Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney Patents a Piracy Free Search Engine

Posted by timothy on from the that-cuts-out-a-bunch-of-disney-movies dept.

wabrandsma writes with this excerpt from Torrentfreak: Disney has just obtained a patent for a search engine that ranks sites based on various "authenticity" factors. One of the goals of the technology is to filter pirated material from search results while boosting the profile of copyright and trademark holders' websites. A new patent awarded to Disney Enterprises this week describes a search engine through which pirated content is hard to find. Titled "Online content ranking system based on authenticity metric values for web elements," one of the patent's main goals is to prevent pirated movies and other illicit content from ranking well in the search results. According to Disney their patent makes it possible to "enable the filtering of undesirable search results, such as results referencing piracy websites." Disney believes that current search engines are using the wrong approach as they rely on a website's "popularity." This allows site owners to game the system in order to rank higher. "For example, a manipulated page for unauthorized sales of drugs, movies, etc. might be able to obtain a high popularity rating, but what the typical user will want to see is a more authentic page," they explain. Probably not a good place to look for a grey-market copy of Song of the South.

113 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Algorithms Can Be Patented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Isn't a search engine just applying a ranking algorithm to content? Didn't think algorithms could be patented.

    1. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then how come I don't know how it works?

      Google doesn't patent it - they keep it secret.

      Google PageRank is patented. http://www.google.com/patents/..., by Stanford where Page developed it, and which licensed the patent to Google for shares worth $336 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    2. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      If you don't know how it works, it's only because you haven't bothered to look it up.

      Here's the patent and the Wikipedia article also gives a reasonable description. Otherwise I believe they've also published the basics behind the algorithm.

    3. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't know how it works, it's only because you haven't bothered to look it up.

      Not exactly. You only know how PageRank worked at the very beginning, when it was patented. That is far from "the" Google search algorithm these days. It remains one of the most important ones, and possibly one that's fundamental to how Google's whole search engine works, but they have many, many other algorithms that govern search results today. Most of these are not patented, mainly for the reasons mentioned earlier: If Google patented them, it would have to disclose how they work. Instead, they maintain them as trade secrets, like the formula for Coca-Cola.

      In Disney's case, I think it's not really interested in competing with Google. It would much rather Google, Bing, etc look at its patent, say "OK, I can do that if it will get Disney off my back" and implement the patent for little-to-no royalty fees.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      eyeahh...

      The original was sort of patented, but it did not reveal how it worked. There are some undocumented weighting values in there... The end result is just another stupid software patent.

      The one they are currently using isn't public either, and as they announce "tweak the page rank" they don't say how they are tweaking...

    5. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The disney patent is just a version of "reputation" ranking. Most use number of links (as does the Disney patent), the only difference is WHERE those links are from. If they are from a "special site" (my quotes) that has been given a high ranking value, then the "authenticity" rank is raised by some weighted factor.

      And like any other "reputation" ranking, it will be faked.

    6. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      What I'd like to know is why Disney would create a search engine that won't find any of Disney's products, and instead take you to the original stories they stole from to make their animations?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    7. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Isn't a search engine just applying a ranking algorithm to content? Didn't think algorithms could be patented.

      Regardless of whether it's patentable... does anybody really need a search engine that only returns sites "certified" by Disney? Really?

      I trust Disney to certify sites about as much as I would trust government to do it. Which is to say: about zero.

    8. Re: Algorithms Can Be Patented by Garridan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm a grad student with a patent. It's a pretty sweet deal for all involved parties. I can't afford to get a patent. The university can, though. They file for a patent in my name, and I keep a large percentage of the proceeds, should it ever get licensed. It's potential revenue for them, with nonzero costs -- did you know, you have to pay for patent renewal year to year? On the rare occasion that a google happens, the university wins big... but obviously Page isn't dead broke in a gutter somewhere. They helped him get off his feet in a number of ways; he'd have lost a much larger slice if he'd gotten private help starting his business.

    9. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      Only Google will be like, "Okay, I can do that if you pay me a huge recurring fee."

    10. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are patenting it, not implementing it. This way no one else can implement it.

