer to "low-expectation-having" people who happen to be black.

As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 04:13 · Score: 4, Informative

The patent as written claims the use of a particular formula (Which I read as "N'=N/Df^((T'-T)/Ti)") to predict trends.

It is not a patent on prediction in general, or prediction with computers, or caching, or caching based on predictions. It is a very specific design of a non-obvious system, applied in a specific way. Implement the system differently, and you're not violating the patent. The MLK mention is an example, which in no way affects the actual claims. In fact, it's a trivial example, as well. Here's an excerpt containing all references to MLK from the patent itself:

Short-term trends are, however, important to consider, as they are often the result of external activities dominating the time of day and date, as well as current events. For example, during the days preceding and following a space shuttle launch there may be many searches relating to "space shuttles," "NASA," "space," and similar terms. Right around the Martin Luther King Holiday, there may be many searches about "Martin Luther King." If a celebrity was just arrested for drunk driving and assaulting a police officer, it is reasonable to expect a significant increase in queries involving the name of that celebrity. Thus, it would be useful to have better methods of detecting short term trends for the purposes of caching search results to making them more readily available to users.

Sorry, but the typical Slashdot patent hate is yet again unjustified, and the reference to MLK is likely unintentional, as the patent was filed in December of 2006 and granted in December of 2011. It looks like the submitter just search for "Martin Luther King patents" and wrote a story around the results. Well done, sensationalist headline!

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.

Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-01-16 04:30 · Score: 1

So your argument is that it's inobvious that when some major event happens that it will be searched for? Seems a little disingenuous to me.
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

No. The non-obvious part is the formula. If you don't use that formula (or trivial alterations of it), you aren't affected by the patent. The general concept of "cache based on predictions" is not patented (at least, not by this one).

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by gayak · 2012-01-16 04:36 · Score: 2

That explanation doesn't make it any less obvious or more innovative. It's basically the same issue that retail stores do at different holidays, stock up something that they think is going to be on demand. Somehow this applied to computers makes it innovative?
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 05:23 · Score: 1

And why is it obvious that a growing trend decays exponentially, and that that's a good indicator of when a term should be cached? I see many instances where a decay function is used to show when to remove something from cache, but not much for when to add to the cache.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 06:02 · Score: 2
Claims 1, 14, and 15 cover adding to the cache based on a priority queue, where the priority is determined partially by the event count from the formula. Eviction isn't mentioned in the claims, except as claim 13 where it is also stated that the implementation may or may not support removal from the priority queue used.
Short and simple, here's how the patented algorithm works:
1. Maintain a list of search terms. Each term has an event history.
2. When an event (search query) happens, add to the history, and recompute the cache priority. Priority follows the decay function.
3. Maintain a priority queue, where each term's place in the queue is determined by its computed priority.
4. Select a set of the top terms, and cache those.
It does not mention anything about maintaining a constant cache, removing old trends as they fall off, or reaching some threshold of being "already big". It is a specific method for assembling a cache from an event history according to a particular formula, which happens to be exponential decay.
A different formula (such as one that predicts rising trends, such as annual events or election terms) may be a further improvement, which would not be covered by this patent. If that resultant system were patented, though, it should likely include this patent as a reference, because they are so similar and the later work would be clearly based on this one.
--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Dachannien · 2012-01-16 06:24 · Score: 1

The key isn't just the technique or just the formula. It's using the formula in this particular context. Would you have thought to use that formula in that particular way? Or, more importantly, would one having ordinary skill in the art?
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 06:37 · Score: 1

When something gets removed from cache it's to make room for something new to enter into cache.
Or to shut down a cache server to lower costs, or to prepare for a major operation using shared resources, or because the old item is known to be unneeded.

I mean, I can't even recognize exponential decay.
I did recognize it, but it's irrelevant that the particular formula is exponential decay. It could have been anything, and my point still stands: The patent is specific to the use of one particular method. In fact, if the patent were just about that particular formula modeling exponential decay, that'd be worse, since patents can't cover mathematical truths. You can't patent that 1+1=2, or e^(i(pi))+1=0. That's one of the basic arguments about software patents, since software reduces to mathematical algorithms. To argue that this patent is obvious because the formula used is well-known is like claiming a machine can't be patented because it uses a gear, and every mechanical engineer knows what a gear is.

