Amazon filed a patent infringement lawsuit in October 1999 in response to Barnes & Noble offering a 1-Click ordering option called "Express Lane." After reviewing the evidence, a judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering Barnes & Noble to stop offering Express Lane until the case was settled. Barnes & Noble had developed a way to design around the patent by requiring shoppers to make a second click to confirm their purchase. The lawsuit was settled in 2002. The terms of the settlement, including whether or not Barnes & Noble took a license to the patent or paid any money to Amazon, were not disclosed.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But a patent limits the free flow of information. It requires licensing fees and other steps, legal steps. So you can't argue that your definition is improving the free flow of information.
JUSTICE BREYER: But then all we do is every example that I just gave, that I thought were examples that certainly would not be patented, you simply patent them. All you do is just have a set of instructions for saying how to set a computer to do it. Anyone can do that. Now, it's a machine.
MR. STEWART: ... we recognize that there are difficult problems out there in terms of patentability of software innovations and medical diagnostics.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: You thought we -- you thought we would mess it up.
MR. STEWART: We didn't think the Court would mess it up.
Presume that something, whether it is a business process, a picture, a book, an emotion, even the positional state of a lawn of grass, can be fully described.
This is a somewhat silly argument from Sotomayor. The primary alternative to a patent is a trade secret.
What say you to how patents helped Google and Apple compete with Microsoft?
Google is built on software patents: patents on indexing, patents on search, patents on its advertising system, patents on its distributed computing infrastructure. Without those patents, Microsoft would no doubt have copied PageRank and other Google technologies.
Then why does Google spend millions of dollars every year amassing software patents? And don't say 'defensive patents.' If Google were willing to disclose the information yet didn't care about the patent protection, then it would just publish the inventions directly and save millions.
Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological steps, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or steps described. Rather, the specific features and steps are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention.
Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological steps, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or steps described. Rather, the specific features and steps are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention. "
Your evidence that there is no way to make a functional search engine that doesn't infringe the PageRank patent being?
Technorati's authority ranking is absolutely not the same as PageRank as it relies solely upon the number of incoming links, not the scores of the linking pages.
Consider this: Of the 20 patent lawsuits filed against Google since late 2007, all but two have been filed by plaintiffs who don’t make or sell any real product or service — in other words, by non-practicing entities or “patent trolls.” Most of these cases seem to feature the same small set of contingent fee plaintiff's lawyers asserting patent claims against the same small set of companies. We've also noticed a more disturbing trend: in many of these cases, the patents being asserted against us are owned by — and in a surprising number of cases, are even “invented” by — patent lawyers themselves.
Some have argued recently that reforms to the patent system would somehow make the U.S. less competitive in the world. That couldn't be further from the truth. Low-quality patents and escalating legal costs are currently hurting the ability of U.S. companies to compete globally, and that in turn hurts U.S. workers and consumers. Without a modernized patent system, U.S. companies are at a competitive disadvantage, spending resources on unnecessary litigation and unwarranted licensing instead of on innovation.
Obviously there are the pre-Google search algorithms (e.g., whatever Altavista used), though they don't work very well. But, hey, Bing doesn't work so great either.
I told you I hadn't taken courses on web search.
« Older The Beatles never broke up.... | What's After the Credits? is a... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt