Forum Moderators: goodroi
"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...]
a jury trial and an injunction against further infringement of the search patent, damages, royalty payments.
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.
P!
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) ;)
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]
Doesn't Google just use an Access database and the query
'SELECT * FROM websites WHERE content LIKE %' + query + '%';
"Publications of Kenneth Paul Baclawski"
[ccs.neu.edu...]
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?
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.
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 :)
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.
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 ;)
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.
