A patent for something that shouldn't be patentable? Bah. It's nothing against Google (who I'm a fan of), but a patent for "displaying original text in a user interface with translated text" just seems farcical.
What's next, a patent for "displaying relevant search results in a user interface with a given search query"?!?
> displaying relevant search results in a user interface with a given search query
If there wasn't plenty of prior art I'm fairly sure they would have done just that. You can't blame them either, even if you disagree with software patents, they're just another weapon in the armory of a corporation and if everybody else uses it you had better use it too.
The system is what's broken, google is just using the system to its fullest.
That doesn't excuse it. You can make the same argument about Microsoft, who apparently thought it would be more profitable to engage in illegal monopolistic practices and then fight the ensuing legal battles than to operate legally.
Now I concede that I may not understand defensive patents very well, but if any company is able to document an "invention" in order to demonstrate prior art and drive away patent trolls it would be Google. And they could set a nice precedent by taking exactly that tack.
Just because you are able to do something doesn't mean that you should do it. And when you do bad things just because you are able, you are evil.
I'm hoping someone sheds some light on more than meets the eye here.
Oh, I fully agree that it's evil, it's just that the whole bloody industry pretty much engages in this.
And that isn't an excuse by any stretch of the imagination, it's just that if they didn't they'd be buried in patent lawsuits and they'd have nothing to strike back with except for endless litigation. Typically the big guys cross license and everybody pretends it's fine. Business as usual, sad as it is.
7 comments
[ 17.0 ms ] story [ 294 ms ] threadWhat's next, a patent for "displaying relevant search results in a user interface with a given search query"?!?
If there wasn't plenty of prior art I'm fairly sure they would have done just that. You can't blame them either, even if you disagree with software patents, they're just another weapon in the armory of a corporation and if everybody else uses it you had better use it too.
The system is what's broken, google is just using the system to its fullest.
Now I concede that I may not understand defensive patents very well, but if any company is able to document an "invention" in order to demonstrate prior art and drive away patent trolls it would be Google. And they could set a nice precedent by taking exactly that tack.
Just because you are able to do something doesn't mean that you should do it. And when you do bad things just because you are able, you are evil.
I'm hoping someone sheds some light on more than meets the eye here.
And that isn't an excuse by any stretch of the imagination, it's just that if they didn't they'd be buried in patent lawsuits and they'd have nothing to strike back with except for endless litigation. Typically the big guys cross license and everybody pretends it's fine. Business as usual, sad as it is.
The losers are the smaller innovators.
It's a patent application, not a patent. No one's been awarded anything.