3 ms·

'One patent filed in 1997, for a "navigation tool for graphical user interface," describes a way of navigating through electronic documents. Another describes a

'One patent filed in 1997, for a "navigation tool for graphical user interface," describes a way of navigating through electronic documents. Another describes an "Internet protocol filter," and a third patent describes an "integrated message center."' Well with earth-shaking innovative patents like that I hope they succeed. I would never have thought of an integrated message center for anything.

grej 13y ago
...a third patent describes an "integrated message center." This is just comically ridiculous. The only benefit to Google being the target of this suit is that if it goes all the way, there is a chance that some of these might be invalidated because at least they have the cash reserves to stand and fight (if they choose to do so).
- axman6 13y ago
  Have you read the patent?
axman6 13y ago
reads half line description which outlines not a single important feature of the patent Yep, obviously these are shippy patents, I better not read them! What a joke, this is why I always get angry when reading anything about patents on HN, everyone is so uneducated and seemingly proud of it.
- rurounijones 13y ago
  I actually used to read patents when they came up in the news (as much as I could understand them anyway, patent English is, ironically, not the clearest language). However having done so quite a few times with tech patents and finding them to be pathetically simple / obvious (Or unintelligible due to the cryptic patentese) I am now jaded enough that I do dismiss them. Should I? Probably not, I am sure there are a few diamonds that I have dismissed, however I am pretty confident that statistically I am not missing much. [EDIT] Just went through https://www.google.com/patents/US6037937 https://www.google.com/patents/US6037937 quickly ... it has not changed my opinion.

3 ms·

'One patent filed in 1997, for a "navigation tool for graphical user interface," describes a way of navigating through electronic documents. Another describes a

by rurounijones 13y ago

grej 13y ago
...a third patent describes an "integrated message center." This is just comically ridiculous. The only benefit to Google being the target of this suit is that if it goes all the way, there is a chance that some of these might be invalidated because at least they have the cash reserves to stand and fight (if they choose to do so).
- axman6 13y ago
  Have you read the patent?
axman6 13y ago
reads half line description which outlines not a single important feature of the patent Yep, obviously these are shippy patents, I better not read them! What a joke, this is why I always get angry when reading anything about patents on HN, everyone is so uneducated and seemingly proud of it.
- rurounijones 13y ago
  I actually used to read patents when they came up in the news (as much as I could understand them anyway, patent English is, ironically, not the clearest language). However having done so quite a few times with tech patents and finding them to be pathetically simple / obvious (Or unintelligible due to the cryptic patentese) I am now jaded enough that I do dismiss them. Should I? Probably not, I am sure there are a few diamonds that I have dismissed, however I am pretty confident that statistically I am not missing much. [EDIT] Just went through https://www.google.com/patents/US6037937 https://www.google.com/patents/US6037937 quickly ... it has not changed my opinion.