Aviv Refuah, the young CEO of the public Israeli company Netex Corporation, has managed to score a US patent on an internet search option developed by the company he founded that could well force major Internet search players like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to cough up royalties for future use of the technology.
Refuah, who started the company 12 years ago when he was barely 17 years old, is careful not to overestimate the awarding of the patent and the possible outcome for now, but that didn’t stop the company’s stock from soaring yesterday.
The technological centerpiece of the patent, referred to as ‘www.addressing’, basically allows internet surfers to type a site’s name directly into the address bar or search box and get rerouted to a website straight away, without getting search results to choose from first. For example, if one were to type “techcrunch” in the URL field of a browser, the program would access this site right away without initiating a search query first. Furthermore, the infamous ‘I’m Feeling Lucky’ button on the Google homepage reportedly uses Netex technology that has now been successfully patented in the United States.
According to Refuah, search giants like Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo have been using the program that was developed by his company for years, and now they will have to pay royalties to Netex directly. The patent was first applied for in 1998 and will only expire in 20 years.
In a statement made to Ynetnews, Refuah says he has huge plans for the company, which is mostly known for operating Netex, a leading Israeli Internet navigation service that the company claims has captured over 50% of the market. He remains cautious about making claims regarding potential profits gained from the patent but adds that he has a ‘good feeling’ about it.
During the next four weeks Netex Corporation and its legal counsels – experts on American patent, intellectual property and technology law – intend to explore licensing possibilities with all of the major Internet search players.
Investors smell gold already, however. The news made the Israeli company’s stock soar by 144%, increasing its net worth by more than $30 million overnight.
(Hat tip to Ouriel)
The news are 2 days old!!!
both of them?
The article above is wrong!
This patent application does not cover the search box, only the URL entry field, and only to automatically directly bring up a web page, not a search result page.
Despite the inventor’s statement, NO search engine can infringe this claim. Search engines respond only to properly formatted URL requests. A browser would have to be programmed to change the user’s input into an URL for the search engine, and then take the search engine’s result and redirect you to one of the results.
As far as I know, no search engine automatically redirects me to any website based on my search term.
Also, patent claims have been allowed, but have not yet issued.
Finally, after reading the claims, good luck! I have never seen a web browser act like this!
1. A method of WWW page retrieval from a web site, comprising:
receiving information associated with content of a web site, wherein said information is not a WWW address and comprises characters typed for entry by a user into a URL entry field in a browser in which a standard URL address would be entered;
said information being received by a software not associated with said web site;
determining a geographical location of the users;
providing a page address of a page of said web site, responsive to said information and said determined geographical location, by said software;
sending the page address to the browser for retrieving said page responsive to said page address; and
thereby causing said page to be directly display to the user using the browser, without any additional user intervention beyond the entry of said information.
If that is the claim of the patent, can you say stock price manipulation??
It’s the default search engine for the browser that is doing the redirecting and not the browser.
Thank you Fermin.
Also, Danko:
“no search engine automatically redirects me to any website based on my search term”
You really need to feel lucky, sometimes.
OK. Exactly which search engine do you use that redirects based on search terms that you enter into the URL entry part?
Also, requests to search engines are properly formed URLs and the claims requires “receiving information associated with content of a web site, wherein said information is not a WWW address”
Even a browser’s search field, takes your search terms and puts it into a www address.
This patent is worthless. There are no infringers.
Robin. Feeling Lucky is based on information entered into Google’s search field, not the browser’s URL entry space. which is what this claim REQUIRES.
This has to be the dumbest post I have ever read. Fail, for the technology and the post.
maybe even 1% users/usage use that feeling lucky in goog, but that has been a trademark for google.
I think firefox 3 started doing that.. it tries .com, .net and .org before giving query to default search engine.
Might be 2 days old, but I’d never have heard about it otherwise.
Wow – amazing its been granted.
Unfortnately, as per the Uniloc patent battle that extended for more than 6 years with MSFT (will be appealed) -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniloc – realization of any income will be a long time coming.
Imagine sitting in Court with Google, Microsoft and Yahoo on the other table – expensive much ? You bet. He will need that $30 million just to pay the legal costs for the next 8 years.