    11. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      +5 Funny, +5 Informative, +5 Insightful and +5 Flamebait.
      Thanks, I won't have to read the rest of the comments now.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    12. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I can see a lot of demand for it, actually. Think of it like Disney TV channels. Content certified as OK for young children. At most a bit of mild peril, or a particularly bad Disney song.

      Disney must be the most popular babysitter in the world. Now they offer a "safe" (read: mind rotting) internet experience too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by StripedCow · · Score: 2

      They formulated the ranking of websites as an eigenvalue problem. Not sure how that would be patentable.
      http://www.math.cornell.edu/~m...

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    14. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Erm, what? I know how PageRank works because I read about it as a technical paper in a Computing Journal in 1998, before Google was started as a company. That said, I don't know what came first - the paper or the patent. Pretty sure though that the paper came first, or was at least simultaneous to the patent filing. Finally, most of the stuff in the Google ranking mechanism is as much an algorithm as a kernel is an algorithm. It's a host of ranking modules, tweaks, weights, heuristics, clean-up jobs, maintenance jobs, spider jobs, and a whole crap-load of IT work to make it hum like it does.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    15. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by tlhIngan · · Score: 3

      They are patenting it, not implementing it. This way no one else can implement it.

      This is Disney. They're going to get the law changed to FORCE everyone to implement it (and of course, pay them the requisite licensing fees).

      It's how Disney got Macrovision through back in the early days (it failed on early VCRs because their AGCs were slow, so by forcing lawmakers to have it implemented, everyone had to tighten things up).

      You know Disney's heading to the lawmakers shortly to get Google etc., to have it in.

    16. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Google's page ranking system might have been innovative enough to deserve a patent - if it was the first automated, algorithmic system of its sort. Once you've got page ranking out there, though, a new ranking algorithm is not a technical innovation at all. Sure, Disney should be allowed to create such a system - but why on earth should they be allowed to patent it? And why would they even care to patent it - other than to keep from being prevented from building it by somebody else gaming our lousy patent system to make them pay royalties on it.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    17. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I could really use such a search engine myself. I'd want to create a script to search on both Google and Disney-search and then return a list of hits on the former with hits on the latter removed. I'd not use this all the time of course, but it could be good for finding free media.

    18. Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Disney must be the most popular babysitter in the world.

      There is a point here, which I did not see at first. Still, while I'm sure Disney's overt motivations are stellar, their ultimate motivation is not to do you any favors.

  2. Actually no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "...enable the filtering of undesirable search results" - Undesirable for whom?

    "...but what the typical user will want to see is a more authentic page" - That's an interesting assertion, but I don't think that's actually true.

    "...rely on a website's "popularity."" - Popular represents what people want, not these bogus 'authentic' (read 'expensive, DRM infested frustrations') metrics.

    This basically boils down to "unless we sell it there's no way to get it". An interesting idea, but fail.

    1. Re:Actually no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be more precise, when people go searching for things, they want to make sure they're getting unbiased results. Many will stay away from this search engine simply because they have no way of knowing if the results are being skewed in other ways - for instance, if particular political views are being axed out, if anti-disney views are being axed out (or anti-anyothercompany, etc).

      Basically... why the fuck would anyone use this when we already have Google.

      Of course the answer will be "Because all other search engines that don't do this will eventually become illegal in future lobbied legislation."

    2. Re:Actually no... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It would be a great source, if they let you sort based on cost. "Oh, the cheapest way to view "The Avengers" is $7.99 for a "rental"? I'll just steal it for $0. Cheaper, easier, and faster."

      When they try to compete with "free", then they'll have figured it out. Maybe they should be a filter on "DRM" to filter out DRM from search results.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. Re:Actually no... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be more precise, when people go searching for things, they want to make sure they're getting unbiased results.

      People don't care about "unbiased". They care about "useful". Getting results of all DRM movies would be very un-useful to some. The "pirated" copies work on phones, PCs, consoles, and just about everything. The DRM versions are more restricted. The utility of the result is more important than "bias".

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:Actually no... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      And how exactly will it tell the original author vs a megacorp that stolen the artwork (basically the only case of copyright theft as it deprives the author of his work rather than just potential revenue)?

      Something tells me it will declare the latter as "authentic"...

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Actually no... by easyTree · · Score: 2

      Duh... MegaCorp is always right. Move along citizen.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    6. Re:Actually no... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      DisneySearch.com?q=wwii+holocost

      Results:
      1. _It didn't really happen..._
      2. _Join our anglo pride group_

      .....

      Sorry, it may be in bad taste, and the Disneys aren't really in control anymore, but it had to be done.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    7. Re:Actually no... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      What it boils down to is censorship, plain and simple, and possibly a lawsuit against them as it's leveraged to drop competitors' search results.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  3. Yeah baby! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

    It will be bigger than Bing! At last a search engine that can take on Google.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Yeah baby! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      In order to keep operating costs low it'll actually be a cartoon-laden frontend that serves up material from an existing source.

    2. Re:Yeah baby! by jd659 · · Score: 1

      This is a great news! If google (or any other search engine) decides to promote copyrighted material in the results, it will be a patent infringement!

      --
      There's no such thing as "illegal download"
    3. Re: Yeah baby! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > A Disney search engine with hidden phallic symbols

      I cannot think of anyone who would be interested in hidden phallic symbols.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  4. So all we need now is a diff by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Between the normal search results and this, and whatever the difference is, is the interesting sites.

    Thanks, Disney!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So all we need now is a diff by glitch! · · Score: 1

      It took me less than ten seconds to think this, but you are clearly faster than I!

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
  5. Why is this a patent ? Also : useless. by aepervius · · Score: 3, Informative

    1) Why a sort of software filtering of search results depending on some criteria are a patent in any way shape or form ? Probably only valid in the US anyway.

    2) how do they suppose this should work if other search engine do not use that filtering.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Why is this a patent ? Also : useless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The good old 4-step program...

      1. "You must not allow copies of our work to show up in your search engines!"
      2. "You must also pay us money for not allowing copies of our work to show up in your search engines!"
      3. ...?
      4. Profit!

    2. Re:Why is this a patent ? Also : useless. by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

      Search engines that do not filter will be ruled drm circumvention devices. Just like when Windows and Apple finally get DRM nailed down and Linux doesn't implement it. Circumvention devices.

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    3. Re:Why is this a patent ? Also : useless. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're going to hurt your neck with that much tinfoil, man.

    4. Re:Why is this a patent ? Also : useless. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Also, why would Disney want to limit who got to use their algorithm? Sorry, I would prevent people from finding pirated movies, but there's a patent on that...

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  6. So they patented this because....? by complete+loony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... they *don't* want other search engines to use this?

    Or are they planning to somehow force search engines to license the process?

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    1. Re:So they patented this because....? by NiteMair · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably the latter.

      I'm guessing the next step in their evil plan is to convince congress to pass some law making such mechanisms mandatory in the U.S. - at which point they will license the tech and profit.

      Face it, Disney loves to lobby congress, they have done so successfully for many decades.

    2. Re:So they patented this because....? by Calydor · · Score: 4, Funny

      That was my thought as well. This is the perfect excuse for Google to shrug and say, "Welp, we can't do that ourselves now and we don't want to pay the license. Sorry fellas, ThePirateBay hits the #1 spot for 'disney movie' searches."

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    3. Re:So they patented this because....? by swb · · Score: 1

      My guess was they accuse Google of promoting piracy by not downranking pirated content and get them to agree to license the patent as a payoff, not caring if they actually implement it.

      There's always the backdoor idea that if Google someow did tweak pagerank to downrank pirated content they accuse Google of patent violation..

    4. Re:So they patented this because....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just love how bribery is called "lobbying" in the US.

    5. Re:So they patented this because....? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I just love how bribery is called "lobbying" in the US.

      As an American, I don't. Like it that is.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:So they patented this because....? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      You are free to "lobby" your congressperson to have the term changed :S

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    7. Re:So they patented this because....? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They don't need an act of congress; they just need to chip away at the DMCA safe harbor through legal challenges that existing search engines are complicit with infringement due to not using industry-standard algorithms as a policy of deterring infringement, such as Disney's patented algorithm.

