7 ms·

Google patents Google doodles

29 points by bauchidgw 16y ago

oscilloscope 16y ago
"FIG. 4 is a diagram of an exemplary story line 400 according to an implementation consistent with the present invention. In this example, the story line 400 involves aliens that steal a company's logo and includes five animated images 410-450. The animated image 410 represents the beginning of the story and shows an alien spacecraft approaching the company logo. The animated image 420 shows the alien spacecraft landing on the company logo and an alien inspecting the logo. The animated image 430 shows the aliens leaving their spacecraft to further inspect the company logo. The animated image 440 shows the aliens hauling away the company logo with their spacecraft. Finally, the animated image 450 shows the company logo after being deposited on another world by the aliens." Google Mars.
saulrh 16y ago
Since this is apparently patentable, I'm actually kind of happy that it's Google that got it. 1) They're not going to actually enforce it because that would damage their image significantly. 2) In the absolute best unicorns-and-rainbows case, I can even see Google using it to demonstrate how ludicrous the patent wars are getting these days. This even makes a little bit of sense, given that the first hundred hits (on bing!) for '"Google sues" patent' are for patent countersuits.
- franze 16y ago
  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (c) John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton even if current Google will not use this patent immediately, future Google (5 years, 10 years, 15 years, ...) will use ever patent in its pocket to hinder competition.
  - dodo53 16y ago
    Or Google gets bought by someone who would like Oracle's use of Sun's patents (although imagining Google being bought out is hard at them moment). Would be nice if there was a way of actively public-domaining patents (so you can use them defensively, but no-one can ever use them offensively. Would be a non-issue if prior art was more reliably a defence (or IMHO non-obviousness was more rigorously enforced)). (edit: Maybe there is already, IANAL. Like what Manfred does in Charles Stross' Accelerando).
- danssig 16y ago
  > 1) They're not going to actually enforce it because that would damage their image significantly. The motto again? They are a public company. They have a silly motto on a wall and laws they must obey. When the two are in conflict with each other which do you think is going to be followed? I have to say though, if this whole thing has taught me anything it's taught me that every business I make from here on out is going to have some sappy stupid motto. That way, even otherwise intelligent people like are found on HN will give me the benefit of the doubt every time I do something that is in my interests and against everyone else's.
  - saulrh 16y ago
    Not the motto so much as how everybody else currently perceives them. It's difficult for them to do something that would overcome their reputation, but if they manage it, that reputation comes right around and bites them in the rear. Suing everybody over something this trivial would do a lot of damage, and the giant reminder they have posted on top of the most visited page on the internet would push it straight into backlash territory.
  - notahacker 16y ago
    As a huge public company providing services to consumers, any damages they could conceivably win would be dwarfed by the damage to their public image by doing it (not to mention the high likelihood of the suit failing, countersuits or scrutiny of other areas of their patent portfolio they'd really rather protect) If I held Google shares I'd actually consider it a breach of their fiduciary duty for Google's management to waste resources and goodwill pursuing a suit over something so trivial.
    - danssig 16y ago
      >any damages they could conceivably win would be dwarfed by the damage to their public image by doing it Given the things they've already said and done (e.g. the cell thing, "if you've got nothing to hide", the fake china pull out) I don't buy it. They've got enough people to buy into this "Don't do evil" nonsense that even if they did sue someone over this silly patent a million google defenders would pop out and explain why they just had to do it.
ch0wn 16y ago
Careful there, Reddit!
SimonPStevens 16y ago
There must be prior art for this. Coca cola used to have a variant of their logo and jingle for adverts at Christmas. There must be stacks of other examples. codeproject.com have a alien logo that they dress up for special events. (Although admittedly I'd guess Google doodles probably pre-dates this one)
- benatkin 16y ago
  The first thing I thought of was http://mit.edu/ http://mit.edu/ It changes every day and is very elaborate.
  - ajarmoniuk 16y ago
    Google had their doodles as early as 1998: http://www.google.com/logos/logos98-3.html http://www.google.com/logos/logos98-3.html
jsmcgd 16y ago
This is a very cynical use of the patent system that I hadn't expected of Google.
- ChuckMcM 16y ago
  I don't think it is cynical, I think its more in line of "Having a zillion patents helps you when Oracle bitch slaps you about your use of Java." So while I agree that its a silly patent, the idea of patenting as much stuff as possible to defend yourself against silly patents (ammunition for countersuits) is understandable.
reader5000 16y ago
Honestly, who is working in the patent office? A monkey with an "approved" stamp?
yycom 16y ago
It's a patent application, 10 years old and still not granted.
- rexreed 16y ago
  It has indeed been granted. According to the USPTO Public PAIR system, the status is "Patented Case", and has a Patent # of 7,912,915 and an issue date of 03-22-2011. You can view the status at http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
binarymax 16y ago
Not granted because of prior art cited by examiner: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19961223150621/http://www8.yahoo.com/ http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19961223150621/http://www8....
- rexreed 16y ago
  It is indeed granted: Patent #7,912,915. The reference you cite is just a reference cited by an examiner, but nonetheless, the patent was granted.
  - binarymax 16y ago
    I stand corrected. Maybe it got through since it ties the depicted event or 'storyline' to search results.

