To justify legal action, one would have to cite actual patents being infringed, not merely complain about someone following a general trend in product design.
That already happened and Samsung lost.
This is a new set of infringements by Google on Rockstar held patents.
There is going to be a lot of Google-colored blood in the streets once this one goes to court.
This is a new set of infringements by Google on Rockstar held patents.
There is going to be a lot of Google-colored blood in the streets once this one goes to court.
And still Google resists jumping in the fray. Can you imagine the industry disruption if Google were to arm a couple of NPE's with a few thousand of the approx. 20,000 patents it owns? Fortunately it appears they don't believe in tit-for-tat.
So Rockstar Consortium is the epitomy of an NPE, what many refer to a a patent troll. They exist solely to get the maximum returns from monetizing patents, in this case donated by Microsoft and Apple who benefit from the resultant lawsuits, and with no products of their own are immune from IP counter-suits. IMO a sneaky move on the part of Bidco group but well-played from a business perspective. Apple and the others get plausible deniability of any responsibility for Rockstar's actions.
Sadly, I think you may be right.
Looking at this from another direction, the patents in question may be a bit dubious, often a sign of trolling. The patent 7,895,178 claims the following (I have abbreviated it to get to the meaning but the full text is at the end of this post):
So, in every day English, a search engine responds with the results of a search but also includes an advert that matches those same search terms. As the user refines their search to home in on their target, the adverts become more specific too.
In the UK (I can't speak for the US), it's not possible to patent something that is obvious to a practitioner in the appropriate field. This one looks to me to be obvious to the man on the Clapham Omnibus (a famous statement in UK law to describe Joe Public), never mind to a practitioner. So is this really a real innovation that should be allowed to be patented? Personally, I think we'd be better off without such patents.
If that's true then we find one organisation using an artificial legal argument to take money from another. Following the money, we find that Rockstar's owners and the lawyers benefit from this. There is no benefit to the industry or its customers (that's us) because nothing got invented and the overall amount of money available to invent new things got reduced (by the lawyers' fees). The fact that the first organisation is a proxy for Apple et al and the other is Google should not sway our judgement!
So I agree, it all looks like patent trolling and, regrettably, I think Apple just lost some of the moral high-ground.
And still Google resists jumping in the fray. Can you imagine the industry disruption if Google were to arm a couple of NPE's with a few thousand of the approx. 20,000 patents it owns? Fortunately it appears they don't believe in tit-for-tat.
The original infringements by Google might be enough to end them as a company if Rockstar decides to not offer a licensing deal. On the other hand, I believe they will offer a licensing deal so as not to draw the ire of the government...however, that doesn't mean the licensing fee won't be a large one.
Looking at this from another direction, the patents in question may be a bit dubious, often a sign of trolling. The patent 7,895,178 claims the following (I have abbreviated it to get to the meaning but the full text is at the end of this post):
So, in every day English, a search engine responds with the results of a search but also includes an advert that matches those same search terms. As the user refines their search to home in on their target, the adverts become more specific too.
In the UK (I can't speak for the US), it's not possible to patent something that is obvious to a practitioner in the appropriate field. This one looks to me to be obvious to the man on the Clapham Omnibus (a famous statement in UK law to describe Joe Public), never mind to a practitioner. So is this really a real innovation that should be allowed to be patented? Personally, I think we'd be better off without such patents.
If that's true then we find one organisation using an artificial legal argument to take money from another. Following the money, we find that Rockstar's owners and the lawyers benefit from this. There is no benefit to the industry or its customers (that's us) because nothing got invented and the overall amount of money available to invent new things got reduced (by the lawyers' fees). The fact that the first organisation is a proxy for Apple et al and the other is Google should not sway our judgement!
So I agree, it all looks like patent trolling and, regrettably, I think Apple just lost some of the moral high-ground.
The original infringements by Google might be enough to end them as a company if Rockstar decides to not offer a licensing deal. On the other hand, I believe they will offer a licensing deal so as not to draw the ire of the government...however, that doesn't mean the licensing fee won't be a large one.
Sounds like something you may have said before about Oracle. Perhaps better to let Rockstar win first before the death knell.
To justify legal action, one would have to cite actual patents being infringed, not merely complain about someone following a general trend in product design.
The lawsuit wouldn't have anything to do with patents, it would have to do with a member of Apple's BoD using confidential information inappropriately (i.e. to help Google develop android).
And still Google resists jumping in the fray. Can you imagine the industry disruption if Google were to arm a couple of NPE's with a few thousand of the approx. 20,000 patents it owns? Fortunately it appears they don't believe in tit-for-tat.
Google may resist but a fully owned subsidiary hasn't.
