Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 11th, 2008 @ 4:07pm

   
   

   WTF!
   
   Dog pile any one? Metacrawler?
   
   I love Google and all, and I relies this is a defensive thing, but GAWWW!!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 11th, 2008 @ 4:14pm

   
   

   The problem is, since they were granted the patent, anyone could have been. Personally, I'm glad Google got it instead of a troll. W/ Google, there is little likelihood that any competitors will be shut down. Of course, if I'm wrong...

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 11th, 2008 @ 4:38pm

   
   

   Re:

   actually, it is likely that someone already has a patent covering it. there are LOTS of duplicate patents...

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Ryan, Nov 11th, 2008 @ 4:43pm

   
   

   maybe..

   Maybe Google was just covering their tail, perhaps they knew from the pattern of patent trolling that someone would soon sue them over their "Universal Search Engine".

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 11th, 2008 @ 6:52pm

   
   

   "What's unclear to me is how anyone "skilled in the art" could consider this a non-obvious solution."
   
   The three inventors and their employer should be located near your work location. Pay them a visit and ask your question. Who knows? Maybe the have some insight that may prove useful.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Willton, Nov 11th, 2008 @ 10:59pm

   
   

   Re:

   One should also keep in mind that this particular patent property was filed in December of 2003 (and likely reduced to practice at an earlier date) and traversed at least 2 rejections in prosecution. Also, from a cursory look at claim 1, it's likely that this patent is considerably narrower than Mike holds it out to be.
   
   If anyone here has evidence of obviousness that was not covered in prosecution and was public prior to December of 2003, then feel free to present your case.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Chad, Nov 11th, 2008 @ 11:52pm

   
   

   Looks like this pertains to the "user interfaces that are used to present the results of a search" more than the technology of searching multiple categories (or databases) at once.
   
   The technology to search through multiple databases and pull up results on a single page have been around for YEARS, and that isn't what's being patented here (as I can tell from a quick read). It's the way the results are gathered and presented that they're talking about in Claim 1 and further in the Description.
   
   It talks about using a search query to further categorize and present results based on that query rather than having the user manually choose which category to search in. For example if you search for "homes for sale" it might automatically run your search in a "real estate" category. That's the technology in question.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 6:47am

   
   

   This is likely a defensive move to prevent anyone else from getting a patent on a seemingly obvious evolutionary advance in web search. Until the USPTO reins in the silly side of patents you can expect a lot more of these.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Mike, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 8:21am

   
   

   Re: Re:

   Which is why the prognosticating should be left to people who have actually earned licenses to practice before the USPTO, rather than someone who merely scans the title and maybe the abstract, looking for something to moan about.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Coral, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 9:30am

    
    

    I feel like Z39.50 (a federated search protocol) has been around long enough to count as prior art, if the description of this patent is correct.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Petréa Mitchell, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 10:13am

    
    

    Re:

    For that matter, libraries often have systems that can do that, and have had since before the Web...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 1:45pm

    
    

    You guys should actually read the claim. It claims a pretty specific implementation and does not purport to broadly claim a search engine that searches multiple databases. It only covers search engines that: search multiple databases, each having a different content-type; display all of the results from one content type together prominently; display all of the results from another content type less prominently; include text snippet summaries for the results in the first content type; do NOT include those snippets for the results in the second content type; etc. Pretty narrow claim.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment