Google Actually Patenting Its April Fools' Joke

theodp writes "On April Fools' Day, Google joked it was partnering with NASCAR on self-driving cars. Google Racing, the search giant joshed, had its roots in Project Caddy, which demonstrated the viability of self-driving golf carts. And in the future, Google added tongue-in-cheek, your kids will travel unattended in driverless-car car pools. Funny stuff, huh? Only thing is, GeekWire reports the USPTO disclosed Thursday that Google actually has a patent pending for driverless golf carts, as well as cars that can autonomously pick up kids from school and be switched into 'sport mode,' where 'the vehicle may navigate through turns at the maximum speed that is safe.' In addition to cars, trucks and golf carts, Google's patent application calls dibs on autonomous busses, boats, airplanes, helicopters, lawnmowers, recreational vehicles, amusement park vehicles, trams, trains, and trolleys. Google also describes how its invention will enable autonomous police cars to conduct high speed chases and give law enforcement vehicles 'a limited amount of control over nearby vehicles.' So, is the patent application legit, or did Google team up with the USPTO on a belated April Fools' goof?"

Comments

Can they do that?

[samazon]

If they're applying for a patent, it means that they must have some sufficiently viable method of producing the tech. The "limited amount of control over nearby vehicles" sounds the most ominous, considering the inability of a percentage of law enforcement to not abuse their powers. I smell the singularity brewing inside the Googleplex....

Re:Can they do that?

[Entropius]

We'll make a trade: the police can insist that I follow their speed limits if those speed limits are set to the maximum speed that a well-maintained, maneuverable car can be driven safely under optimum conditions by a competent and alert driver.

Re:Can they do that?

[samazon]

With an autopilot system in a car (assumedly controlled by GPS and googlemaps, of course) and considering all the fancy gadgetry in new cars to prevent collisions, the speed limits should increase significantly. I mean, how many accidents will occur once human error is removed from the equation?

Re:Can they do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to imply that having autonomous cars removes human error from the equation. You are ignoring that:
A) Not all cars will be autonomous; those that aren't are obviously susceptible to human error.
B) The algorithms these cars use are still made by humans, and are thus susceptible to human error.
C) Not all cars would be on the same level of communication. It's up to humans to devise a standard, which is susceptible to human error.
D) There are always going to be humans not in cars on or around the streets, who are susceptible to human error.

Re:Can they do that?

[geekoid]

except they aren't highly efficient.

I mean, yeah getting the polluters of the road is mart of an evil master scheme.

twit.

Re:Can they do that?

[treeves]

So when a less-than-alert driver driving a less-than-well-maintained car is driving over the ridiculously low speed limit in less-than-optimal conditions on the less-than optimally maintained road on which you also happen to be driving doesn't end up killing you: is that worth anything?

Re:Can they do that?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

That's really disappointing, given the number of auto manufacturers who could and should be given the opportunity to pursue driverless cars without a by-your-leave from Google. I mean the idea has long been around in sci-fi, look at Arnie's Johnny cab in Total Recall. And it is just an idea at this point. It would be like patenting horseless carriages or something.

Re:Can they do that?

[patchmaster]

Human error will be removed from the equation not long after humans are removed from the equation.

Not all roads are limited access super-highways. I do most of my driving on surface streets. There is sufficiently little pedestrian traffic that one tends not to think about them, and just enough pedestrian traffic that forgetting about them becomes a big problem. Until you make it illegal for pedestrians to enter the roadway, there will be humans and human errors as parts of the equation.

Re:Can they do that?

[geekoid]

Science isn't art. Please stop trying to minimize what you don't understand.

" I am a technician myself,
we got a bad ass over here!

" I mean, who else but us arrogant humans can come up with the idea that we understand "laws of nature"? "
The laws of natures are scientific laws based on current daa and understanding. Things that have been tested many, many times.

" I think it's ok not to know it all, "
Yes, nothing as warm as the blanket of ignorance.

And just so you know, human error is being removed already. many flights happen every day with no pilot interaction. Computer respond to incident much fast then people.

Re:Can they do that?

[kurzweilfreak]

Computers can make decisions much faster than people with sensors that can't get distracted. Where a human is thinking "wow, look at that hot girl as I pass her by OH SHIT A KID IN THE ROAD!!!!!", the computer will easily sense the suddenly oncoming child and automatically respond safely rather than wildly swerve out of the way while locking up the brakes. I don't see why pedestrian traffic would be any more of a problem for autonomous vehicles than any other obstacle.

Obviously that's not to say that these accidents will NEVER happen, but I'm confident that the statistic will drop by multiple orders of magnitude.

Precedent

[tool462]

It's quite the achievement turning an April Fool's joke into an actual product.

Come the fuck on, Slashdot.

[PCM2]

This is hardly a new story.

Why is this news?

[Tanman]

Did people suddenly forget all of the news regarding Google self-driving car technology? Did people honestly think a company would be publicly spending millions of dollars doing something like this and not patent it?

https://www.google.com/search?q=google+self+driving+car&tbm=nws

Here is a bunch more "news" about google's self-driving cars.

What are we calling a joke here?

[Torodung]

Because right now, the real April Fool's day joke is the entire U.S. Patent Office, and they seem to think April first lasts all year.

It's sad that I thought of that as gallows humor at first, but quickly came to the conclusion that it's roughly congruent with my actual opinion about all these legal entities girding their loins for patent wars. The system was meant to foster invention by protecting the private rewards of individual ingenuity, and the will to bring a product to market (not necessarily by the inventor). Patents were never intended to be stockpiled in this fashion. The system is being abused, and the USPTO is legally bound to obey laws desperately in need of legislative review and reform. Maybe it's Congress that is the joke here.

Of course, Google's leadership is smart enough that it's just possible they're trying to demonstrate how broken this is, by hastening its collapse. No CEO or board can possibly like the escalating Mutual Assured Destruction environment that is brewing in corporate conglomerate patent holdings. It's extremely volatile, and an unstable way to do business.