Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Patents Caching MLK Day Search Results

Posted by samzenpus on from the collecting-the-dreams dept.

theodp writes "Google remembers Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. not only with its Doodles, but also with its patents. 'Right around the Martin Luther King Holiday,' explained Google in its application for a recently-granted patent on Discovery of Short-Term and Emerging Trends in Computer Network Traffic, 'there may be many searches about "Martin Luther King"...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.' You may call the invention of detecting and caching 'MLK Day Sale' search results patently obvious, but the USPTO calls it U.S. Patent No. 8,082,342. Hey, at least it's arguably better than the patents issued to Microsoft and Google for avoiding walking or driving down Martin Luther King Boulevard!"

26 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by TechGuys · · 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.

    1. Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by stranger_to_himself · · 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.

    2. Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    3. Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Synerg1y · · 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...

    4. Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by youn · · 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
    5. Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by TheRaven64 · · 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
    6. Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Dragonslicer · · 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".

    7. Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by Synerg1y · · 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?

    8. Re:U.S. needs to get rid of software patents by viperidaenz · · 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.

  2. Re:Idea!! by Samantha+Wright · · 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!
  3. Re:Idea!! by dreemernj · · 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
  4. Way to be racist slashdot... by ProppaT · · 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."
    1. Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Entropius · · 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.

    2. Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Richard_at_work · · 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.

    3. Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by MightyYar · · 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.
    4. Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Dexter+Herbivore · · 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.

    5. Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Troke · · 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."

    6. Re:Way to be racist slashdot... by Oswald · · 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.

  5. Not "software patents" here... by Entropius · · 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.

    1. Re:Not "software patents" here... by Sarten-X · · 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.
  6. As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · · 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.
    1. Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · · 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.
    2. Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by gayak · · 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?

    3. Re:As usual, not a vague patent. by Sarten-X · · 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.
  7. Re:hmm, patent-commenting system by Dexter+Herbivore · · 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.

  8. Wrong solution by Theaetetus · · 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".