Best of luck none the less.
this is what the big companies bank on, but there is one little sweet spot there:
If the inventor is operating the invention in an actual product (which I guess he is) then he can get an injunction against the infringers, which in turn will lead to settlements rendered.
If he is not actually operating a product (patent trolling) then yes he is looking at a minimum of $3,000,000 per major company.
so this is basically a patent troll landgrab based on a hairbrained idea cooked up by a 17 year old 12 years ago which just happened to be enabled by current browsers?
and does anyone else see what’s wrong with the patent system?
This is the magic of patent law ….
Sounds like a business process patent. I thought USPTO was done awarding these types of patents. It’s going to get challenged by all the different companies. And I bet there is a PRD inside firefox or netscape team that shows they had invented this idea before and will challenge the invention date of the patent. I wish TC new more about patent laws….
why pay royalties ? buy the company its just worth 30 million right >
Just buy half the company – enough to control it.
While I congratulate them for getting this patent, I doubt that they will make any money off of it anytime soon. We are talking about a functionality that has been built into browsers for the last several years. Whether or not it is functionality that his company invented or not does not matter anymore. Apple did not invent touch controls on the iPhone. Microsoft did not invent the concept of Windows. Google, did not invent the Google Docs concept. All of these commonly used technologies were invented by others and have become a de-facto standard in their own area of technology. These companies did not need to pay royalties nor did they pay licensing fees to the companies that actually invented the concepts.
That is exactly what this is. It is a concept. I type Microsoft in the address bar and Microsoft’s website comes up. The technology involved does not really matter. Whether or not the browser uses a webservice to access a database of addresses or simply tried adding www and .com at the end does not really matter. The technology is not a matter of invention. It could have been thought up by many people at the same time.
I doubt that any of the browser companies will actually end up paying anything. This will become a long legal fight. Investors are happy because they smell money, but in reality, they will need to rethink whether or not they want to enter this long and expensive battle with the likes of Microsoft, Google, Firefox, and Apple.
This also highlights the huge issue with our patent system. Too often, concepts, rather than actual inventions are awared patents. In this case, it looks like an actual invention but one whose concept does not warrent a patent to begin with.
Just my two cents…
Patents are retro-active.
as you could probably read, the patent request was files in 98′. google was only founded in 98′.
Well done.
Again, just to highlight the issues with patents. A patent application for something like this should not have been awarded in 2009. That is 11 years after it was filed! 11 years in the technology world is a lifetime. Both technologies and companies are destroyed in that amount of time. Something that was relevant 11 years ago or was considered as an invention 11 years ago is not necessarily so today. Makes no difference if they were the first one or not. The concept is not earth shattering or so revolutionary that no one else could think about it.
My patent attorney used to tell me that you can not patent a concept – you have to patent a method. When asked further, he said that the problem with the patent system is that more often than not, the patent becomes a concept and not a method. So when a company like this one gets a patent on a method, they feel that they got a patent on a concept and start going after everyone that is doing something similar. I believe this is the case here. This makes them no different than companies that do nothing but buy or file for patents without any technology just for the purpose of going after large companies. Lets not forget what happened to RIM – a major failure of our patent and legal system.
Patenting the wheel would’ve bred innovation.
the wheel was patented recently!
What’s the patent number? Couldn’t find on US PTO database searching “Netex” as assigner or Refauh as the inventor.
so your saying that it takes some super coding to have a browser recognize techcrunch as techcrunch.com and this was patented? Seriously… wow.. I thought that was just common sense..something good browsers did.
Aviv Refuah Worked hard and consistently pursuing his vision over the years and its impressive to see how well he navigates Netex.
oh you are frigging kidding me. the USPTO is a joke
Sweet. Can’t wait to get my patent on “method for placing junk online to auction to other people” Cha-Ching!
This is ridiculous. Sooner or later lawyers will make any business inviable.
Bloodsuckers.
trolls from middle east, again
how is this different than RealNames?
http://en.wikip.../wiki/RealNames
(1) It’s prior art
(2) It failed
wow, Microsoft put RealNames out of business just like that!!
AOL keyword FTW
That’s why the whole US patent system sucks.
You get aberrations like having Monsanto patenting a corn variety found in in nature in Mexico for thousands of years and wanting all the people cultivating it pay for ‘their’ idea.
Really funny that’s it is a non US company that wants to exploit this failure ah ah ah.
