This is complete crap. The USPTO needs to get people in there that know what they are doing. Allowing applications like this to get through, means that any other design can get the same treatment, and that means a lot of patent squatters are going to start patenting EVERY variation of a website. That will eventually lead to a lot of litigation, and stagnation in the design industry as designers are forced into using only a few certain layouts.
The USPTO are slowly killing every single industry in the US.
Elizabeth Kaylene Barone
· 3 months ago
Not true. It's pretty expensive to patent something, and it takes a very long time, so most people don't bother.
jstrellner
· 3 months ago
Nearly every week I hear about another company getting sued because someone else has an overreaching patent. It may take a long time to get the patent and cost them a decent amount of money, but there is a big business in getting a patent and suing the hell out of anyone that they can.
Ironwil
· 3 months ago
Unless you're SCO. Then suing the hell out of people will put you out of business. Down with SCO!
Ironwil
· 3 months ago
The main problem is that often, patents for technical items are being decided upon by people with little or no technical knowledge. A lawyer (or team of lawyers) can make it sound very reasonable if the matter is not well understood. Take possible corruption out of the mix, and you still have people making decisions on things they don't always understand.
I agree completely. Luckily, companies can petition to have a patent invalidated if it is found that the patent is not reasonable.
ianthomas
· 3 months ago
Just goes to show that digital interactive design is becoming increasingly pivotal to brand reputation and differentiation. It was a stark and distinctive user design when it first launched, after all; just happened to become the benchmark for ease of use universally. I guess that's why they wanted to protect the creative inspiration.
Someone
· 3 months ago
Soon they will start putting patents on human gestures. What's happening now, with examples like this one, it's very evil for our freedom. I'm surprised that nobody can see this fact.
angry_at_this
· 3 months ago
Yes, Google is out of line. Yes, the USPTO is off their nut. No, simplicity cannot be patented (or should not). Here is the thing: I totally understand companies that invest millions of dollars in R&D filing for patents for their products (be it a drug, an electronic device, a code, etc.) - after all, this is a way to protect their investments. But the US have a strong fetish for patents. People want to patent everything. Want to be successful? Make it better. Don't waste your time and energy with this sort of stupidity and your money with lawyers. Yes, I use Google. But because they are good, not because they are the only ones allowed to use that freakin' box in their home page. And USPTO: get a reality check! You are contributing for the stupiditization of the US.
Brad F.
· 3 months ago
I agree. People in the US do seem to want to patent everything, and I think that part of it is the "sue and get rich" mentality that people have. If they create something, even if it's not that great (or they don't see how it can be great) they want to patent it, just in case, so they can either sell it or sue over it to get rich quick.
linda
· 3 months ago
Maybe it is silly but so are many laws. I think if yayhoos copied them without permission, then they should be punished! GO GOOGLE!!
joewardpr
· 3 months ago
This is non-obvious to "those skilled in the art"?
Kerry
· 3 months ago
Ugh, I don't like this at all. I do love Google's simple interface. It's comfortable, when the service provided can be whittled down to just the basics, to start. It shouldn't be too hard to circumvent this, for companies who want to keep things simple, yet not cross Google. I too wonder how serious they will be about cease and desists, since shutting down everyone who mimics their layout could be similar to Oprah going after shady marketers and Mattel's vigilance with Barbie.
Jamie Riddell
· 3 months ago
I think it is acceptable. The design is iconic and the two button search interface is immediately recognisable as Google. Why shouldn't they protect their IP?
Ironwil
· 3 months ago
I wouldn't argue with their right to protect their IP, but can 2 buttons and a text box be considered IP? What about having a front door on a house? If a builder was able to patent the idea of placing a front door on a house, is that reasonable? It's very distinctive, but the problem is that it is also very obvious, and more than common. I read recently that TechRadium is claiming patent infringement against Twitter because they claim to have a patent on "mass notification and emergency alerting systems to a vast array of governmental, educational, commercial and non-profit entities". Hmm. I suppose they can claim patent infringement on email services and RSS feeds as well, since those both do something very similar.
Paul McDowell
· 3 months ago
Just another example of what happens when a brilliant entrepreneur is seduced by the legal department. Poof, idiot on deck. Bill Gates would be proud of Google's approach.
Michael Sherrin
· 3 months ago
What are these good reasons for intellectual property? Promoting the progress of useful arts and sciences? How does two buttons promote progress and innovation? How is this novel or non-obvious or even valid under the recent Bilski ruling? Remember, Amazon has a notorious patent on buying something with one button click. Now Google has a 20 year monopoly on search boxes with 2 buttons. Meaning no one else can do this in the U.S. or any country that recognizes software patents. How does this help increase innovation?
Benjamin Dobson
· 3 months ago
#IhateIP
Myatu
· 3 months ago
I have patented the one-finger salute. I'll be a billionaire soon, muahaha!
Brad F.
· 3 months ago
I think this is a bit ridiculous. It'll stifle innovation and competition. It's kind of hard to create a search engine where the input interface is more than a search box and a button or two. And... how can you patent how a list of results looks? Isn't a list a list?
allofcraigs.com
· 3 months ago
if Google were to fight websites who infringe on their patent, and win, would a injunction or damages be warranted? Reminds me of the "buy-it-now" technology that was patented by MercExchange, and they subsequently went after eBay.
tashfeen
· 3 months ago
absolutely ridiculous
Grant
· 3 months ago
One of the best reasons to own a patent or a trademark is to prevent others from having it. Once you have it it prevents other companies from having it and suing you. It's also good leverage for a counter suit if another company sues you for some silly patent violation
Marco
· 3 months ago
It can't be possible. The autorities shouldn't give Google the patent. The google design looks like other search engines.
Michael
· 3 months ago
I despise the USPTO. Next thing you know, they'll grant a patent on the use of the English language in an interface. Bloody idiots the lot of them.
Andrew Eastgate
· 3 months ago
It's a pretty generic looking interface. With patents, there's a fine line between them being good to encourage innovation and allow inventors to protect their intellectual property, and them being used to prevent other people from using a somewhat basic design for something that anyone could come up with.
geezi
· 3 months ago
So what if a site comes up with a big search box with 2 buttons below & small links on the left instead of right? Or small search box and 2 buttons on the right & links below? Or search box & buttons all below one another followed by links? It's possible to keep things simple without copying google. Its a matter of clever design.
jb
· 3 months ago
(sorry if duplicate comment; don't see first one I posted)
Folks, Google was granted a design patent, not a utility patent. Big difference.
"A design patent protects only the ornamental appearance of an invention, not its utilitarian features. A utility patent would protect the way an article is used and works. It can be very confusing to understand the difference between a design patent and other types of intellectual property. " about.com
So the Google Design patent would only cover designs that look like the design shown in the drawing, not any simple design with two buttons. Design patents are narrower vs utility patents. As a result, sort of a non-event.
Scott
· 3 months ago
You have got to be kidding me. Just like MSFT did after they reached size, Google starts acting with delusions of grandeur with their money. USPTO...stands for 'U.S. Paid Time Off ...and we make decisions like it'
Elizabeth Kaylene Barone
· 3 months ago
It's a smart move because... the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button is pretty unique and I think is a part of what makes Google, well, Google. Their design made them more pleasant to use as opposed to other search engines (I think I was just using AOL before Google existed, and as soon as I discovered Google, I never went back). I can understand why they would want to protect themselves, especially now with Bing coming after them and Twitter changing its home page. I think it was a smart move and great foresight on their part.
Some have said it could stifle innovation. If no one else can look like Google, then they've already won on that end. They will be able to concentrate more on making their services better, faster, and bringing new products in. Companies have to protect themselves in whatever ways they can, and I commend Google for taking the initiative. I don't think this will make people patent other web designs, because it's a very long and expensive process.
As long as they don't go overboard, I think this is a fine step. It definitely changes the game!