    8. Re:So they patented this because....? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, they patented it so that when some other search engine has to go to court to get it tossed, they'll get 7 or 8 figures of free PR, telling the whole world they're the company fighting the evil baddy-bads.

    9. Re:So they patented this because....? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      It isn't. Lobbying is talking. Bribing is paying or giving stuff. Lobbyists that are caught paying or giving stuff go to jail for... bribery. Which means the same thing here as other places.

    10. Re:So they patented this because....? by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

      It isn't. Lobbying is talking. Bribing is paying or giving stuff. Lobbyists that are caught paying or giving stuff go to jail for... bribery. Which means the same thing here as other places.

      That's just adorable! Do you believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy too?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    11. Re:So they patented this because....? by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      If I contribute millions of dollars in campaign funds, which is now unlimited by the way, the politician is not likely going to bite the hand that feeds. Better yet, they will try to implement the laws *I* want, in order to get more of that sweet, sweet cash. While not explicitly bribery, it pretty much is.

      --
      ...
    12. Re:So they patented this because....? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Speculation and hand-waving.

      I have great politicians in my State, you're just voting for the wrong people.

      Go give Senator Wyden a big campaign donation, and see if his policies change. Hint: they don't, and he votes the way he says he will.

      Choosing sucky politicians who vote for whatever the rich people want is just poor electoral practice, it isn't bribery. Yes, most pols support the rich going in, that is what they promise to do: be "business friendly." And then they support policies that are "business friendly." That isn't bribery, either; they donate to him because he supports them, and they know he already wants to do what they ask for.

      The existence of constituencies that you dislike is not bribery. The rich having more sway than you is not necessarily caused by bribery. Here in the USA it is almost never caused by bribery, but by a culture of voters handing control to the rich freely, believing that it will create jobs.

    13. Re:So they patented this because....? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Not force other search engines to license it but allow them to license it, likely for free. By patenting it themselves, Disney can give it away to all search engines and make sure no one search engine has a monopoly on this anti-piracy technology. If you squint really hard, you can see a resemblance to the GPL there...if I'm right.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  7. But the important thing is.... by dohzer · · Score: 2

    The search engines people actually want to use will still be free, right?

  8. Authenticity? by Shillo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure this "invention" will correctly attribute Snow White to Brothers Grimm and not Disney. Right?

    --
    I refuse to use .sig
    1. Re:Authenticity? by BobbyWang · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this "invention" will correctly attribute Snow White to Brothers Grimm and not Disney. Right?

      I guess that's why Disney prevents Google from implementing the algorithm by patenting it.

  9. dead on arrival by Tom · · Score: 1

    Can't imagine this ever taking off.

    boosting the profile of copyright and trademark holders' websites.

    Which means reviews, fan pages and everything else that's actually interesting about something will be pushed down in favor of the 200 landing pages the copyright owner scattered all over the 'net.

    Of course, it also means the new Disney movie, successor to Cars! and Planes! will be smash hit and absolutely everyone in the world has heard about it. I'm talking about Cats!, of course.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:dead on arrival by Tom · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about Cats!, of course.

      And I forgot to mention that three weeks later, half the world will stop using the Internet because they can't find the cat videos they're here for anymore.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:dead on arrival by faffod · · Score: 1

      The knowledge of a low UID... clearly you have wisdom and insights on how the internet actually works that transcends any RFC. *I bow to your wisdom*

  10. Contradiction? by tomxor · · Score: 1

    ...Disney believes that current search engines are using the wrong approach as they rely on a website's "popularity."...

    ... but what the typical user will want to see is a more authentic page...

    1. Re:Contradiction? by v1 · · Score: 1

      OR I dunno, they could work on being MORE POPULAR with people looking for their product, instead of trying to force/control their customers?

      nah, that'd never work. not that we'll ever try it.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  11. Aw, bless by goldcd · · Score: 1

    I suspect some numpty within Disney has just walked away with a somewhat cheap-looking 'patent plaque'

    The point of a search engine, to the user, is to give them what they were looking for.
    Anything that detracts from this ideal, makes it a 'bad search engine'

    If they'd got their head screwed on, in addition to hiding copyright infringing material, they'd have also extended the patent to remove anything that was sold by a Disney competitor (surely users contributing to the coffers of a rival, is much worse than contributing to nobody).
    Oh - but then it might have been noticed that they've just patented their own app-store..

