What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
27 Comments
- Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18I can't believe Yahoo! would stoop this low those rotten little... oh Google you say? Well, why, I suppose they had a very good reason. Why in todays competitive environment I'm sure they had no choice they are only protecting themselves after all.
- Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11When Google's results page gets a design maybe they can file for a patent then.
- swhite1987, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
- Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10So they are patenting a blank sheet with underlined words?
- tutivlahos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Date of patent: 12 december 2006
- Haohmaru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6They'll need to change their slogan to: "Evil is OK sometimes" or "Hey, guess what? We prefer riches to your ideals!"
- bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I thought the idea behind the thing patented was that it had to be "nontrivial".
- Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@sgbooth - I'm confused, I didn't realize you could patent the appearance of something, I thought that was covered by copyright?
- sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This is a DESIGN patent - not a software patent. A utility patent is a method or some type of machine (state machine), however a design patent is a patent for the ornamental appearance of something. Marked inaccurate because the comment implies the patent is for a utility patent.
- reyitocazador, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Stupid blogs. Link to the patent http://static.flickr.com/129/320381518_a5db1dbc74_o.jpg
- ActionableMango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In defense of companies that do this, not just Google, it's called a Defensive Patent. I worked at a software company and we hated to patent obvious things. But, the patent system is broken. No matter how obvious the item, if we didn't patent everything that we created from every possible angle, someone who came along later could patent it and sue us.
It's basically abuse, but it's done to prevent others from abusing us even worse.
Fix the patent system, don't blame the companys except the ones that actually sue. - Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Isn't there something about no prior art existing as well?
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But see, therein lies the problem. The design covered by the design patent must be applied to a manufactured item to qualify for protection. In other words, the item to which the design applies must be a fungible good -- a commercial item.
For instance, the design of the Coca-Cola bottle qualifies for design patent protection. The contours of the bottle are purely ornamental, they have no intrinsic functional value (although some may say it aids in gripping the bottle), and they are applied to a fungible item (one good that is just like the next in the production line, in that they are interchangeable) that a consumer can purchase.
The same goes for a design on a new textile, let's describe it as a plaid pattern. It's purely ornamental, applied to a physical good, that a consumer can buy. So long as the pattern is new, original, and non-obvious, it could qualify for design patent protection.
Here, however, I see yet another complete failure of the design patent system. Here, the overall ornamental appearance is neither new, original, or non-obvious as the entire history of web searching since the days of HotBot and Lycos have used underlined links presented in a vertical format with accompanying descriptive text. Moreover, it can be argued that this ornamental design cannot be extracted from its utilitarian function, which is to present lists of information in an accessible format. The fact that pretty much all search engines have used the same general format speaks to the form-function merger.
But most telling is that this ornamental design isn't applied to an article of manufacture. One can't patent a hair style. But they can patent a hairstyle as applied to a wig, which people can purchase and manufacture. Here, however, the ornamental design being protected is applied to something entirely different. The Google search is not manufactured, it is not offered for sale, consumers cannot purchase it, and it is not a commodity.
Therefore, it doesn't appear that this should qualify at all for protection. It's unfortunate that this patent was granted. - resplence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly. This is a clear case of hate-the-player-not-the-game.
Also, people need to stop seeing things in black and white, chill and wake up to the fact that we're not yet living in the free/open world every digger seems to long for.
Microsoft is not the only villain out there, you know. - Gigs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Before this comment thread blows up regarding software patenting, this patent is a DESIGN patent. It's only subject matter is how something looks and the claim itself is the exact pictures shown. Its not a trademark, and its not an algorithm. There isn't even a reference to HTML or a browser, its simply an ornamental design. It doesn't fall under the same statutes as utility patents (35 U.S.C. 101, 102 (novelty), 103 (obviousness), and 112). It has its own statute (U.S.C. 171) which reads:
35 U.S.C. 171. Patents for designs.
Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2sgbooth is right. you know it's a design patent bc it's 14 yrs. design patents are nothing like regular patents.
- mcherm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like Google. HOWEVER, this shouldn't be patentable. If this is really a defensive patent, as the article claims, then do like IBM did and issue official permission to anyone to use the patent so long as you don't sue Google over patents. Until then, this is one small black mark against Google in my book.
- xjqcf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a design patent which protects new, original, and ornamental articles of manufacture (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/usc_sec_35_00000171----000-.html); it's closer tp copyright than standard utility patents.
- resplence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, in this case, not reading the blog is exactly what's led everyone astray.
FTA:
"While this may seem silly, that’s the state of software patents – patent an obvious or semi-obvious idea yourself, or expect to be sued by someone else who decides to try patent it"
This is the bit supposed to make you think about who, or what, is really wrong in this case. - tony134340, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1For a while there, I was thinking a Google search for patents. Sounds like an interesting idea. How many times have you thought of something inventive and figure it's already patented anyway. I know I have but had no easy way of knowing it was already invented.
- markcrules, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Sometimes attack is the best form of defense.
- Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I would think that this is one of the few appropriate times to say "owned" but I won't. I suppose good show is classier.
- southport, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1http://www.google.com/search?q=failure
- TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1hahaha! They used 'Bush' as the search result! :P
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Yeah, but it isn't the "worst president ever" result.
- swissdietcoke, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Filed Date: March 26, 2004....old news
- j00fek, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1http://www.duggmirror.com
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 