I should Google search exponential decay and caching. So I did...
Yes, I did. I'm familiar with exponential decay. I'm familiar with caching. I have used both regularly in my 17 years of software engineering history. Until now, I have not monitored recent developments in the related theories, so there may very well be a famous paper from 2005 that I missed, that would describe this patented process specifically using decay to model growth. That would make this patent more obvious, but I see no such thing.

Stop guessing and hoping something sticks. It's not helping your position.
Stop being condescending and throwing ad hominem attacks like confetti. It's not helping your position.

At least show some indication that you put even a tiny bit of effort into knowing what you're talking about.
At least show some indication that you put even a tiny bit of effort into learning how patents work, and specifically that patents cover specific implementations, rather than just "use tool X on Y to get Z".

Stop further proving to us that those who hold your position are simply lazy and simply want to find ways to profit off of the hard work of others.
Stop further proving to us that those who hold your position are simply lazy and assume all patents are vague and obvious without understanding the specific implementation.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 07:15 · Score: 1

I'll try in the future (defined as a segment commencing from the current position in temporal dimensions continuing in the most common direction of travel) to include (by use of parenthetical notes relating tangentially to the point of discussion) every detail, with little (though some, for the sake of clarity and brevity) regard (which is similar to consideration, but differing in perspective and decision-making weight) to relevance (relation to the main topic of discussion) when posting (or submitting, transmitting, or conveying) to Slashdot (a news feed and discussion forum operated by GeekNet, Inc. featuring a primarily green appearance and focus on the "nerd" (relating to technology, pop culture, and science) culture (or the people who associate themselves with the "nerd" (relating to technology, pop culture, and science) stereotype (a widely held but fixed and oversimplified (made generic, or reduced to the point of inaccuracy) image (metaphorically, as people are physical (tangible, being comprised of matter) objects, not photographic (relating to recorded (not to be confused with a record, which is recorded audio, or a recorder, which is a musical instrument) pictures) images) or idea of a particular type of person or thing)).
That's much clearer now that every irrelevant detail is repeated, right?

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 07:26 · Score: 1

[citation needed]

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 08:28 · Score: 1

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to another round of Feed The Trolls! Tonight's episode looks to be particularly entertaining, as we have what appears to be a pair of mating Anonymous Cowards teaming up against our host, Sarten X! Now, as is customary, we'll give the first-round advantage to the Troll team...

This discussion obviously falls within the context of caching. Now you're just being disingenuous.
Stating that the formula is obviously exponential decay is apparently requisite for showing that I know what I'm talking about. Showing that removal from a cache isn't always because of new items coming in is "disingenuous". That's a double standard, being used for not one, but two ad hominem attacks to shy away from the real issue stated in the original post: that this patent covers a specific caching algorithm, and has practically nothing to do with Martin Luther King, Jr.

They work such that something that shouldn't be patented somehow got a patent. That needs to change.
Misdirection at its finest. What grants you the unquestioned ability to determine whether something gets a patent? Where is the proof that this should not get a patent? Is there any prior art demonstrating a cache system where the decisions are based on a priority queue, where priorities are decided by the exponential decay function?

There can be more than one way to get to the grocery store yet I may choose one specific route. Doesn't mean I now deserve a patent.
Actually, it does, if your route involves something novel and non-obvious, like using a rocket-powered jetpack to avoid traffic. Sure, every aeronautics engineer knows the principles of rocketry. Most local folks can tell you which direction the grocery store is in. Combining the rocketry and navigation in a novel way and making it work is, according to every bit of patent-related legislation since around the year 1500, worthy of a patent.
Well, those trolls still look pretty hungry, but we'll have to wait and see if they come back for more. Tune in next week as Sarten X takes on the Reddit karma-whores, with his controversial argument that pug puppies' cuteness is, in fact, deniable.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by gottabeme · 2012-01-16 20:09 · Score: 1

Who knows. And who cares. It doesn't matter. "I thought of it first" or "You wouldn't have thought of it" are not valid reasons for granting exclusive rights to an idea.
Context is (or should be) irrelevant also. A formula is a formula, regardless of the field in which it's applied. Math does not deserve patent protection; one reason is that it is discovered, not created.
Patents are evil.

