homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.66.204
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

    
Google sued over patent infringement
Core search technology?
willybfriendly




msg:3502429
 1:22 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Rueters is reporting that Google is being sued in US Federal Court By Northeastern University and Jarg, Inc..

"The case centers on U.S. patent No. 5,694,593, entitled "Distributed Computer Database System and Method," which was invented by Dr. Kenneth Baclawski, an associate professor in Northeastern's computer science department."

At least they remember th tale fo the goose that laid the golden eggs

"The plaintiffs are looking to be paid for their intellectual property, not put Google out of business."

See [reuters.com...]

 

vincevincevince




msg:3502436
 1:28 am on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

US Patent Office [patft.uspto.gov] Distributed computer database system and method, patent 5,694,593

SEOMike




msg:3502776
 2:56 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

The news article first says that the plaintiffs seek:
a jury trial and an injunction against further infringement of the search patent, damages, royalty payments.

Note the part that says injunction against further infringement. Doesn't that mean that they don't want Google to continue to use the method in question? If David beats Goliath, what would that do to the algorithm?

pageoneresults




msg:3502799
 3:23 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

He first published his method of searching and retrieving information from large, distributed databases in 1994, according to court documents.

Google's legal team asserts that there is no merit to the claims based on their initial findings. They better hope that is the case. If not, this could be interesting. But, by the time it becomes reality, technology will have probably changed. Someone would still be due a sizable check for royalties.

"We are just interested in a normal royalty if the case determines that ... Google is using the technology we developed," Belanger said.

Normal royalty? What would be normal in this instance? A few billion up front and then a billion each year therafter? If this case does have merit, I see quite a few people becoming very rich shortly after the decision is handed down.

goodroi




msg:3502818
 3:51 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

technology patent cases can be difficult. you need to explain to the judge and/or jury highly technical concepts and why they were or were not infringed upon. time to stock up on aspirin and get ready to go over technical documents.

pontifex




msg:3502883
 5:08 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wonder if the backrub work of standford was published earlier, which would void that patent, as far as I understand the US patent market?

P!

Propools




msg:3502934
 5:56 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

Distributed Computer Database System and Method

So, Out of this or during this case might we be able to "peak" behind the curtain and see the 'Great Oz'? (You know, Google's Algo) ;)

Propools




msg:3502944
 6:02 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

In my two replies on a previous thread [webmasterworld.com], Can I change my question?

pageoneresults




msg:3502945
 6:02 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

He first published his method of searching and retrieving information from large, distributed databases in 1994, according to court documents.

I wonder if the Backrub work of Stanford was published earlier, which would void that patent, as far as I understand the US patent market?

I believe Backrub evolved in 1996 January? Is it possible that a couple of Stanford students tapped into the original published work of Dr. Kenneth Baclawski? Remember, his was published in 1994, a couple years prior to Backrub.

[edited by: pageoneresults at 6:05 pm (utc) on Nov. 12, 2007]

Propools




msg:3502946
 6:03 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

If I could see behind the curtain, I wouldn't understand it anyway.
I'm programatically challenged. :) I'm just a maketing guy.

ogletree




msg:3503208
 10:50 pm on Nov 12, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't think this is about the algo. It seems to be about the backend that runs the algo.

trnelson




msg:3503286
 12:50 am on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't think this needs to go to court.

Doesn't Google just use an Access database and the query
'SELECT * FROM websites WHERE content LIKE %' + query + '%';

LifeinAsia




msg:3503289
 12:57 am on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Database? Nah- Google stores everything in flat files.

walkman




msg:3503343
 4:45 am on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

my head is spinning! Check this (link U site so I hope it's OK):

"Publications of Kenneth Paul Baclawski"
[ccs.neu.edu...]

incrediBILL




msg:3503344
 4:48 am on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Let me scare you even more...

Patent holders can go after either the manufacturer that violated the patent or the people using their product that violates the patent.

A couple of years ago PANIP went after ecommerce websites, not the ecommerce software makers, to build up a war chest of money to go after the big boys. Unfortunately, a bunch of ecommerce guys banded together and pooled the money to hire a layer and beat down PANIP instead of paying PANIP.

Let me put this in simpler terms:

If someone patented some device put in every car radio, the patent owner could actually go after everyone that purchased those cars currently violating that patent.

Don't you love it?

pageoneresults




msg:3503373
 5:35 am on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

My head is spinning!

My eyes hurt!

Mr. Baclawski has been extremely busy. Here's a direct link to the patent in question, it is referred to as "593"...

Fast indexing for semantically rich information retrieval - United States Patent No. 5,694,593
[ccs.neu.edu...]

Application 318252 filed on 1994-10-05. The patent (5,694,593) was awarded on 1997-12-02.

Habtom




msg:3503383
 5:48 am on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

From the link pageoneresults posted:

The result of the indexing operation is a set of document identifiers each of which has a
rough measure of relevance based on the number of probes that “hit” the document. This
measure can be used to rank the documents.

It seems it is time to ask the Dr. how the Google Page Rank works :)

plumsauce




msg:3503411
 6:24 am on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

claim 17 of the patent, which is an independent claim. in other words, it stands independently of all other claims.

17. A non-relational, distributed database system for storage and retrieval of information, comprising:

a plurality of home node nodes; and

a plurality of query nodes, said plurality of home nodes and said plurality of query nodes connected by a network,

each said home node, upon receiving a command from a user, enqueueing a predetermined task in response to said command,

an insert task enqueued, in response to an insert command from said user, fragmenting data contained in said insert command into a plurality of data fragments, hashing each said data fragment of said plurality of data fragments into a hashed data fragment having a first portion and a second portion, and transmitting an insert message containing each said hashed data fragment to a respective one of said plurality of query nodes indicated by said first portion of said hashed data fragment,

said query node, upon receipt of said insert message, using said second portion of said hashed data fragment to store data according to a local hash table located on said query node.

this should sound very familiar to the denizens of WebmasterWorld.

btw, Vinson & Elkins are no pushovers.

walkman




msg:3503714
 2:32 pm on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

nope, no pushovers and they seem to have done some work (contingency basis.)

I suspect a settlement; there is no way the google guys will go on the stand trying to explain why they didn't "steal" his patent. If they did, they will have to pay anyway, plus their aura is diminished a bit. By settiling, they can say we did it to avoid a costly and disruptive lawsuit ;)

randle




msg:3503741
 2:59 pm on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Your probably right but there is one element that has slowly but steadily crept into the Google culture over the past couple of years; arrogance. You never know what that demon will cause what were rational people to do.

marketingmagic




msg:3503823
 4:05 pm on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

can't wait to see how this plays out - very interesting!

dailypress




msg:3504080
 8:14 pm on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why now? Did it take them years to figure that out?

pageoneresults




msg:3504092
 8:40 pm on Nov 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why now? Did it take them years to figure that out?

Based on what I've read to date, it took them that long to find a suitable legal team to take the case on a contigency basis.

walkman




msg:3504421
 8:02 am on Nov 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

that appears to be it: only a large law firm or a IBM type enterprise can take on a company with $billions in profit each year. Lawyers can extend cases for decades to force the other to give up...msft did it many times.

Defcon




msg:3506616
 11:54 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Phew Google!

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved