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?

[ColdWetDog]

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that"

(Just goes through my head when I think of this subject.)

Re:Can they do that?

[crispylinetta]

I just googled that question and got the response, "Yes, I can." So there ya go.

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?

[CAIMLAS]

They're going to have a hard time controlling all the older vehicles, too, nevermind the ones which run without any electronics (other than the battery and coil).

Oh, right - that's why they wanted to get rid of all those highly efficient older and still serviceable vehicles from the 1980s via Cash for Clunkers: you can't chip or wirelessly control a vehicle which has no computer.

Re:Can they do that?

[Zordak]

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....

Actually, all it means is that they have filed a patent application. You can file an application on any old nonsense you want as long as you pay the filing fee. But looking at this application (without spending any substantial time on it), it looks like they have a fairly beefy disclosure. In any case, this doesn't look like a "joke" application. This looks like the real thing.

Re:Can they do that?

[samazon]

I wasn't implying anything. At some point, human error will be removed from the equation; it probably won't be in my lifetime, and the removal will probably be more along the lines of "reduced to a negligible amount" - maybe I read too much science fiction, maybe I read too much science fact, but I do mean technological singularity, and I do think that the path winds hence.

It'll be neat, right?

Re:Can they do that?

[cp.tar]

Computer.

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?

[SeanBlader]

You seem to imply that having autonomous cars removes human error from the equation. You are ignoring that: B) The algorithms these cars use are still made by humans, and are thus susceptible to human error.

Algorithms are not susceptible to human error, requirements for those algorithm's are. If you want to make sure the requirements are correct, you won't leave it to the government. And actual safe speed of a vehicle through a specific piece of terrain is often grossly under the limits of the vehicle, and the limits of the vehicle are often grossly above what the human body can tolerate. Traffic collisions are the cause of people without proper training or experience to know the capabilities of their vehicle given the conditions under which they are driven. In the end the problem is with education, which also seems to be a problem for a lot of our elected, chosen, or inherited representatives in the world, as well as the occasional Slashdot poster as well.

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?

[TapeCutter]

Give that post a mod point!

As a licensed driver for 35yrs I say anyone who cannot comprehend that point and obey the posted speed limit is NOT a competent driver. Turns out any fool with lady luck in the passenger seat can push a rust busket to it's 'safe limits' and survive to drink another beer. I was definitely an incompetent driver when I was young and I fully deserved the 4-5yrs of constant legal trouble that came my way because of it. Looking back now, having seen friends and teenage children of friends die from the sheer arrogant stupidity that seems inate to young men in cars I realise how very fortunate I was not to have maimed or killed someone.

Ignoring speed limits and driving at the 'safe limits' of a car on a public road really requires the ability to accurately read the minds of everyone else around you. Since accurate mind reading requires an exchange of tea leaves we have the next best thing, road rules! There's also a licensing regime to ensure every driver knows how every other driver expects them to behave. Watch a police chase on the TV, the only reason the perp and the cops can drive like that is because the other drivers are abiding by the rules and behaving in a predictable manner. In fact when a semi-driver listening to his CB radio DISOBEYS the rules and blocks two lanes then the perp is fucked.

Now to assume every driver in day to day traffic will strictly adhere to the rules is suicidal, but knowing what to expect makes incompetent drivers much easier to spot and avoid, even when the incompetent driver is a younger more alert you..

Your's sincerly,
Crusty Old Bastard.

Re:Can they do that?

[Zordak]

Well, this isn't yet a patent on anything. It's just an application. And even if the claims issue as they're now written, it's not a patent on the basic idea of driverless cars. "I claim a car that operates itself without a driver" would immediately be shot down by the examiner on prior art and probably on lack of specificity too.

This application is claiming a specific method of automatically driving a car. Granted, claim 1 as it's currently written is fairly broad, but if it survives without Google having to narrow it, it will be the exception, not the rule (I only rarely see a patent issue without the claims being amended at all). As for whether it should survive without being amended, I couldn't even hazard a wild guess without analyzing the claims and searching the prior art to see what else is out there. So long story short, it's not time to panic just yet.

Re:Can they do that?

[russotto]

As a licensed driver for 35yrs I say anyone who cannot comprehend that point and obey the posted speed limit is NOT a competent driver. Turns out any fool with lady luck in the passenger seat can push a rust busket to it's 'safe limits' and survive to drink another beer. I was definitely an incompetent driver when I was young and I fully deserved the 4-5yrs of constant legal trouble that came my way because of it. Looking back now, having seen friends and teenage children of friends die from the sheer arrogant stupidity that seems inate to young men in cars I realise how very fortunate I was not to have maimed or killed someone.
As a licensed driver for 25 years, most of that driving done over the speed limit, I say that you have succumbed to the nervous-nelliedom of old age. Yeah, I drove a little crazier when I was younger because I didn't know the limits of my abilities or those of the car, but I knew then and I know now that those abilities have nothing to do with the number on the sign.

Ignoring speed limits and driving at the 'safe limits' of a car on a public road really requires the ability to accurately read the minds of everyone else around you. Since accurate mind reading requires an exchange of tea leaves we have the next best thing, road rules!

Sure, you can't really drive at the full limits of your car's ability on a public road. I've taken my car around a certain set of curves with the speedometer pegged (somewhere north of 110mph, probably). No way could I do that with traffic on the road. On the other hand, the road is posted at 55mph -- there's a lot of room in between.

There's another set of curves where I used to joke that that limit only made sense for a dump truck in a blizzard. Until I ended up going through those curves behind a dump truck in a blizzard, and he was doing 10mph over with no problem.

If they ever start setting them appropriately, maybe I'll start paying attention (probably not, I'm too old and set in my ways). But until then, I'm not even going to feel an iota of guilt for violating them.

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.

School bus racing, yeah!

[Chemisor]

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.'

This is definitely going to be an improvement over those interminably long, boring bus rides I've known as a kid. Think of the children - support hyperspeed school buses!

Precedent

[tool462]

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

Re:Precedent

[a_hanso]

I think I misunderstood the title. I was expecting this:

System and Method for Making Untrue and Fantastical Claims Targeted at a Selected Individual on a Specific Calendar Date, Observing Said Individual's Reaction as a Group, Later Revealing the Claim to be Untrue and Further Observing the Individual's Embarrassment, Thereby Experiencing Enjoyment.

Come the fuck on, Slashdot.

[PCM2]

This is hardly a new story.

No joke

[wisnoskij]

Google has been experimenting in self driving vehicles for years now, that part was not a April Fools joke.
They might have joked about partnering with Nascar, but it actually sounds reasonable. And they very much are researching and building prototypes of driver-less vehicles.

Prior Art

[CanHasDIY]

Looks like Tesla (and the Nazi's) beat ya to it, Goog.

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.

Automatic Farm Equipment

[tomhath]

This appears to be a leaked video of Google's Autonomous Farm Equipment

open sourcing it

[schlachter]

They're waiting on Google to open source their autonomous car OS...so that Google can make money on the ads it can display to your surfing the web, checking email, or watching youtube videos...instead of driving.

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.

Melbourne cop's

[TapeCutter]

Sometimes you have to fight arseholes with arseholes. I think Melbourne's cops are doing a great job in that respect!

Since the time I started HS (1969) to the present, I have seen Melbourne's cops become more and more strict on road rules, especially drinking and speeding. The number of cars on the road must be at least 10x what it was back then. However the road toll in that same time period has been reduced by ~80%. Yes, seatbelts and other technical meausres are part of that, but they are not the full story since comprable situations elsewhere that have not implemented things like cameras and booze busses to the extent we have, have not seen such a dramatic improvement.

OTOH I have great memories of (legally) driving down (a 2 lane) springvale rd at 90mph in a red bettle to go fishing at Chelsea after dad knocked of work. Freedom lost and security gained, not because of any conspiracy, it's simply because the number of people on this rock has more than doubled since I was born. More people means a greater effort is required to keep basic order in a society that is only getting more congested and claustrophobic over time. Civilization itself is a 'recent' freedom limiting invention and is a direct result of our remarkable tool-making ability. We have not evolved to live in cities of millions and tribes of hunderds of millions, our 'souls' and instincts were built by nature to work in tribes of 1-200 individuals and are still somewhat confused by all this, but the tool-maker inside us all insist he can fix the civilization tool with yet more tools.