Since the members here voted my reputation down to the depths of hell I can not post live links anymore, too bad for the members here. Now you will have to work a little harder to see your Google Controversy News http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/8836209.htm Simple (I will just cut and paste this idiots links from now on) You guy's have all the answers, thanks a lot for voting me to hell. I will remember all of you in my will.
odd, that doesn't seem like something that could/should be able to be patented. I mean, would it make much sense of ebay were able to patent online auctions in general?
First of all they do have a patent, just like Shawn could apply for one for his software designs, also some code is copywrited, why do you think SCO is charging everyone with copyright violations on their code (LINUX) Next Ebay was sued over their software, a man filed against them for stealing it (auction software) from him. So Google will do anything to make money, they are liers (pathalogical) and never stop telling new stories to cover up old lies. You folks must realize that people will lie and steal, Google simply steals and lies and you will have to take legal action against them before they will admit their lies and settle. Until then they will keep the lies flowing and continue to steal money and ideas. It is called building market share, the hell with who you hurt. MEAN BUSINESS, JUST MEAN BUSINESS. THAT IS ALL IT IS.
do you think it won't hold up because of the one year passing, or just because it's too general of a patent? I wish it was the second, but it doesn't seem like that.
A little of both. It's pretty generalized, and there is also the grey area of the year. I think if Google wanted to spend the time/effort/money to fight it, they could win in the long run. But I doubt it will even get that far. I'm guessing they will settle out of court with Google paying them a small sum of money to go away, and Yahoo accepting it.
Google will have to pay a licensing royalty forever and the settlement will not be for pocket change. Shawn maybe to you 200-500 million is nothing, but I think to me that is a lot. Next when are you going to add the spell checker I have been asking foorrrr.
We'll see about the licensing royalty. Patents are historically not very easy to enforce. Especially when one can argue they came up with it on their own out of necessity and didn't have access to the source of the original patent owner's product. A perfect example of this is Windows. Apple held a patent for the whole GUI operating system, desktop, folder and GUI file system. Which I would say was a lot more innovative at the time than the ability for someone to bid on keywords online. And guess what? Apple lost that lawsuit.
Yahoo has announced that they will sell the small position that they have in Google. Yes you are right, they did invest early. Microsoft has investments in Apple and a few linux vendors, but everyone likes to stay close to their enemies, RIGHT
Microsoft's investment in Apple was not during their upstart though. Microsoft did not actually help build Apple. I bet Yahoo is pretty stoked that they were one of the main entities that grew Google.
Yahoo invested in Google for a reason, they used their search results for a damm long time. So they made out, it looks like Microsoft and Yahoo may be in bed together, you know how two become one when they sleep together. Maybe the company will be called MICROYOHOO.COM
Despite the remark that "Overture's patent application appears to have been well-researched by both the company and the patent office, said Bruce Sunstein of Bromberg & Sunstein in Boston", I would take note that the U.S. Patent Office has, for some years now, notoriously issued patents that when challenged are found to have no merit. Indeed, every once in a while some joker does something like patent the human nose, or even the wheel, just to illustrate the grotesque lack of scrutiny from the U.S.P.O. We will see what we will see, but speculation now--even from patent attorneys not actually involved in the case, who have "scrutinized" it (meaning they saw a three-paragraph article on it in the L.A. Daily Journal)--is pointless. Looking beyond all this, sooner or later intellectual-property law is going to have to catch up with the realities of the electronic age. Right now, courts are ruling by bending and twisting decades-old laws meant to cover on-paper print media, indeed conceived with no idea of other media. But the bending and twisting needed is so major that it is unusual for any two courts to bend and twist the laws quite the same way, producing wildly divergent rulings on similar fact situations. Perhaps the chiefest function of the U.S. Supreme Court is to resolve material differences in holdings between various of the Federal Circuits, but for logistic reasons they typically limit such resolution to matters with significant Constitutional implications. I reckon it highly unlikely the the Supremes will ever get their hands on much IP stuff. Right now, the case is just in District Court, which is the trial-court level. Whatever the holding, it is almost sure to go to the Ninth Circuit, which--though nominally an appellate court--usually in effect tries the case de novo. It will all be interesting, but years may pass before we find out who the "winner" is.
http://torque.oncloud8.com/archives/000367.html also in case anyone missed this link http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/06/googles_sec_ame.html In the above link is a good update on this lawsuit Yahoo verses Google on the ADWORDS patent lawsuit, this could greatly affect the future of Google and tilt the balance of power in Yahoo's favor. Have fun