Will Google TV Owe Royalties For Universal Search? 91
An anonymous reader writes "Google TV, TiVo, iTunes and virtually every big consumer electronics maker have promised 'universal search' engines that enable users to quickly find and play movies, music and other content, no matter where it is stored. But Crestron Electronics, a developer of home automation systems, just filed a patent for 'Searching Two or More Media Sources for Media.' In other words, universal search, specifically for both local and cloud-based content."
prior art (Score:2)
I first looked for media (music) from two or more media sources (napster and my own cd collection) over a decade ago.
Seriously, how can you patent "looking in two different places for something you want". I think that's called cross-shopping and it's been going on since about 2 days after we found out we can barter one item for another back in the stone age?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but they added "on a TV".
it's good for google. (Score:2)
can I add on "in bed" and patent that?
The upshot for google is that this is fantastic news. Let this other company sue them and deliberately loose to establish the validity of the patent. then buy the patent. Of course you do the negotiations for an Option to Buy and Lose in that order or you are screwed.
Re:it's good for google. (Score:4, Funny)
"What would you do if you had 1 million dollars?"
"Search two sources at the same time."
Re: (Score:1)
It's not a TV.
It's a media center console.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "switched to". The patent office has always just searched their own database. Its up to the filer to provide prior art and why their patent is new. When you file, the examiner just shakes a can or something and gives you a random list of unrelated patents and asks you why yours isn't covered by them. Its clear they haven't read yours or the other patents, they just have similar words in the title. After that you are approved. I'm speaking from going through this in 1982 and it was the
Re: (Score:2)
Can you prove that you did that?
Here is an example ok ... Microsoft recently got this patent:
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/23/microsoft_contemplates_mobiles_with_interchangeable_accessories/ [reghardware.com]
Now, go to http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/26/how-would-you-change-sony-ericssons-xperia-x1/2#comments [engadget.com] and do a find in page for the word "bottom" or "pop out" ... ok read that description .. now if you scroll up to the top of the article you can see a photo of the Xperia X1 which is being talked about .. notice
Re: (Score:2)
Also I want to point out that the actual patent description talks about a second display .. exactly like the comment describes .. furthermore there are other comments where a second display is not mentioned .. but either way the Microsoft patent does in fact talk about a second display underneath the swappable accessory.. they fucking stole the idea in its entirety.
Re:prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
What Crestron seems to be trying to patent here is some very basic set arithmetic that is fundemental mathematics that predates even the first paper on relational databases.
This is yet another "invention" that sounds like an undergraduate computer science homework assignment.
Tivo has been doing this for several years (Score:2)
Tivo has been doing this for quite some time; so this is an actual implementation in use.
The USPTO strikes again.
huh? (Score:2)
How does the USPTO strike again? Accept an applicant's money for filing an application?
No patent has been granted yet.
So why don't we hear about more rejections? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't "looking in two different places for something you want" the definition of "search"?
Prior art already exists? (Score:1)
I mount my cloud based drive as a regular drive on my PC, and both my Linux and Windows OSs that I have allow me to search both local mounts and this mount at the same time. Wouldn't that be prior art?
Re: (Score:2)
If you go this route, then the prior art dates back to at least 1988.
It probably goes back even furthur. 1988 just represents my own personal experience with regards to "cloud storage".
Re: (Score:2)
In a First to File world, prior art is meaningless unless it was published.
Re: (Score:2)
Published, or already on sale, already in common use, or otherwise already available to the public.
The basic distinction is that, if you're already working on a patent for the same thing, and someone else gets their application in first, you can't win the patent, even if you can prove you invented it first. You may or may not be able to invalidate their patent application on the basis of prior art, depending on just how your technology is already being used compared to the other guy's.
Re: (Score:2)
With the new patent reform act prior art will have no bearing. It will be all about who files first.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect, prior art means just as much in a first to file country (which is most of the world) as in a first to invent world. The only real difference is in the race to turn your top secret stuff into a patent before the other guys turns his top secret stuff into a patent. In the past, here in the USA, it was "first to invent"... you patent gets in after the other guy's, but you can prove, via engineering notebooks or other trade secret stuff that you did it first, you can get the patent. Now, whoever fil
Re: (Score:2)
No, google only searches one source: its own database of content.
