<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.disqus.com/</link><description>Internet and Technology News - Mashable is the world’s largest blog focused exclusively on Web 2.0 and Social Networking news. With more than 5 million monthly pageviews, Mashable is the most prolific blog reviewing new Web sites and services, publishing breaking news on what’s new on the web.</description><atom:link href="https://mashable.disqus.com/google_patents_search_box_with_two_buttons/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:35:50 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-22136087</link><description>&lt;p&gt;They're retarded. We need competition in the world.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">David B.</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:35:50 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-19696809</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Name</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:01:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-16533188</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Good luck enforcing that. &lt;br&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Markus</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:08:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-16261539</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Unless you're SCO. Then suing the hell out of people will put you out of business. Down with SCO!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ironwil</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:53:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-16261485</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I agree completely. Luckily, companies can petition to have a patent invalidated if it is found that the patent is not reasonable.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ironwil</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:52:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-16261329</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ironwil</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:48:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-16261074</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ironwil</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:42:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-16101461</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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! &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Terry Van Horne</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:38:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15974711</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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&amp;amp;feel" *really* close), but it gives a lot of people even more reasons to local closer into Google's monopoly game.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Michaela (currently busy to register a design patent for a website with a logo in the upper left corner).&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michaela</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:49:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15899781</link><description>&lt;p&gt;As far as I can remember, that layout was already used by Altavista long before Google existed....&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Name</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:37:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15885075</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jstrellner</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:21:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15883200</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As long as they don't go overboard, I think this is a fine step. It definitely changes the game!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Elizabeth Kaylene Barone</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:46:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15881623</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Not true. It's pretty expensive to patent something, and it takes a very long time, so most people don't bother.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Elizabeth Kaylene Barone</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:33:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15880161</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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'&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Scott</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:13:26 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15878896</link><description>&lt;p&gt;(sorry if duplicate comment; don't see first one I posted)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Folks, Google was granted a design patent, not a utility patent.  Big difference.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;"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. " &lt;a href="http://about.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="about.com"&gt;about.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jb</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:41:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15848670</link><description>&lt;p&gt;So what if a site comes up with a big search box with 2 buttons below &amp;amp; small links on the left instead of right? Or small search box and 2 buttons on the right &amp;amp; links below? Or search box &amp;amp; buttons all below one another followed by links? It's possible to keep things simple without copying google. Its a matter of clever design.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">geezi</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:09:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15847464</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Andrew Eastgate</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:28:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15827935</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:54:01 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15825349</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Someone</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:20:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15825329</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It can't be possible. The autorities shouldn't give Google the patent. The google design looks like other search engines.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Marco</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:19:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15811728</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Grant</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:29:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15809934</link><description>&lt;p&gt;absolutely ridiculous &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tashfeen</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:24:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15804230</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">adhuntr.com</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:03:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15799534</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brad F.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:44:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Patents Search Box With Two Buttons</title><link>http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/google-search-patent/#comment-15798879</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brad F.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:42:02 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>