Name
· 3 months ago
As far as I can remember, that layout was already used by Altavista long before Google existed....
Michaela
· 3 months ago
I think it's out of bounds. In the early Internet times, everything kinda looked like Google. Just because everything is blinking and flashing today doesn't mean that Google should be allowed to be the only legal owner of simple to use websites. Thankfully, Google won't be able to go after other "simple" websites. Not only would it be a public relations disaster for them (patenting simple websites sure clashes with "do no evil"), it's also pretty easy to change the "ornamental" features in order to avoid infringement of this design patent. I believe Google shot itself in the foot. This patent is almost not enforceable (unless you copy the "look&feel" *really* close), but it gives a lot of people even more reasons to local closer into Google's monopoly game.
Michaela (currently busy to register a design patent for a website with a logo in the upper left corner).
Terry Van Horne
· 3 months ago
feeling lucky button is not new it had been a feature for years. Stupid patents... let me count the ways... one click checkout.... amazon... .gif... compuserve... just two of a host of useles patents that keep lawyers and paper shufflers in a job!
Ironwil
· 3 months ago
This smacks too much of patenting something like "Playground equipment that has moving parts", rather than a special type of swingset. I remember discussing this topic in a Linux class I had many years ago, and I have the same opinion about it now. If it is permitted for companies to patent extremely vague and broad items, so many different ideas fall under the same umbrella that future innovation is stifled. I remember some company trying to patent a scroll bar. Can you imagine? Every window and web browser that any developer would create would have to either fit all on one viewable page or pay royalties to allow people to scroll the page.
Markus
· 2 months ago
Good luck enforcing that. US law is for those unlucky enough to live there - it isn't applicable, recognized or enforceable elsewhere. Thank goodness the rest of the world is free from such utter utter nonsense.
Name
· 2 months ago
This reminds me of the time a few years ago when TNN was renamed to SpikeTV and director Spike Lee tried suing them, claiming that it infringed on his name, image and reputation.
David B.
· 1 month ago
They're retarded. We need competition in the world.
If someone manages to do better than Google with their own simple design, or if they can at least make part of the searcher population happy by using a different site.. they deserve the right to try!
All Comments
The USPTO are slowly killing every single industry in the US.
I agree completely. Luckily, companies can petition to have a patent invalidated if it is found that the patent is not reasonable.
Here is the thing: I totally understand companies that invest millions of dollars in R&D filing for patents for their products (be it a drug, an electronic device, a code, etc.) - after all, this is a way to protect their investments.
But the US have a strong fetish for patents. People want to patent everything.
Want to be successful? Make it better. Don't waste your time and energy with this sort of stupidity and your money with lawyers.
Yes, I use Google. But because they are good, not because they are the only ones allowed to use that freakin' box in their home page.
And USPTO: get a reality check! You are contributing for the stupiditization of the US.
Folks, Google was granted a design patent, not a utility patent. Big difference.
"A design patent protects only the ornamental appearance of an invention, not its utilitarian features. A utility patent would protect the way an article is used and works. It can be very confusing to understand the difference between a design patent and other types of intellectual property. " about.com
So the Google Design patent would only cover designs that look like the design shown in the drawing, not any simple design with two buttons. Design patents are narrower vs utility patents. As a result, sort of a non-event.
Some have said it could stifle innovation. If no one else can look like Google, then they've already won on that end. They will be able to concentrate more on making their services better, faster, and bringing new products in. Companies have to protect themselves in whatever ways they can, and I commend Google for taking the initiative. I don't think this will make people patent other web designs, because it's a very long and expensive process.
As long as they don't go overboard, I think this is a fine step. It definitely changes the game!
Michaela (currently busy to register a design patent for a website with a logo in the upper left corner).
US law is for those unlucky enough to live there - it isn't applicable, recognized or enforceable elsewhere. Thank goodness the rest of the world is free from such utter utter nonsense.
If someone manages to do better than Google with their own simple design, or if they can at least make part of the searcher population happy by using a different site.. they deserve the right to try!