--
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."

Wrong solution by Theaetetus · 2012-01-16 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

These granted software patents are ridiculous. Patenting detection of trending topics and search queries? Jeez.

You complain that too many software patents are obvious... so your solution is no patents at all for the entire industry, regardless of whether they're inventive? That seems overbroad. There are a few obvious patents in the automotive industry, too - should all automotive patents be abolished? How about pharmaceuticals? Some of the diagnostic methods are pretty obvious, too... Should we abolish all patents on new medicines?

There's simply no connection to the alleged problem in your solution. If there's a problem with obviousness, the solution is better examination, not "let's exempt an entire industry".

Re:Wrong solution by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-01-17 02:09 · Score: 1

You complain that too many software patents are obvious... so your solution is no patents at all for the entire industry, regardless of whether they're inventive?
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: I see nothing wrong with patents for machines that are a combination of specialized hardware and software (e.g. Medical equipment like MRI, Equipment used in manufacturing, Household appliances, Automotive accessories, Specialized (aka Novel) telecommunication hardware). However the patenting of software algorithms or software only applications are absurd and should be abolished.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Re:Wrong solution by Theaetetus · 2012-01-17 02:43 · Score: 1

You complain that too many software patents are obvious... so your solution is no patents at all for the entire industry, regardless of whether they're inventive?
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: I see nothing wrong with patents for machines that are a combination of specialized hardware and software (e.g. Medical equipment like MRI, Equipment used in manufacturing, Household appliances, Automotive accessories, Specialized (aka Novel) telecommunication hardware). However the patenting of software algorithms or software only applications are absurd and should be abolished.
Short reply: That's the way the law already works.
Long reply: Software algorithms or software-only applications are already unpatentable. Under Bilski, method claims must be tied to a specific machine, or be transformative, or otherwise be non-abstract. Pure software, or "software per se" is unpatentable under 35 USC 101.
But that's not more of an aside about what it means to be "specialized hardware". Going back to the original point, you said "yes" to "no patents for the entire software industry, regardless of whether they're inventive". Why not? What is "absurd" about patenting of software algorithms? And don't just say "the Supreme Court said that mathematical algorithms were unpatentable" - do you know why they said that? And how does that reason relate to software - not "how does math relate to software," but how does abolishing software patents support their underlying rationale?
Re:Wrong solution by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-01-17 05:34 · Score: 1

Software algorithms or software-only applications are already unpatentable.
So patents on software based memory management, just in time compilation, caching of data based on forecasted events (like the one mentioned in TFA) do not exist?

What is "absurd" about patenting of software algorithms?
The reasons for absurdity have been mentioned countless times on this site and others by more than just me.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Re:Wrong solution by Theaetetus · 2012-01-17 06:14 · Score: 1

Software algorithms or software-only applications are already unpatentable.
So patents on software based memory management, just in time compilation, caching of data based on forecasted events (like the one mentioned in TFA) do not exist?
It helps if you read the entire quote:

Software algorithms or software-only applications are already unpatentable. Under Bilski, method claims must be tied to a specific machine, or be transformative, or otherwise be non-abstract. Pure software, or "software per se" is unpatentable under 35 USC 101.

Patents on software alone do not exist, but patents on software performed by computers or on computers that perform software do exist.

What is "absurd" about patenting of software algorithms?
The reasons for absurdity have been mentioned countless times on this site and others by more than just me.
Again, the entire quote:

Why not? What is "absurd" about patenting of software algorithms? And don't just say "the Supreme Court said that mathematical algorithms were unpatentable" - do you know why they said that? And how does that reason relate to software - not "how does math relate to software," but how does abolishing software patents support their underlying rationale?
What others have said is "SCOTUS said so" or the slightly more detailed "all software is maths, and SCOTUS said math is unpatentable." And no, people haven't addressed the underlying rationale. Frankly, I find that most people (a) haven't thought about it at all, or (b) don't understand it. Not surprisingly, most people haven't actually read Diamond v. Diehr either.
So, twice you pull my words out of context, and you refuse to answer my straightforward question. Trolling or just stumped?
Re:Wrong solution by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-01-17 07:41 · Score: 1

Patents on software alone do not exist, but patents on software performed by computers or on computers that perform software do exist.
Does software exist outside of a computer?

What others have said is "SCOTUS said so" or the slightly more detailed "all software is maths, and SCOTUS said math is unpatentable." And no, people haven't addressed the underlying rationale. Frankly, I find that most people (a) haven't thought about it at all, or (b) don't understand it. Not surprisingly, most people haven't actually read Diamond v. Diehr either.
You're trying to move the goal posts. I already conceded the validity of Diamond v Diehr in my original reply:

I see nothing wrong with patents for machines that are a combination of specialized hardware and software (e.g. Medical equipment like MRI, Equipment used in manufacturing, Household appliances, Automotive accessories, Specialized (aka Novel) telecommunication hardware). However the patenting of software algorithms or software only applications are absurd and should be abolished.
Diamond v. Diehr arose from Diamond's desire to patent (from the patent itself) "Rubber-molding presses, which are closed manually upon installation of pieces of rubber compound, are opened automatically by a system which continuously calculates and recalculates the correct cure time and is actuated when the calculated cure time equals the elapsed cure time.". The court found in favor of Diamond since an otherwise patentable machine doesn't become unpatentable simply because a computer is involved. I'm surprised you brought up Diamond v Diehr since I already stated that machines based on computers can be patented.
I think "Gottschalk v. Benson" and "Bilski v. Kappos" are more relevant to the discussion. Since they are software patent related.
Anyway my argument is that just because you make an application that has a "web based" user interface or make a version of an application that runs on a phone, it doesn't become patent worthy. Also the software only applications that I mentioned earlier do not appear to satisfy the "machine-or-transformation" tests yet they were awarded a patent. I maintain that we should abolish these software only patents.

So, twice you pull my words out of context, and you refuse to answer my straightforward question. Trolling or just stumped?
I'm not stumped. I'm just trying to figure out what your question is. We both agree with the merits of Diamond v. Diehr and you seem to believe that "software algorithms or software-only applications are already unpatentable".
I gave examples of patents that I feel aren't being properly addressed by Diamond v Diehr or the other two. Why do these patents exist?

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Re:Wrong solution by Theaetetus · 2012-01-17 08:06 · Score: 1

Patents on software alone do not exist, but patents on software performed by computers or on computers that perform software do exist.
Does software exist outside of a computer?
Sure. I've got a page full of source code sitting on my desk right now.

You're trying to move the goal posts. I already conceded the validity of Diamond v Diehr in my original reply:

I see nothing wrong with patents for machines that are a combination of specialized hardware and software (e.g. Medical equipment like MRI, Equipment used in manufacturing, Household appliances, Automotive accessories, Specialized (aka Novel) telecommunication hardware).
Actually, that's apparently Bilski you're thinking, not Diamond. Diamond didn't require specialized hardware.

I'm surprised you brought up Diamond v Diehr since I already stated that machines based on computers can be patented.
The bit in Diamond v. Diehr that is normally cited in these discussions is paraphrasing Benson: "... an algorithm, or mathematical formula, is like a law of nature, which cannot be the subject of a patent."

I think "Gottschalk v. Benson" and "Bilski v. Kappos" are more relevant to the discussion. Since they are software patent related.
Actually, Bilski was business-method patent related. His claims had nothing to do with software.

Anyway my argument is that just because you make an application that has a "web based" user interface or make a version of an application that runs on a phone, it doesn't become patent worthy.
That's a conclusion, not an argument. I'm asking you about the premises on which you base your conclusion - why is software per se unpatentable?

Also the software only applications that I mentioned earlier do not appear to satisfy the "machine-or-transformation" tests yet they were awarded a patent. I maintain that we should abolish these software only patents.
Got some patent numbers?

I'm not stumped. I'm just trying to figure out what your question is. We both agree with the merits of Diamond v. Diehr and you seem to believe that "software algorithms or software-only applications are already unpatentable".
I gave examples of patents that I feel aren't being properly addressed by Diamond v Diehr or the other two. Why do these patents exist?
I went back up the thread, and I didn't see any examples... Not disbelieving you, but can you post some numbers?
As for what my question is, it's why did SCOTUS say that an algorithm should be unpatentable? You said it's "absurd" and when I asked "why is it 'absurd'," you passed the buck to random "others". I'm asking you - why do you think that even entirely novel and nonobvious mathematical algorithms are unpatentable and why do you think that similarly innovative software per se is unpatentable?
Re:Wrong solution by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-01-17 11:53 · Score: 1

Actually, that's apparently Bilski you're thinking, not Diamond. Diamond didn't require specialized hardware.
You may want to look that one up yourself. Diamond was a automatic plastic mold and Bilksi was an attempt to patent software that implemented a business method for hedging losses in the energy sector.

I went back up the thread, and I didn't see any examples... Not disbelieving you, but can you post some numbers?
So patents on software based memory management, just in time compilation, caching of data based on forecasted events (like the one mentioned in TFA) do not exist?
Virtual Memory Management: (Java VM) 7475214, (Virtual Storage Dynamic Translation) 5058003
Just in time compilation: (Sun's Application still pending) 11/864,847, (Hybrid JIT) 6332216
caching of data based on forecasted events: (The article itself): 8082342

As for what my question is, it's why did SCOTUS say that an algorithm should be unpatentable?

I defer that to the wikipedia entry (I found it by googling Diamond v Diehr, then Parker v. Flook, and wound up at Gattschalk v. Benson. I admit it would have been quicker to consult wikipedia first, but at least I can verify its accuracy. No since paraphrasing Gattschalk when wikipedia did it well enough):
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." That would be tantamount to allowing a patent on an abstract idea, contrary to precedent dating back to the middle of the Nineteenth Century. The Court added "it is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold." The case was argued on October 16, 1972 and was decided November 20, 1972.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...

April 1 Patents ? by mbone · 2012-01-16 04:36 · Score: 1

Isn't it a little early for April 1 Patents.

Re:Idea!! O/T by spire3661 · 2012-01-16 04:51 · Score: 1

I think hes just incredulous that the option exists.

--
Good-bye

Re:Idea!! by Nadaka · 2012-01-16 05:03 · Score: 1

Yo dog, I hurd you liek patents.

So I patented the process of patenting patents so you can get sued while you sue.

The post-Taco decline is faster than I expected by 0xdeadbeef · 2012-01-16 05:19 · Score: 1

I think you meant "Microsoft and IBM" for those links. And if you're going to get your hate on, you should at least find a way to include Apple, who is, after all, on a patent trolling warpath to kill the largest deployment of Linux to consumers ever.

What good is this anyway? by azcoyote · 2012-01-16 05:27 · Score: 1

I may just be ignorant, but I don't really understand why this predictive caching is important. Doesn't Google cache popular searches anyway? So can't its software automatically detect trends as they approach and keep cached searches of popular searches as they become popular? I mean, when millions of people are watching a live TV show that mentions some piece of popular culture, which drives many of them to immediately Google it, I would think that Google's basic search software would cache it as soon as the first person searches it, and keep the cache as long as people are frequently searching it.

--
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.

Re:What good is this anyway? by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 06:05 · Score: 1

Google can't cache everything that gets searched, because that would drive up server costs. They can't just use the most recent queries, because some users will wait until the next commercial break, end of the show, or even the next morning at work to look it up. By following trends and (as the patent partially covers) assigning priorities to terms based on recent popularity, they can serve the fastest results to the most users.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.

About to go recursive on the patents. by forkfail · 2012-01-16 05:52 · Score: 1

Next to be patented is searching for short term trends about short term trends...

--
Check your premises.

Um... Why? by Chewbacon · 2012-01-16 08:11 · Score: 1

To pay restitution to slave descendants or is thus whitey taking another stab at... well, you know.

--
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.

China copys alot of stuff from the USA right now by Joe_Dragon · 2012-01-16 08:54 · Score: 1

And they don't even follow that non software patents.

Monopoly of a different sort by ragahast · 2012-01-16 10:28 · Score: 1

Google may be able to monopolize transient search demand for Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but only the King Center can monopolize his ideas.

--
.:Semper Absurda:.

[alternate universe needed] by gottabeme · 2012-01-16 20:04 · Score: 1

[alternate universe needed]

--
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."

Slashdot Mirror

Google Patents Caching MLK Day Search Results

72 of 113 comments (clear)