Flickr Patenting "Interestingness"

tjcrowder noted that Boing Boing is reporting that Flickr has filed for a patent on a system for determining "interestingness". From the patent application abstract: "Media objects, such as images or soundtracks, may be ranked according to a new class of metrics known as "interestingness." These rankings may be based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the media object, the number of users who have assigned metadata to the media object, access patterns related to the media object, and/or a lapse of time related to the media object." So basically, nobody else can use tags to label files. Totally original thinking from the folks at flickr. *cough*

umm... no?

[geoffspear]

They're not patenting tagging, and there's no reason to think you can't use tags if the patent is accepted. The patent may be really stupid, but if we're going to get editorial comments, can they at least make sense?

Not quite. . .

[samuelk]

To the original poster of this article:

They're not trying to patent the use of tags. They're trying to patent a metric for measuring and quantifying meta tags.

The weird thing about this is that their metric doesn't actually measure the media itself, only the quantity of meta tags. I guess it works as a metric, but it's more a measurement of popularity, not "interestingness".

Re:umm... no?

[91degrees]

Agreed.

I really wish Slashdot would stop doing this. Taking a patent, making the most ludicrous assumptions about the scope, and then criticising these assumptions as ludicrous. It doesn't help. It undermines the anti-patent argument.

Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[javaxJason]

Don't you just love how many of these companies go about patenting an idea (or similar idea) that is already used by the masses. This is such a joke, next thing you know (providing the patent is upheld) Yahoo will start suing folks like Amazon and our beloved Slashdot for patent infringement. Most people wouldn't even consider patenting something that is already, to some degree, "common knowledge". I thought the whole purpose of patenting was to protect intellectual property that has yet to be implemented or conceived. Hmmmm...I guess I'm just totally wrong in that assumption.

Read the blasted CLAIMS of the patent, Taco...

[danaris]

I really wish Slashdot would stop doing this. Taking a patent, making the most ludicrous assumptions about the scope, and then criticising these assumptions as ludicrous. It doesn't help. It undermines the anti-patent argument.

Indeed. Specifically, they seem to read the abstract of the patent--or even a third-party summary of the abstract--and fixate on one or two words from it, and say, "OH NOES THEIR TRYING TO PATENT TAGGING!!11!!!" or, "I have prior art for that! I saw someone with a tagging system back in '95!" when the actual claims for the patent (you know, the part that says what's actually patented) say something quite different, very specific, and not particularly worrying at all. Or even when they say something quite different, overly broad, and somewhat worrying...it still doesn't help, because you're arguing a completely different issue.

I am as distressed with the real broken state of patent law in this country as most others here...but the way in which it is treated is, as you say, very counterproductive. It would be very nice if there were some kind of standards for acceptance of such articles--and, though I'm generally not too critical of the editors, it would be much nicer if they would pay enough attention so as to not make completely worthless and off-base comments when they post them. Commenting is fine, just make it an informed, useful, and correct comment.

And no, before you ask, I'm not new here, I'm just annoyed.

Dan Aris