  12. good by cjpa · · Score: 2

    Good thing they patented it. Now nobody else will try to implement it.

    1. Re:good by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Good thing they patented it. Now nobody else will try to implement it.

      Google's PageRank already implements some version of this, at the request of the **AA.

      Basically, when Google receives a DMCA takedown for a site in its index (which it honors, even though it doesn't have to because it isn't hosting the content), that site gets down-ranked for at least some searches.

      So, Disney—a member of the MPAA—now has a patent that gives Google a reason to stop doing what the MPAA asked it to do.

  13. Disney Approved Sites! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    Fuck that.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  14. How did they manage that? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Disney chose a non-piracy-themed 'authenticity' metric because they are Disney; but how did they manage to sneak any variation of "Yeah, a search engine; but weighted on Metric X, as well as popularity!" past the patent office?

    In the arms race between search engines and SEO abhumans, naive popularity became obsolete almost immediately, and made assorted additional weights, filters, and heuristics both necessary and obvious(at a general level, specific ones or specific implementations of one may well be nontrivial or even brilliant; but the fact that naive popularity is now the road to linkfarm hell is news to no one.)

    Weighting for copy-cop-correctness is somewhat novel, since the customer demand isn't obvious; but I'm still not seeing how you can scrape an entire patent out of that(especially when the guys in the Patent and Trademark office have probably heard of the "Let's have a big list of registered trademarks for the sake of authenticity in commerce" concept once or twice before...)

  15. Does it matter? by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    Yahoo has a search engine, and so does Bing and some others.

    People use Google.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Does it matter? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People use Google.

      Some of us use DuckDuckGo.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Does it matter? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      DuckDuckGo

      Let me Google that.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Does it matter? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Yahoo has a search engine

      Powered by Bing.

      People use Google.

      My dislike of Google is starting to cause me to rethink that. I'm in the process of switching to duckduckgo myself.

      It certainly hasn't hit critical mass yet... but google is getting steadily more obnoxious and heavy.

  16. A product with no market by nikhilhs · · Score: 2

    Who cares about a search engine that no one will use? People won't use a search engine that doesn't return the results the people are searching for.

  17. Useful as a plugin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Use this as a plugin to a real search engine to identify and strip out the sites that they are promoting as "legit" :-)

  18. Good news is... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    It should be pretty easy for the search engines people actually use to prove they're not infringing on Disney's patent.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  19. McDonalds Search Engine (TM) by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    Yeah, big corporation with pre-programmed family values (how they perceive the world), that's the future of the old Internet.

    Will the sheeple comply, I kind of wonder. We let them BF us with NSA, FBI, SAPO, InterPol etc...on the basis of a "safer world", safer from WHO? Us? The users?

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  20. shot in own foot by belmolis · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think that Disney may have shot themselves in the foot. A patent must by definition describe the method in sufficient detail that a person of ordinary expertise in the field can figure out how to implement it by reading the patent. Since the patent merel describes a ranking algorithm, it can be trivially inverted to select sites likely to contain pirated material.

    1. Re:shot in own foot by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

      astalavista.box.sk might be interested in that algorithm.

      Ah, memories. The AstaLaVista search engine was such an important tool back in the day.
      Hard to believe it was created 20 years ago.
      I feel old.

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
  21. Wow, that's funny! by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They design a search engine that implements their wet dream for them and then because they are what they are, they make sure nobody will use it by slapping a patent on it! They are their own worst enemy!

  22. Filetype:torrent by houghi · · Score: 1

    Will it be able to search on filetype:torrent, because if it does, I do not care how high or low it ranks the things I am looking for.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  23. Shooting themselves in the foot by JazzXP · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't this mean that search engines can freely show pirate content (including Disney content) for people to find now and not lose any safe harbour provisions? Otherwise they'd be infringing patents...