I believe I quoted the patent's first claim, not its abstract. When you draft a patent, you generally make a set of graduated claims of which this is the first (the graduated bit is so you have a set of fallbacks if any given claim fails*). By all means check the other claims (I presume that's what you think "people like me" always leave out) but I don't think my quote is misleading.
Google are not seeking (AFAIK) to patent their ranking algorithms so why would they publish them? I expect they see them as one of their trade secrets.
Google are not seeking (AFAIK) to patent their ranking algorithms so why would they publish them? I expect they see them as one of their trade secrets.
*Disclaimer: My experience is with UK patents.
No, because Stanford holds the patents and Google is their sole licensee.
I'm not familiar with the details of patent law, but I've been told that one can patent not general concepts but rather specific implementations of them. The claim here seems rather short on details. For example, what is the algorithm proposed for "selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results"? Are these details fleshed out elsewhere?
I'm not familiar with the details of patent law, but I've been told that one can patent not general concepts but rather specific implementations of them. The claim here seems rather short on details. For example, what is the algorithm proposed for "selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results"? Are these details fleshed out elsewhere?
I think it's that distinction (what's general and what's specific) that I'm complaining about. In this case, I think what I quoted is really what they've patented, surprising as that seems. If you read the 'Description' section at the link I quoted you'll find more detail but, in all honesty, no more essence. Even more surprising since the patent apparently dates from 2007, it reads like something 10 years older [Edit: on further reading, it is a continuation of a patent originally filed in 1997 - good guess huh!].
As an example of patenting generalities, BT (British Telecom, as was) famously patented the hyperlink. That patent was from the days of Prestel (Viewdata) so you could argue that, back then, the concept of selecting a textual fragment that then caused you automatically to receive related 'pages' of data was genuinely innovative. Thankfully, attempts to enforce the patent were abandoned (imagine collecting payment based upon every click on the WWW).
I'm not familiar with the details of patent law, but I've been told that one can patent not general concepts but rather specific implementations of them. The claim here seems rather short on details. For example, what is the algorithm proposed for "selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results"? Are these details fleshed out elsewhere?
There is an arcane art to writing a good patent application. The trick is to write one that has the right balance of specific and general descriptions. Specificity so that it cannot be declared as "obvious", and generality to gain broader protections and thus, create greater patent value.
Google must have anticipated this coming back during the bidding...maybe knowing the potential risks they could/should/would have bid even more?
Unless the patent claims being asserted against Google are both valid and deemed infringed in a court of law, and the royalties ordered are into the multiple billions then Google probably made the wise choice. Unlike Apple/Microsoft who set up a PAE/NPE/Troll to sue competitors of the original bidders, Google would have been highly unlikely to set up a PAE or even file infringement lawsuits themselves. For Apple/MS it's both a bludgeon and a revenue stream. For Google it would not have been IMO.
Unless the patent claims being asserted against Google are both valid and deemed infringed in a court of law, and the royalties ordered are into the multiple billions then Google probably made the wise choice. Unlike Apple/Microsoft who set up a PAE/NPE/Troll to sue competitors of the original bidders, Google would have been highly unlikely to set up a PAE or even file infringement lawsuits themselves. For Apple/MS it's both a bludgeon and a revenue stream. For Google it would not have been IMO.
Googs could have joined Apple and Micrisoft but didn't. Sucks to be them.
Comments
That already happened and Samsung lost.
This is a new set of infringements by Google on Rockstar held patents.
There is going to be a lot of Google-colored blood in the streets once this one goes to court.
And still Google resists jumping in the fray. Can you imagine the industry disruption if Google were to arm a couple of NPE's with a few thousand of the approx. 20,000 patents it owns? Fortunately it appears they don't believe in tit-for-tat.
So Rockstar Consortium is the epitomy of an NPE, what many refer to a a patent troll. They exist solely to get the maximum returns from monetizing patents, in this case donated by Microsoft and Apple who benefit from the resultant lawsuits, and with no products of their own are immune from IP counter-suits. IMO a sneaky move on the part of Bidco group but well-played from a business perspective. Apple and the others get plausible deniability of any responsibility for Rockstar's actions.
Sadly, I think you may be right.
Looking at this from another direction, the patents in question may be a bit dubious, often a sign of trolling. The patent 7,895,178 claims the following (I have abbreviated it to get to the meaning but the full text is at the end of this post):
1. A method for operating an advertising machine ... receiving ... a search request that includes a search argument; searching at least one database using the search argument to produce search results; selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to ... the search ...; transmitting the search results together with the at least one advertisement...;
receiving search refinement input ...;producing modified search results based upon at least the search refinement input; selecting at least one other advertisement based upon at least one of the search refinement input and the modified search results; and transmitting at least one of the modified search results and the at least one other advertisement... .
