Slashdot Mirror
Google (Patent Pending)
Jason Eric Pierce writes "I just noticed something interesting while using Google, considering how much it has been praised here by those that tend to denounce software patents:
'Unlike other current generation search engines, which rely heavily on keywords or meta-search technology to find information, Google offers an advanced patent-pending technology called PageRank(TM) to deliver the most relevant results. PageRank ensures that the most important, relevant pages always come up first and that your users will always find what they are looking for.' I love Google, but I hate the idea of patenting a search algorithm/implementation." Good point. Thoughts?
http://www.google.com/search?q= more+evil+than+satan and see the first hit?
Patent #93,593,376:
A method of testing web servers by writing an interesting story for nerds, adding a few large JPG's, and then posting said link to slashdot.org. The result of posting is a large and immediate increase in web traffic, not for purposes of advertising (because said nerds don't have any money to buy things) but only to test the reliability of one's web server.
Licensing will be a no-brainer. If a company wants to test their servers, they can just mirror a six-month old news story and tell Hemos about it. "Psst - there's an article on here about why Linux web servers aren't as good as NT. It's only six months old - it's still news!"
- Sorry, Hemos, you walked right into that one.
What's your damage, Heather?
I don't think most Slashdotters are against all patents, but more against patenting the obvious (like the icon for these stories indicates). One-click shopping, or banner ads are so obvious (to one 'skilled in the art', eg. a geek) that they shouldn't be patentable.
What Google uses is far from obvious, so this merits a patent. I think this was the original idea behind the patent system, but somehow the USPTO seems to have lost the definition of 'obvious' along the way.
superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
This is the crux of the question is do slash.dotters object to the principle of patenting ideas full stop, or, just the patenting of dumb ideas.
If your priciple objection is to the patenting of dumb ideas then you should have no problem with the google patent. Thier search algorithms are certainly different from all the others and produce good and consitent results. It seems like they are patenting something "original, not obvious, and which works". There may be some prior art here as a ton of work has been done on search algorithms over the years, but generally speaking this looks like a "good" patent.
If the main objection is to patents per se, then I would say we are a bunch of hypocrytes. The whole high tech industry which produces all the goodies we love to play with is driven by patents. IBM is not going to spend billions researching "copper" etc. and give as those lovely gigahertz processors if some company in tiawan can rip off the design as soon as it is working.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
Search engine admins are constantly in a cat and mouse game with the Web. It's not just cat and mousing with word spammers (first rank down pages with words in alphabetical order... word spammers strike back... then try to parse pages a bit.. word spammers strike back... et cetera...). Styles of web page writing alter over time, and there are issues over the mutability of pages and the such. (Frames fall into fashion.. frames fall out of fashion..)
Search engine admins should have the freedom to tinker with their ranking algorithms without getting nailed by patent sharks. Besides, copying a search algorithm is a bit difficult if the algorithm isn't published. Search enginges don't have to publish their methods to build a user base. They just have to do a good job.
So, Google is probably justified in seeking a patent. One can't be too carefull. But if Google starts pulling an Amazon, it's time to boycott them.
I love Google, but I hate the idea of patenting a search algorithm/implementation
Well then how selfish are you? You love Google but you're opposed to them trying to make a buck from the technology for which you love them. You'd rather they didn't patent it, and someone like Lycos could come along and say "Thanks for doing all the research Google, this technology will work great in our new search engine".
And you know the masses will all go visit Lycos and click on their banner ads, because instead of wasting money on "research" and/or "development", they've been spending their money on ads on the sides of buses.
And then Google will go bust, and all their workers will go home and have no money to put food on the tables of their families.
But it's ok, because patents are bad, because Slashdot said so.
Since we're going to discuss PageRank and it's patentability, You might want to read about it first.
No Zen is good zen
Which was actually the intent. The idea behind patents is that the person who thought of it should have a monopoly. The trade-off is that in exchange for that monopoly:
- The technology must be published, so that everybody can see it;
- The monopoly expires after a relatively limited time (in the U.S., 20 years). After that, it's fair game for anybody.
This 20 year time period seems a bit long in the Internet era (which works in dog years), but it's worked for a long time....phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
The other day, someone was asking how long the internet boom could continue. I think the boom is part of a natural shift into an information based economy. Countries that restrict the flow of information by artifical means, be it censorship of the net in Australia or artificial restrictions imposed by patent and trademark laws which require anyone with a web presence to have a substantial and expensive legal team, will end up killing the boom in their borders. Said countries will end up being the new third world countries, strangling the wealth that the information age offers. Countries that make an effort to embrace the internet and assist the flow of information will most likely enjoy the boom indefinitely.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why is this patent bad? Google's people invested their hard work and time into developing a page analysis method, and they are more than within their rights to patent it.
Patenting a concept (i.e. the "concept" of banner ads) is relatively questionable business behavior. Patenting an IMPLEMENTATION of that is not - it helps the developers protect their investments, and it forces everyone else to find a better way to do the same thing.
Here Google's authors can rest assured that nobody will steal the fruits of their hard work, and it prompts the rest of the community to come up with a different implementation of a page rankings algorithm that may be better or serve a different purpose.
I'm sure that if someone were to release a competing search engine using Google's algorithm, this entire community would be up in arms about it. So why don't you allow Google the chance to protect their work?
There's nothing wrong with taking out a software patent, in today's crazy world. It's a good way to make yourself look good to investors, for example.
The problem is suing other people based on that patent.
The standard is not whether the invention was obvious to "one 'skilled in the art', e.g. a geek'." To the contrary, the standard is whether "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." 35 U.S.C. s. 103(a).
The issue is not whether in hindsight an expert would think the issue is obvious, but whether a dull, ordinary, hack familiar with the art without the benefit of knowing the solution -- or even a requirements specification of the problem -- would find the differences obvious.
So what, then, if we are to charge Amazon with invalidity, is the relevant prior art that makes obvious the one-click solution? And if the solution was so obvious, given the need to do it, why wasn't it done by others before Amazon did it? It is interesting to note that B&N's lawyers couldn't come up with a plausible answer to that question during the preliminary injunction hearings. Where is the "clear and convincing" evidence of invalidity, then, apart from the naked assertion of obviousness so frequently asserted in these letters?
I do not assert that invalidating prior art does not exist. I merely note that no one has come close, so far, to presenting any.