    1. Re:Shooting themselves in the foot by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I wondered the same thing. If anybody else tries to prioritize by "authenticity" they could be violating another's IP, so they can claim that one of the content owners was basically forcing them to rank pirated content or pay them royalties for not ranking it. The law usually does not look favorably on such squeeze plays.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  24. They Filed on Sep 9 2010 by ameline · · Score: 4, Informative

    They filed over 4 years ago. If they haven't got a working search engine by now based on this, they never will. 4 years is forever in internet time.

    Never mind that any search engine using this is very unlikely to make a dent in google.

    I think their strategy is to "shame" google et al into doing more -- "look, see we got a patent on a means of eliminating piracy, proving that it *IS* possible, therefore you have to do more to prevent piracy."
    Ignoring the fact that the existence of a patent proves nothing about whether the invention actually *works*. (I say this as someone who holds a number of patents -- all of mine work -- I filed them after I had them coded and working. But it would have been just as easy to make all of it up and code nothing.)

    --
    Ian Ameline
  25. Re:This is a patent, not a site. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Is that you, Macrovision?

  26. Disney patents a customer free search engine. by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2

    Even if their search engine was slightly better than Google's it will go nowhere. But making it worse for many people isn't going to endear them to anyone. But most importantly they aren't going to endear themselves with the techno savvy crowd who would typically evangelize a new search engine. So my guess is that we will see a handful of Disney shows do horribly shoehorned in product placements for this turd and then it will be quietly shut down.

    1. Re:Disney patents a customer free search engine. by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      You got it, but large media companies would censor YouTube videos too.

      You would do a search for a Disney product, film or character and it would come back with maybe 15 results grand total.

      Because they wouldn't show YouTube results or fan pages because those could be copyright violations.

      Most megacorps --- if they had their way --- would actually destroy their own product and attack their own consumers and fans.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    2. Re:Disney patents a customer free search engine. by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      Not just copyright violations but even ones where they lost due to fair use such as parody. I suspect that if you had a website, "Disney is destroying the fabric of America" that it wouldn't show up. But that if you had a web site, "Disney is the best place on earth to take your kids." that it would somehow show up during searches for "Soil types of Indonesia."

      And yes, the big media companies thought they were on to something when they bought out all the newspapers, radio stations, and television networks. This takeover of media control most certainly is what drove people to finding freedom from control on the internet. The internet would have eventually driven traditional media into the ground but it might have otherwise taken much longer if the demand hadn't been created by their anti-social attempt to control us.

      Murdoch must have crapped his pants when his takeover of MySpace almost instantly turned it into a vacant lot.

    3. Re:Disney patents a customer free search engine. by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      I wasn't consciously thinking about media megacorp ownership of tv outlets, radio stations and newspapers. Great point!

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  27. just another Mickey Mouse search engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its just another Mickey Mouse search engine, but backed by Disney's evil money-pits and temple of vile DRM lawyers. Be very scared people. Very, very scared.

    1. Re:just another Mickey Mouse search engine by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      "Mickey Mouse" search engine.

      Heh.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  28. Very useful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now, to get the good stuff, I just have to do a diff between what Google returns, and what Disney returns.

  29. Re:Thanks for reminding us in the last line... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

    There's a reason Disney employees refer to it as 'Mouseschwitz'.

  30. Re:This is a patent, not a site. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and law like that likely will voile the 1st amendment.

  31. This is great by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't want to question too much the validity of this patent. I'm just glad that a corrupt organization like Disney got the patent. That way other search engines will think twice and not risk implementing any sort of "authenticity" factors" in their searches. So Disney can go ahead and have searches that favor Disney in their own search engine, but will have to avoid doing that. Great move Disney. What other things that would have favored you are you going to patent so that others can't do?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  32. Actually no... by Puls4r · · Score: 1

    Yep. And fan pages, or personal pages that might come up will be totally buried because they won't have corporate legitimacy under this search engine.

  33. Re:This is a patent, not a site. by Bonker · · Score: 1

    Vote this AC up because this is EXACTLY the kind of crap Disney has pulled in the past.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  34. Standard technical measures by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unless Disney manages to get a court to rule that a search engine forfeited its OCILLA safe harbor for not licensing this patent, claiming that the patented invention has become one of the "standard technical measures" as defined in 17 USC 512(i)(2).