This patent specifically covers pulling matching items from multiple entirely separate sources and presenting them on the same list (allowing them to be either sorted or filtered by metadata, e.g. resolution, cost, etc.)
Not saying that there aren't many, many examples of such applications available; just that Google's web search is not one of them.
If they "just filed a patent"... (Score:2)
If they "just filed a patent" , and Google has already been using it:
i)Why would Google have to pay royalty?
ii)Wouldnt Google's use be prior art?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part where with the America Invents Act [iplawalert.com] has now entrenched First-to-File?
Who needs prior are if you're the first one to file for a patent?
Welcome to a huge step backwards in the already bad intellectual property laws. You don't have the to be the one to come up with an idea, just the one to beat someone else on your patent filing.
Re: (Score:1)
First-to-file doesn't affect prior art. Prior art still invalidates patent claims in the same way that it has always done (i.e., with less effect than is commonly believed, unfortunately).
The point of first-to-file is _only_ to resolve priority in situations where two parties file overlapping valid (i.e. novel) patents. Previously, there would be a horrible expensive process to determine who thought of the idea in secret first. Not nice to prove. Now, it's just a question of who filed the paperwork first. I
Re:If they "just filed a patent"... (Score:4, Informative)
This AC is right, the Act does not mean prior art no longer counts. Citing:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless:
'(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
'(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date[3] of the claimed invention.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but from the link I provided, they've also muddied the waters somewhat ...
Will only broaden (Score:2)
So, it might take some time until there is clear enough case law to establish what all this means
I imagine that the Federal Circuit will start by defining "otherwise available to the public" at least as broadly as "known or used".
Re: (Score:3)
Not only are you wrong (see the other person(s) who replied to you), but first-inventor-to-file doesn't even go into effect until 16 March 2013, and then only for applications filed on or after that date.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't really "just filed." It was filed March 10th, 2010 ( http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0225156.html ). I believe this means prior art needs to be from March 10th, 2009 or earlier. Google TV was announced in May of 2010, so it wouldn't qualify. However, as Google rose in popularity but before it became *THE* place to search, there were a lot of meta search engines. You'd type your query in one site and see results from Google, Alta Vista, Yahoo, etc. (These died out as searching Google b
Re: (Score:1)
Dogpile.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior art between 10 March 2009 and 9 March 2010 can also count, but there's a chance that the applicant will be able to show that they invented it before such prior art. They would have to show proof of conception of the entire claimed invention at a prior date, along with due diligence in developing the invention toward a reduction to practice (i.e., actually building the complete invention or filing the application) between the prior art's date and the reduction to practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the USA just become a "first-to-file" nation?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it still has the obvious clause, so if the idea is well known before you patent then it is deemed obvious ...
Re: (Score:2)
select * from
(some subquery)
order by whatever you want;
Re:If they "just filed a patent"... (Score:5, Informative)
The article indicates that a big portion of the patent covers prioritizing the search results based on a number of factors. One of the main factors listed as price. Google's search doesn't factor price into the rankings, so it likely both wouldn't infringe and would not be an example of prior art.
Have you never used Google Shopping, or Advanced Search? Sort by Relevance, Sort by Price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't first to file pretty much do away with prior art? Seams to me that any invention that has never had a paten filed against it is now up for grabs.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they still have to have invented it. If somebody else publishes the idea, somebody else doesn't get to come along and get a patent because they filed for it, they would still have to show that there wasn't prior art that would invalidate the patent.
Google retrieval? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point: the patent is specifically about amalgamating and presenting results that aren't covered by a single searchable database. Something like metacrawler might be prior art, google search isn't.
Re: (Score:1)
I like your take on this. The whole application should be reject because it's based on a faulty premise (statement 6, below).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay I recently have been wondering why doesn't Google Search on my HTC also search my phone and sdcard which is kinda important when you get into many gigs each.
That said, what you are talking about is what the Northern Light search engine used to do, clustering results quite successfully IIRC into folders. Also had a very nice design. And it would search the Internet, news, and thousands of publications in databases.
http://www.searchengineshowdown.com/features/nlight/review.html [searchengineshowdown.com]
This page also says:
Norther
Re: (Score:2)
" Thomas the Tank Engine porn."
