Slashdot Log In
Google (Patent Pending)
Posted by
Roblimo
on Mon Dec 27, 1999 05:24 AM
from the finding-good-and-bad-in-everything dept.
from the finding-good-and-bad-in-everything dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google (Patent Pending)
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 267 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Ever tried to search google for this.. (Score:3)
Let's patent the Slashdot effect! (Score:5)
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.
Obvious... (Score:5)
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.
Do we object patents or just bad patents? (Score:5)
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.
Why Google should only use the patent defensively. (Score:4)
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.
Re:Do we object patents or just bad patents? (Score:3)
Patents are good. (Score:3)
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.
Semi-important link (Score:5)
Re:Do we object patents or just bad patents? (Score:3)
In past Slashdot articles about patents, some have come down in favour of them, others are against them all. However, I think your topic needs to be sub-divided a little more: a lot of people are against the concept of being able to essentially patent algorithms (rather than hardware, for example).
I honestly don't know where I stand on this. Many patents that are just glorified descriptions of algorithms seem stupid to me. However, in the current state of Computer Science, many businesses *are* putting in the hours of research and coming up with new inventions. Those inventions just happen to be algorithms. So maybe a patent is ok in some cases. On the other hand, my training is as a mathematician and I would be horrified if somebody patented an algorithm for factoring numbers, for example (in fact, the RSA patent is a bit galling for that reason).
Re:Patenting is bad (Score:3)
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
Re:Obvious... (Score:3)
Patenting ``one-click shopping'' is just preposterous. You might as well have patented cookies. And if you did, you'd shoot yourself in the foot, because another solution would be found to the problem, and you wouldn't even see cookie support in browsers.
Banner ads, OTOH, depend on being widespread and the concept being freely available to catch on. I doubt you could patent them if you tried, though with the government existing as it does today, I won't take any bets.
Now Google's technology would obviously be a great boon if it was published. I'd love to see it. But Google's patent extends to what amounts to their entire business, and does not extend to the protocols that folks need to depend on to communicate with their server. It's all behind the scenes and it provides a better product. On top of that, the patent's existence ensures that down the road, we'll all be treated to a good description of it that we can use.
Re:Patents are good. (Score:3)
1) The most hated patent: LZW. Why? It seems that Unisys submarined the patent; they waited until it was widely used then started suing to collect royalties. Is this the real history, or did people not read the licensing terms which permit gratis use for 'non-commercial, non-profit GIF-based applications'? According the the GNU no-gif page Unisys retracted these terms in 1999; that does fit the submarine story. But which is the problem here, a patented algorithm or the licensing practices of Unisys? If the former then the laws need changing, else boycott Unisys or try to file suit for dishonest licensing. (IANAL, so I don't know if that's possible or what magic words to invoke.)
2) The most hated, but assuredly bad, patents: Amazon's One-Click Shopping. This is fairly clear-cut, the patents should not have been granted because the technique is obvious. Everything here has been said many times over - next...
3) The worst recent change in the US patent sustem: patenting business models. This was probably to be expected as soon as an algorithm was patented. We seem to be on a slippery slope. Prediction: 'thought crimes' already exist under the name of 'hate crimes'. Will the penalty for execution of patented ideas on wetware be punishable by financial penalties or will the infringing computer be deactivated? This is not an example of the evils of capitalism or intellectual property or patents, it is the abandonment of the ideas which is the basis for those things. If man does not have his basic rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, the sanctity of his mind (aka. religion) - then he does not have the rights which necessarily depend on those.
Looking at these things, what of Google's patents? They are not submarine patents, good. They are not obvious (right?), good. Are they of those things which infringe upon the rights of others? I don't know. Google has the fairly unique (nowadays) feature of not throwing banner adds all over the page. Instead, they seem to be planning to generate revenue by providing a search engine service. I don't think they've patented the business model, good. They have patented what makes their business model work. As a result they provide an advertisement-free search engine to everyone and pay for it by providing customization services to their customers. If they weren't they only ones who could do this in this way, someone else (MS?) would surely come along and use Google's algorithms to provide the customized system for free. This would destroy Google and leave the system in the hands of whoever could use the service as a loss-leader - and we know what happens when those people no longer need to take a loss.
Perhaps I need to rethink my stand on algorithm patents. It seems that without them we will lose the good service businesses which we enjoy today. If the algorithm is patentable, then there is no need to patent the business model; if the business model is not patented, then anyone who does it better can do so.
Ask RMS (Score: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.
More Power To 'Em! (Score:3)
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?
Lawsuits are the problem, not patents (Score:3)
The problem is suing other people based on that patent.
That's not the law! (Score:3)
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.