    1. Re:Standard technical measures by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Nah, all the major search engines would have to do is show a judge and/or jury just how bad of a failure go.com was, and therefore why Disney has no business either running a search engine or setting rules for one.

  35. Flood of immigrants by tepples · · Score: 2

    Ironically, this is an incredible boost for other nations which don't subscribe to such idiocy

    But how practical is it for affected U.S. citizens to obtain work visas in said other nations?

  36. Copyright Infringers of the Caribbean by tepples · · Score: 1

    In Disney's Degenerate World, Nazi is OK, Pirate is devilish.

    Then explain the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

    1. Re:Copyright Infringers of the Caribbean by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > explain the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

      50 % of the population has below average intelligence.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  37. In Russia, Yandex uses YOU by tepples · · Score: 1

    Some of us use DuckDuckGo.

    If you use DuckDuckGo, you're sending your queries to a Russian company.

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden, for courageously doing what was right!

    Oh wait, I get it: you actually like Russia.

    1. Re:In Russia, Yandex uses YOU by tepples · · Score: 1

      In case I was too subtle: DuckDuckGo's back end is Yandex.

  38. Good patent by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    The real invention that should have been patented here is the trick to force users into using a search engine that returns "unpopular" pages. Or in other words, the invention that push users toward non pirated content.

  39. Re:This is a patent, not a site. by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

    Since when do they care about the 1st amendment, or any part of the constitution?

  40. Re:Thanks for reminding us in the last line... by pete6677 · · Score: 1, Informative

    I am now dumber for having read that comment. Please get help.

  41. Tricky Problem by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    If they haven't got a working search engine by now based on this, they never will. 4 years is forever in internet time.

    They got it working in the first 6 months. It took the remaining 3.5 years to figure out how to stop the sites for Pirates of the Caribbean, Peter Pan, Treasure Island etc. getting banned by all the piracy filters.

  42. Could potentially be useful by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    A lot of the time I'm looking for reviews of a TV show and all I get is links to pirate versions. I already pirated it! I don't need them! Switching to an alternative.

    Sadly they're doing it wrong. I really don't want to find the official web page for the show. That contains no useful information. I want to know what people think.

  43. Hail Disney by ruir · · Score: 1

    The flagship of a future dystopian society. Promoting a new digital feudalism for your descendants.

  44. Authenticity by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    In other words, people who pay disney to authenticate their site with Disney or a Disney related service and approval.

    I bet 'As people have to agree to our terms of use for Disney paid advertisements, which has billing information, we authenticate their websites so it shows up with a higher ranking'

    E.G The search engine is an ad searching machine now.

  45. Thank you, Disney by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Thank you for squashing innovation in the field of search engines censored by copyright!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  46. paywalls by StripedCow · · Score: 2

    So basically, it's a search engine for searching paywalls.

    This makes it easy to filter out paywalls from your search results.
    1. run search on google
    2. run search on disney
    3. subtract results from (1) by (2)
    4. profit

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  47. Re:Thanks for reminding us in the last line... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Stop feeding the trolls.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  48. What would happen with this by OutOnARock · · Score: 1


    What if you made a cartoon of a Jewish Mickey Mouse being thrown into a Nazi gas chamber by Nazi Bugs Bunny......

    1. Would it show up on Disney's search?
    2. Would the use of the cartoon characters be protected by the First Amendment's use for political satire?
    3. How long would Disney's lawyers fight #2?

  49. It's almost like.... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

    It's almost like the system was BUILT TO BE GAMED.

    What kind of effort do you think it will take to get Disney to certify my content as authentic?

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  50. Ah, the possibilities by CmdrTamale · · Score: 1

    (1) Buy/get Licence for cheap/free.
    (2) implement it, badly.
    (3) profit!

    or

    (1) Buy/get Licence for cheap/free.
    (2) implement it with a user-selected weighting
                1 - original Disney mode,
                0 - ignore Disney tool, or
              -1 - Arrr!
    (3) profit (it's only a beta, after all).
    --
    Is the opposite of evil, good? Not always. Not even usually.