So, in every day English, a search engine responds with the results of a search but also includes an advert that matches those same search terms. As the user refines their search to home in on their target, the adverts become more specific too.
In the UK (I can't speak for the US), it's not possible to patent something that is obvious to a practitioner in the appropriate field. This one looks to me to be obvious to the man on the Clapham Omnibus (a famous statement in UK law to describe Joe Public), never mind to a practitioner. So is this really a real innovation that should be allowed to be patented? Personally, I think we'd be better off without such patents.
If that's true then we find one organisation using an artificial legal argument to take money from another. Following the money, we find that Rockstar's owners and the lawyers benefit from this. There is no benefit to the industry or its customers (that's us) because nothing got invented and the overall amount of money available to invent new things got reduced (by the lawyers' fees). The fact that the first organisation is a proxy for Apple et al and the other is Google should not sway our judgement!
So I agree, it all looks like patent trolling and, regrettably, I think Apple just lost some of the moral high-ground.
Full text of the patent's first claim:
1. A method for operating an advertising machine implemented on at least one computer to provide advertisements via a communications link to a data processing device of a user, the method comprising: receiving from the data processing device via the communications link a search request that includes a search argument; searching at least one database using the search argument to produce search results; selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results; transmitting the search results together with the at least one advertisement via the communications link to the data processing device; receiving search refinement input from the data processing device via the communications link;producing modified search results based upon at least the search refinement input; selecting at least one other advertisement from the advertisement database based upon at least one of the search refinement input and the modified search results; and transmitting at least one of the modified search results and the at least one other advertisement via the communications link to the data processing device.
And still Google resists jumping in the fray. Can you imagine the industry disruption if Google were to arm a couple of NPE's with a few thousand of the approx. 20,000 patents it owns? Fortunately it appears they don't believe in tit-for-tat.
The original infringements by Google might be enough to end them as a company if Rockstar decides to not offer a licensing deal. On the other hand, I believe they will offer a licensing deal so as not to draw the ire of the government...however, that doesn't mean the licensing fee won't be a large one.
Sadly, I think you may be right.
Looking at this from another direction, the patents in question may be a bit dubious, often a sign of trolling. The patent 7,895,178 claims the following (I have abbreviated it to get to the meaning but the full text is at the end of this post):
1. A method for operating an advertising machine ... receiving ... a search request that includes a search argument; searching at least one database using the search argument to produce search results; selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to ... the search ...; transmitting the search results together with the at least one advertisement...;
receiving search refinement input ...;producing modified search results based upon at least the search refinement input; selecting at least one other advertisement based upon at least one of the search refinement input and the modified search results; and transmitting at least one of the modified search results and the at least one other advertisement... .
So, in every day English, a search engine responds with the results of a search but also includes an advert that matches those same search terms. As the user refines their search to home in on their target, the adverts become more specific too.
In the UK (I can't speak for the US), it's not possible to patent something that is obvious to a practitioner in the appropriate field. This one looks to me to be obvious to the man on the Clapham Omnibus (a famous statement in UK law to describe Joe Public), never mind to a practitioner. So is this really a real innovation that should be allowed to be patented? Personally, I think we'd be better off without such patents.
If that's true then we find one organisation using an artificial legal argument to take money from another. Following the money, we find that Rockstar's owners and the lawyers benefit from this. There is no benefit to the industry or its customers (that's us) because nothing got invented and the overall amount of money available to invent new things got reduced (by the lawyers' fees). The fact that the first organisation is a proxy for Apple et al and the other is Google should not sway our judgement!
So I agree, it all looks like patent trolling and, regrettably, I think Apple just lost some of the moral high-ground.
Full text of the patent's first claim:
1. A method for operating an advertising machine implemented on at least one computer to provide advertisements via a communications link to a data processing device of a user, the method comprising: receiving from the data processing device via the communications link a search request that includes a search argument; searching at least one database using the search argument to produce search results; selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results; transmitting the search results together with the at least one advertisement via the communications link to the data processing device; receiving search refinement input from the data processing device via the communications link;producing modified search results based upon at least the search refinement input; selecting at least one other advertisement from the advertisement database based upon at least one of the search refinement input and the modified search results; and transmitting at least one of the modified search results and the at least one other advertisement via the communications link to the data processing device.
So where's the rest of it?
A patent is not only based on it's introductory description, there's a bit more meat to it, mainly describing the steps that actually make it work.
Hence the need for courts to sort out the complexities people like you always leave out.
When will Google release their "algorithm for finding stuff" patents to the world for free?
To justify legal action, one would have to cite actual patents being infringed, not merely complain about someone following a general trend in product design.
The lawsuit wouldn't have anything to do with patents, it would have to do with a member of Apple's BoD using confidential information inappropriately (i.e. to help Google develop android).
Google may resist but a fully owned subsidiary hasn't.
So where's the rest of it?
A patent is not only based on it's introductory description, there's a bit more meat to it, mainly describing the steps that actually make it work.
Hence the need for courts to sort out the complexities people like you always leave out.
When will Google release their "algorithm for finding stuff" patents to the world for free?
"Where's the rest of it?" - try http://www.archpatent.com/patents/7895178
I believe I quoted the patent's first claim, not its abstract. When you draft a patent, you generally make a set of graduated claims of which this is the first (the graduated bit is so you have a set of fallbacks if any given claim fails*). By all means check the other claims (I presume that's what you think "people like me" always leave out) but I don't think my quote is misleading.
Google are not seeking (AFAIK) to patent their ranking algorithms so why would they publish them? I expect they see them as one of their trade secrets.
*Disclaimer: My experience is with UK patents.
Sounds like something you may have said before about Oracle.
Maybe. Your memory may be better than mine on this.
No, because Stanford holds the patents and Google is their sole licensee.
Full text of the patent's first claim:
1. A method for operating an advertising machine implemented on at least one computer to provide advertisements via a communications link to a data processing device of a user, the method comprising: receiving from the data processing device via the communications link a search request that includes a search argument; searching at least one database using the search argument to produce search results; selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results; transmitting the search results together with the at least one advertisement via the communications link to the data processing device; receiving search refinement input from the data processing device via the communications link;producing modified search results based upon at least the search refinement input; selecting at least one other advertisement from the advertisement database based upon at least one of the search refinement input and the modified search results; and transmitting at least one of the modified search results and the at least one other advertisement via the communications link to the data processing device.
I'm not familiar with the details of patent law, but I've been told that one can patent not general concepts but rather specific implementations of them. The claim here seems rather short on details. For example, what is the algorithm proposed for "selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results"? Are these details fleshed out elsewhere?
I'm not familiar with the details of patent law, but I've been told that one can patent not general concepts but rather specific implementations of them. The claim here seems rather short on details. For example, what is the algorithm proposed for "selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results"? Are these details fleshed out elsewhere?
I think it's that distinction (what's general and what's specific) that I'm complaining about. In this case, I think what I quoted is really what they've patented, surprising as that seems. If you read the 'Description' section at the link I quoted you'll find more detail but, in all honesty, no more essence. Even more surprising since the patent apparently dates from 2007, it reads like something 10 years older [Edit: on further reading, it is a continuation of a patent originally filed in 1997 - good guess huh!].
As an example of patenting generalities, BT (British Telecom, as was) famously patented the hyperlink. That patent was from the days of Prestel (Viewdata) so you could argue that, back then, the concept of selecting a textual fragment that then caused you automatically to receive related 'pages' of data was genuinely innovative. Thankfully, attempts to enforce the patent were abandoned (imagine collecting payment based upon every click on the WWW).
It's a minefield.
Since Google bought them? Yes sir even Moto has resisted. Not a single patent infringement suit has been filed by MM since.
I'm not familiar with the details of patent law, but I've been told that one can patent not general concepts but rather specific implementations of them. The claim here seems rather short on details. For example, what is the algorithm proposed for "selecting at least one advertisement from an advertisement database relating to at least one of the search argument and the search results"? Are these details fleshed out elsewhere?
There is an arcane art to writing a good patent application. The trick is to write one that has the right balance of specific and general descriptions. Specificity so that it cannot be declared as "obvious", and generality to gain broader protections and thus, create greater patent value.
Unless the patent claims being asserted against Google are both valid and deemed infringed in a court of law, and the royalties ordered are into the multiple billions then Google probably made the wise choice. Unlike Apple/Microsoft who set up a PAE/NPE/Troll to sue competitors of the original bidders, Google would have been highly unlikely to set up a PAE or even file infringement lawsuits themselves. For Apple/MS it's both a bludgeon and a revenue stream. For Google it would not have been IMO.
Googs could have joined Apple and Micrisoft but didn't. Sucks to be them.
How so? Were they invited to and declined?
Yes, if I remembered correctly. There was a couple articles on AI.
Oh and this: http://m.networkworld.com/community/blog/google-had-opportunity-join-group-won-nortels-6000-patents?mm_ref=https://www.google.com/#mobify-bookmark