Rule 34, is there nothing you can't do?
fap,fap,fap...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it was called Google Desktop (parts of Google Labs and just recently discontinued). It had this functionality five to ten years ago (and Google certainly wasn't the only one).
Google.RTM., while providing a mechanism to search both the internet and the user's hard drive, cannot search both the internet and the user's hard drive simultaneously and provide a single set of search results. Further, Google only allows searches dedicated to video, audio, or images, and does not provide a mechanism for searching for all media types at the same time.
Actually, Google Desktop did search both, did index all media types (even the unknown ones since it even allowed you to write your own indexing plugin), and even your porn (unless you told it to exclude those folders or urls), and it did provide you with a single set of merged search results (if you so desired).
The only thin
check USPTO class 725 (Score:3)
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc725/sched725.htm [uspto.gov]
Check subclasses 48-53 as well as subclasses 133 and 141.
The office is well aware of this sort of art, there are existing patents which search the interent as well as local sources such as DVD players, PCs, PVRs etc to create combined electronic program guides. They are found in the above sub classes.
this is not news.
Re: (Score:2)
I would wonder why it is currently classifed in the more generic 707 database class instead of class 725 where electronic program guides which search diverse devices (PC, DVR,VCR+internet) in order to assemble a program guide are classed?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the notable feature is the GUI aspects where the results are oriented by QOS or other criteria as required by the independent claims. The likelyhood that 102 art is available is probably low, but would seem like a reasonable 103.
Windows has done this for quite some time.. (Score:2)
Search "Computer", it then searches a variety of drives, etc.
That should have been enough to invalidate such a patent. But we all know, the Patent Office is like a whorehouse for trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I leave that DVD?
On the left shelf? No, it's not threre.
On the right shelf? Oh yeah, that's where I left it.
Re: (Score:2)
> the Patent Office is like a whorehouse for trolls.
So why is it we're the ones getting fucked?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the actual patent claims, or are you just assuming from the title?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you? If so then perhaps you could illuminate the situation...
Re: (Score:2)
At present, the claims only really require searching more than one location and what appears to be consolidation of similar results. Most likely, the claims will get amended to specify searching local and remote locations at the same time, since that's what the spec purports the improvement to be, but it'll likely take some minor implementation detail to make it patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
well, couldn't you claim that the "ls" command has offered this forever? Say you put all your media containing drives in a mount folder of /media, and then did ls -R *.mp3, it would techincally "search" for the file across whatever type of media is mounted.. be it physical hard drives, optical drives, network drives of various mount styles, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It should return
How I met your mother Season [1|1*], episode [1|1*] which presuming they made more than 10 episodes is obviously more than one :P
Hasn't gnutella done this for years? (Score:2)
If even one person had their computer plugged into a TV for a monitor (and how many TV's over the past decade have had VGA, DVI, HDMI, RGB and even Firewire inputs?) then I see this as invalid. Each and every gnutella user had their own database of available files, TV shows and movies could be found on the network in those databases, and be played back on the television display.
Case dismissed!
Go to google.com (Score:2)
Search "*.mp3 OR *.avi" - TADA!
The fact win98 would let you search network folders via filetype and I'm supprised anyone even thinks they can patent this.... let me guess - US Patent office?
Google Desktop? (Score:1)
Wouldn't Google Desktop Search count as prior art? as of 2006 it was capable of searching multiple computers on a network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_desktop_search [wikipedia.org]
Comment Subject (Patent Pending) (Score:1)
HA! I'm going to sue them... (Score:1)
I own the patent owning the idea of writing absurd patents,
Since this patent is blatantly absurd they need to pay me millions of simolians.
Pretty sure... (Score:2)
the search options in even Windows XP (I can't remember if the 9x's did it) allows you to pick the locations to search for media (certain drives, folders, etc.. be them networked, optical, hard drives, etc, etc)
prior art at the BBC (Score:2)
I wrote a system that did this for the BBC back in '98. Web based, searched their entire film archive and TV archive, drawing in data from two very distinct data stores (entirely different back-end technologies); I don't think it covered radio too but would've been easily extendable.
Oh well, fucking software patents.
pfffffftt! (Score:2)
I just patented farting with one's thumb stuck up one's ass.
Seriously, when will this fucktardation end?
Next election, vote Pirate. Coming soon to a polity near you...