29 points by bauchidgw 16y ago

"FIG. 4 is a diagram of an exemplary story line 400 according to an implementation consistent with the present invention. In this example, the story line 400 involves aliens that steal a company's logo and includes five animated images 410-450. The animated image 410 represents the beginning of the story and shows an alien spacecraft approaching the company logo. The animated image 420 shows the alien spacecraft landing on the company logo and an alien inspecting the logo. The animated image 430 shows the aliens leaving their spacecraft to further inspect the company logo. The animated image 440 shows the aliens hauling away the company logo with their spacecraft. Finally, the animated image 450 shows the company logo after being deposited on another world by the aliens." Google Mars.

saulrh 16y ago

Since this is apparently patentable, I'm actually kind of happy that it's Google that got it. 1) They're not going to actually enforce it because that would damage their image significantly. 2) In the absolute best unicorns-and-rainbows case, I can even see Google using it to demonstrate how ludicrous the patent wars are getting these days. This even makes a little bit of sense, given that the first hundred hits (on bing!) for '"Google sues" patent' are for patent countersuits.

franze 16y ago
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (c) John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton even if current Google will not use this patent immediately, future Google (5 years, 10 years, 15 years, ...) will use ever patent in its pocket to hinder competition.
- dodo53 16y ago
  Or Google gets bought by someone who would like Oracle's use of Sun's patents (although imagining Google being bought out is hard at them moment). Would be nice if there was a way of actively public-domaining patents (so you can use them defensively, but no-one can ever use them offensively. Would be a non-issue if prior art was more reliably a defence (or IMHO non-obviousness was more rigorously enforced)). (edit: Maybe there is already, IANAL. Like what Manfred does in Charles Stross' Accelerando).
danssig 16y ago
> 1) They're not going to actually enforce it because that would damage their image significantly. The motto again? They are a public company. They have a silly motto on a wall and laws they must obey. When the two are in conflict with each other which do you think is going to be followed? I have to say though, if this whole thing has taught me anything it's taught me that every business I make from here on out is going to have some sappy stupid motto. That way, even otherwise intelligent people like are found on HN will give me the benefit of the doubt every time I do something that is in my interests and against everyone else's.
- saulrh 16y ago
  Not the motto so much as how everybody else currently perceives them. It's difficult for them to do something that would overcome their reputation, but if they manage it, that reputation comes right around and bites them in the rear. Suing everybody over something this trivial would do a lot of damage, and the giant reminder they have posted on top of the most visited page on the internet would push it straight into backlash territory.
- notahacker 16y ago
  As a huge public company providing services to consumers, any damages they could conceivably win would be dwarfed by the damage to their public image by doing it (not to mention the high likelihood of the suit failing, countersuits or scrutiny of other areas of their patent portfolio they'd really rather protect) If I held Google shares I'd actually consider it a breach of their fiduciary duty for Google's management to waste resources and goodwill pursuing a suit over something so trivial.
  - danssig 16y ago
    >any damages they could conceivably win would be dwarfed by the damage to their public image by doing it Given the things they've already said and done (e.g. the cell thing, "if you've got nothing to hide", the fake china pull out) I don't buy it. They've got enough people to buy into this "Don't do evil" nonsense that even if they did sue someone over this silly patent a million google defenders would pop out and explain why they just had to do it.

ch0wn 16y ago

Careful there, Reddit!

SimonPStevens 16y ago

There must be prior art for this. Coca cola used to have a variant of their logo and jingle for adverts at Christmas. There must be stacks of other examples. codeproject.com have a alien logo that they dress up for special events. (Although admittedly I'd guess Google doodles probably pre-dates this one)

benatkin 16y ago
The first thing I thought of was http://mit.edu/ http://mit.edu/ It changes every day and is very elaborate.
- ajarmoniuk 16y ago
  Google had their doodles as early as 1998: http://www.google.com/logos/logos98-3.html http://www.google.com/logos/logos98-3.html

jsmcgd 16y ago

This is a very cynical use of the patent system that I hadn't expected of Google.

ChuckMcM 16y ago
I don't think it is cynical, I think its more in line of "Having a zillion patents helps you when Oracle bitch slaps you about your use of Java." So while I agree that its a silly patent, the idea of patenting as much stuff as possible to defend yourself against silly patents (ammunition for countersuits) is understandable.

reader5000 16y ago

Honestly, who is working in the patent office? A monkey with an "approved" stamp?

yycom 16y ago

It's a patent application, 10 years old and still not granted.

rexreed 16y ago
It has indeed been granted. According to the USPTO Public PAIR system, the status is "Patented Case", and has a Patent # of 7,912,915 and an issue date of 03-22-2011. You can view the status at http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair

binarymax 16y ago

Not granted because of prior art cited by examiner: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19961223150621/http://www8.yahoo.com/ http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19961223150621/http://www8....

rexreed 16y ago
It is indeed granted: Patent #7,912,915. The reference you cite is just a reference cited by an examiner, but nonetheless, the patent was granted.
- binarymax 16y ago
  I stand corrected. Maybe it got through since it ties the depicted event or 'storyline' to search results.