What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
36 Comments
- nesquik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Wait! You don't have to pay for sexual intercourse?
- longofest, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18dude... are you okay? It's late... maybe you should be heading to bed...
- JonGretar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Actually I hate the idea of patents. It way to wide of a concept. Just because I have an idea doesn't mean that nobody else is allowed to have the same idea.
Imagine if patents would have been invented thousands of years ago. Nobody would be allowed to use bricks to build houses without paying royalties.
Stupid thing. - duality, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So just write to the U.S. Patent and Trademark office and tell them that you found prior art that invalidates this patent. They'll listen.
Oh wait... - templest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Document retrieval system with access control and System and method for searching and recommending objects from a categorically organized information repository"
A... "search engine"?
Microsoft, Yahoo!, All The Web, Ask.com, every single desktop search program company (or program that includes a "search" feature), a lot of OSS projects (Unix commands, desktop environments, etc)...
won't be very cheery.
"Do No Evil" my ass. - Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There's an old rag for people like you, it is called the NY Times.
Google it. - atmofunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4it COULD be that they got those patents for the express purpose of NOT having some fool of a company like EOLAS come along and try to start lawsuits against everyone. They aren't evil until they use those patents for evil purposes.
- ChristopherX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Before we get all down on Google, I think it's important to note we don't know their motivation. More and more legit companies will file bogus patents like this just to make sure someone else doesn't file them first and try to sue them later. Cisco often patents network protocols, or extensions to protocols they are working on within the IETF. They immediately open them up for anyone to use. They just want to cover themselves from some ass-wipe trying to extract money down the road.
- wolever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3When you say "Soon we will all be paying....", you seem to hint that it would actually effect us. Now, maybe I'm still a little used to the Slashdot community... But I really don't think this would be a problem for most people here ;)
- jessiepoohky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Forget about Google being your friend. It's never been about search, it's about control, ever so slowly so you won't notice. Imagine if your government created and encouraged the use of half the sh**t Goolgle make up, their would be an outcry.
It Google started a church tomorrow there'd be a queue around the block in 30 minutes.
Hmmm, GoogleChurch.com D'oh it;s already taken, what a surprise. - mikev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I bet you we wont actually see this technology in action until mid-2007.
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Computer, find subroutine A through G in decks 8 through 14, Tea Earl Grey, hot, oh, and route primary buffer panel Alpha through plasma vent Kappa while ur at it. Thank you Google."
StarFleet bought Google out after Zefram Cochrane's Warp Flight.
I wouldt be surprised if GOogle will develop a method for searching for Songs or Tv Shows. to Download legally - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ppl can PAY google to get their website on top of the Google HitList
- anasazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2voice interface to a search engine?
hadn't they been doing this on star trek for YEARS? - digboy99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Right. A for-profit, public corporation who's primary allegiance is with the stock holders to maximize shareholder value will just give away access to its new patents. Especially when the market is looking for Google to prove that it isn't just a one-trick pony. How are things in fantasyland?
- discoloda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Soon the next Enterprise will have Google installed on the data core!
- duality, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Right. A for-profit, public corporation who's primary allegiance is with the stock holders to maximize shareholder value will just give away access to its new patents. Especially when the market is looking for Google to prove that it isn't just a one-trick pony. How are things in fantasyland?"
And how will those stock holders feel if the company they've invested their money in suddenly performs such a major electronic faux pas, and then the value of their stock begins to drop because of the reputation hit of this company? If I were among them, I imagine I'd be pretty miffed. - FlyMolo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That would be church.google.com.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1document retrival with authentication has been aroudn for decades. why even waste time on getting it.
fyi i distrust google as much as any publicly traded company. - mikegioia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1haha longofest that made my day
- Dave2KStang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To become a patent something has to be considered nonobvious. In movies and TV, there are computers or robots that people can talk to when they need an information search . This idea has been used for at least 40 years. Just about everyone in the United States nowadays would consider this an obvious invention. Why did this patent pass?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My god..this is getting worse than Apple posts. So, now it is front page news whenever Google gets a patent?
- veloscaper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I know, I thought the same thing as you did. The two listed here as being "won" are a joke too when you read the claims and look at the filing dates of Sept. of '97 and Dec. of '00. The Sept. one has a first claim that reads:
"1. A method of document retrieval in a network environment having web sites where documents are stored with a plurality of access levels and query servers where document searches are launched comprising,
executing a query on a query server having access to a document index of documents available for searching on document servers provided in the web site by a person having a unique identification code without regard to access control limitations, yielding a list of all relevant documents, each document having a unique URL,
reviewing all URLs by the document servers after the search is executed using an access control list associated with each document server to check whether each URL is compatible with the access level of the identification code of the person executing the query,
delivering only those URLs that are compatible with the access level of the person, wherein each URL that is not compatible with the access level of the person is withheld, and
preventing the person from discovering the URLs that are not compatible with the access level of the person."
I seem to recall doing this exact same thing sometime around 1994.
Maybe the examiner was intimidated because it is Google or perhaps wants a job there later...guess money talks as usual.
Though if someone chooses to fight these patents it shouldn't be too hard. - veloscaper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So what rafle did Google enter to WIN a patent?
oh and the patent term is 20 years not 12. - Kendal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maybe they'll patent 'A system for delivering an awesome service, listing your company, making a bunch, all while not being evil.' Wait, Microsoft already did that.
- cheesmo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"In other news, IBM and Microsoft were awarded a combined total of 72 patents today..."
- thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm getting sick of companies patenting the obvious.
- mendicitis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A patent means little to nothing aside from the fact that it gives a company the right to go to court over a "perceived" violation of the patent. Whether or not it holds in court is an entirely different question. For example Amazon patented "one click shopping" circa 1998 and tried to sue Barnes and Nobles for a similar implementation. They failed. Basically it was ruled that the idea was "obvious" before the patent was issued. What is a patent then, you might ask? The ability to argue its fairness in court. Nothing more, nothing less. You can't patent the obvious because the obvious isn't worth a penny. Of course, we can argue over the definition of "obvious" all day. But I'll leave that to the lawyers.
- longofest, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Wow... I usually see everyone getting all excited about Apple patent articles. Looks like Google is joining the "this has been patented!!!" club on digg...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Ummm, they wouldn't have been able to use them for 12 years... I think it's safe to say that the concepts of bricks and mortar would be free for the picking by now.
- blueblood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0yeah like msn makeing one for "Emoticons"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10****** THE PATENT SYSTEM NEEDS AN OVERHAUL!!! *******
- antigoogle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1All big companies patent tens of technologies each day. What's so special about it??
Is this the price of being a digg reader? I'm ready to pay instead of seeing these Google and Apple ads each day! - bonoes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!
- digboy99, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Let the Google fanboy fest begin!
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6Me: "Google, please find patents 7,031,961 & 7,031,954"
Google: "Sure, are you feeling lucky? Huh, punk?"
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is