It wasn’t a common feature back when it was filed. Now, it is patent trolling. If it were to be approved, it should have been approved back when it was relevant, and not a widely used feature
This patent idiotism seriously kills any kind of innovation. The best solution would be to abandon this crap completely. I see absolutely no point in having patents except for making lawyers and patent holders rich. While I know that becoming rich is one of America’s doctrine and top achievements the rest of the world doesn’t necessarily agree and could live much better without it.
aviv, well done
This is BS. What would happned if Sir Timothy John Lee try to patent everything that he invented.
Aviv Refuah Worked hard and consistently pursuing his vision over the years and its impressive to see how well he navigates Netex. Today searching through the browser
seems natural, but when Netex come out there was no Google to help find sites when you forgot or didn’t know the URL. Netex’s engine doesn’t just add .com to the name,
it finds the real website you’re looking for even when the URL has nothing to do with the phrase you use in the address box. More importantly users that are not native English speakers had greater difficulties remembering English URL addresses and Netex allowed them to use their native tongue while searching (the same solution Google is providing for this Issue now days).
Good luck
Aviv: posting messages about yourself in the third-person is kind of childish, don’t you think?
Omry, aka Aviv (or Aviv’s brother)
First, of all BEFORE Google and Netex, I used Yahoo, probably since 1995 or 1996.
Also, according to Danko (one of the commenters here) the patent doesn’t even cover what you are saying it does.
You better sell all your stock today!
Well, generally an invention filed as a patent application in 1998 will get granted (be it in 2002 or 2009) if it was novel when it was filed, i.e. 1998 (and satisfied other patentability criteria).
So, Netex’s patent application getting granted should not be taken as a shock, because it was a really new, unique (and infact very useful) innovation when it was filed in 1998 (although it seems like a very basic feature now).
Additionally, I find some people considering it as a concept, which is not true either. The claim is obviously kept broad to cover large set of infringers. And, it would not have been granted if it did not disclose enough information in its specification to enable a person skilled in the art to perform this invention, thus making it a specific invention rather than a concept.
The only people that are mad at this guy’s patent are people who look to steal other great ideas to fulfill the idea quota of their companies.
This is America, first-to-use, first-to-file patent state.
When it’s time for YOU to think of a new idea that NO ONE is doing at that time, then a multibillion dollar company comes along and uses your idea, then click your heals together and go back to Kansas and have tea with Dorothy.
In American business, patents are part of the game, leave the hippy programmer logic to the GPL.
Yes! Can’t wait for my patent pending: “Method for Angry Idiot to leave comment on Tech Crunch”… Cha Ching!
USPTO follows first-to-invent not first-to file
If there is no “prior art” then the first-to-file is first to invent.
Sure everyone can imagine the flying car but who has the skills to document on making it work?
This is completely untrue. Person A invents something in Jan 2009 and person B invents the same thing in March 2009. Person B files his application in April 2009. No prior art. Person A files application in December 2009.
After person A receives his rejection, he files an interference action against person B. If person A can prove that he inventing before Person B, Person A wins. Person B does not.
Your right.
Person A’s activity falls under the USPTO 1 year rule AKA first-to-use in commerce or even if the invention was disclosed in detail in a publication.
What are you talking about “first-to-use in commerce rule?” That’s trademark law.
You need to talk to an attorney. Oh wait. I am one. There is no such rule. Person A could have invented his in 2000 and as long as he can prove that he kept it private and was continually working on improving it, person A can still get the patent over Person B.
Then you should know the 1 year rule when you are the first to operate your invention in commerce.
OK You’re confused. There is no such rule. I think you are thinking about 35 USC 102, which has certain bar dates to patentability.
You CANNOT get a patent if: (and there are more not listed)
a) ANYONE in the US publicly used or sold the invention before the applicant invented;
b) ANYONE in the world disclosed the invention in a published document; or
c) if another application is published before yours is filed.
What law are you talking about? Show me the law, a website, anything.
Please do yourself a favor and call an attorney today.
correction to b) published more than 1 year before the filing of the application.
@Danko
http://www.uspt...0_2133_03_b.htm
Commerce = for sale.
@William
It’s VERY simple. US = first to invent. Not first to file, not first to use in commerce. Use in commerce can PREVENT getting a patent.
I understand the link you sent, you do not! This says that you have to file your application within 1 year of the invention being used in the US in commerce by ANYONE. These are part of the rules that bar patentability. That means you DON’T get a patent if one of these bars are met.
No where is the phrase “first to use” or anything equivalent in there!
It DOES NOT say that the first person to use in commerce it gets the patent.
It DOES NOT say that the first person to use in commerce gets 1 year to file the application.
And these are the Patent Rules based on Patent Law 35 USC 102.
http://www.uspt...5_U_S_C_102.htm
Trust me when I say you have NO idea what you’re talking about.
This just means another patent-battle that won’t result in much more than feeding the starving children of lawyers everywhere.
So it’s worth $50 mil? Seems like it should be worth far more. Microsoft could buy the company and *NOT* license the patent to Google, in effect forcing Google to remove a feature.
You can’t tell me that isn’t worth $50 mil or even $500 mil to Microsoft.
Just shows how pathetic the US patent system is.
Nice . . more extortion out of patent trolls and lawyers.
Isn’t there a Techcrunch Jewish conspiracy behind this story this somewhere?
One only has to look at Amazon’s success (or lack of) with it’s “One Click Checkout” patent to know how Netex will fair.
I believe that the issue is not simply adding www. to a name.
I believe that Netscape had that several years before the patent.
The issue is the ability of the browser to translate the word or phrase into something more meaningful or look for phonetic equivalents.
I am sure that Google tried to patent the same thing.
The patent may not be enforceable due to the Netscape open source agreements.
These patents are warded in part to punish large companies which take small companies ideas and steal them if they are not given away.
We do not have enough information to know if he plans on licensing or suing, or even about what the patent actually says.
First of all, the patent claims have been allowed, but have not yet issued.
Second of all, after reading the claims, good luck! I have never seen a web browser act like this!
1. A method of WWW page retrieval from a web site, comprising:
receiving information associated with content of a web site, wherein said information is not a WWW address and comprises characters typed for entry by a user into a URL entry field in a browser in which a standard URL address would be entered;
said information being received by a software not associated with said web site;
determining a geographical location of the users;
providing a page address of a page of said web site, responsive to said information and said determined geographical location, by said software;
sending the page address to the browser for retrieving said page responsive to said page address; and
thereby causing said page to be directly display to the user using the browser, without any additional user intervention beyond the entry of said information.
So to follow up, the article above is wrong!
This does not cover the search box, only the URL entry field, and only to automatically directly bring up a web page, not a search result page.
Despite the inventor’s statement, NO search engine can infringe this claim. Search engines respond only to properly formatted URL requests. A browser would have to be programmed to change the user’s input into an URL for the search engine, and then take the search engine’s result and redirect you to one of the results.
As far as I know, no search engine automatically redirects me to any website based on my search term.
Okay, this was explained by someone else aboe, but let me try again:
If you type a name, like TechCrunch, into a browser url bar, without the full address, you *can* get automatically redirected by the site. This is not done by programming in the browser application. This is done by a search engine.
You say “what search engine?!” Most of the major browsers have a default search engine it will ping to guess the url. I believe for IE it’s Bing (was Windows LiveSearch previously), and I *think* for Firefox its Google.
So there ya go. The browsers are using the search engines to do name recognition within the browser url. That’s was this patent (or at least part of it), is for.
And BTW, the name calling, and claiming you know everything and no one else knows anything doesn’t win you credibility. That’s what trolls do. Just make your points and back ‘em up. That’s all we ask.
Hmmm, not quite, AFAICR the way this works is the browser matches this by trying dns lookup on multiple patterns based around the entered name and sends a HEAD request to determine if there is any content there. So for example a UK browser will try [name].co.uk, [name].com. http://www.name.co.uk, http://www.name.com
Having worked in search for one of the big guys I cannot recall any service that was provided to do URL matching from browsers.
granting a patent for this “technology” is a joke. It’s a god-damn feature of a software program. BFD
God damn I hate software patents.
Tell your congressman. Congress is the only body that can change the law.
Ok, so say you invented a way to make a single payment split at the point-of-sale of a transaction in a software product you offered to the public since 2007: http://retailzi...com/?page_id=47
Your application is the only one in the world that does this.
Fast forward to November 2009 and a multibillion dollar internet payment provider decides to adopt this method and allow any developer to do such method, including other multibillion dollar companies. They don’t highlight that your app was the first to do such method and highlight other mega players at their developer conference, which threatens to destroy your years of hard work and credibility of creating the first application to do the method.
But with a patent my friend, you can prove (along with your actual application in use in commerce) that you were first and protect your years of hard work.
Everyone has something to say about patents until the multibillion dollar company comes to your product or idea and start to slaughter your cattle for their dinner table.
This is America and what happened to the Indians will never happen again!
wrongo!
Re-read some of the above comments.
You cannot patent a “concept” like splitting a retail payment at the point of sale.
You can patent a WAY to split a retail payment at the point of sale.
BUT if someone else comes up with a different WAY to do the same thing (the “way” being defined by your patent claims), then the other person simply created another way to do the same thing.
Think of it this way:
I create a “pill” that reduces a headache. I call it “asprin.”
Someone else creates a different pill to reduce a headache. They call it “acetaminophen”.
Both are pills. Both reduce headaches. BUT the second doesn’t even come close to infringing on the first.
The second uses a completely different way of reducing the headache.
Nice try though — if only we could patent concepts, then we could blackmail each other thru bankruptcy!
Your right in your example, but trust me on the subject of electronic single payment > split-payments, if it uses any part comprising a CPU server, a table outlining payment recipients, a GUI (graphic user interface) or an Application Programable Interface (API)…
I am not saying one could invent a different way to handle such method, but the methods above are already claimed.
William,
No need to trust you. And really, no need to debate or defend either.
The claims section of your patent are the ONLY thing you can protect. The claims “define” what you created.
In my experience, where the patent protection fails is most inventors create a large single claim with something like 15 steps in a claim.
Then, to patent around the invention, someone creates a very similar method that changes just two steps — like say, number 6 and number 12 — but keeps all the other steps the same.
If those changes to step 6 and 12 are NOT obvious, then they also qualify for a patent and won’t infringe.
The much better patent strategy is to claim a very limited set of steps. One — maybe two. If those two claims are at the heart of the invention (and are also NOT obvious) then you have a winner.
I have to tell you — your statements claiming anything with a CPU, GUI or API is in violation are pretty much damning of your patent. If you had told me that anything with a “payment splitting wrench” or something that could ONLY be used in payment splitting was where you were hanging your claims – you’d have much more credibility.
Rob
So what’s your patent number?
@Rob
You are 100% right. It is important to always have an experience patent attorney draft an application because the claims language is key to protection.
William, I hope your are not spending a lot of money on a patent attorney.
US Patent Number 6658568 with a priority date going back to 1995 discloses:
Payment Disaggregation
FIG. 21 shows an example financial clearing activity involving value chain “disaggregation.” Financial clearing- 10 house 200 in this example efficiently, reliably and securely supports payment disaggregation within a value chain. FIG. 21 shows a content creator, such as an author, delivering a work 166 to a publisher 168. The publisher publishes the work (for example, within an electronic book 166′) and 15 delivers it to a consumer 95. In this example, the consumer 95 pays $20 for his copy of the book 166′. The consumer’s payment is “disaggregated” or split up between the author 164 and the publisher 168 based, for example, upon a contractual agreement. In this example, the publisher 20 receives four of the consumer’s $20 and the author receives the rest.
Disaggregation allows financial clearinghouse 200 to automatically split up a consumers’ payment among any number of different value chain participants. This is extremely useful in ensuring that all contributors to a product or service can reliably and efficiently receive compensation for their respective contributions.
FIG. 22 shows how financial clearinghouse 200 can 30 support the value chain disaggregation shown in FIG. 21. In the FIG. 22 electronic example, the customer 95 may deliver his payment electronically to financial clearinghouse 200. This payment may be in the form of electronic currency packaged within a secure electronic container 152a, or it 35 might be in some other form (e.g., reported usage information coupled with a preexisting authorization for financial clearinghouse 200 to debit the bank account of customer 95).
Financial clearinghouse 200 may distribute appropriate shares of the customer’s payment to author 164 and pub- 40 lisher 168 in accordance with the agreement between the author and the publisher. What tells financial clearinghouse 200 who should receive the disaggregated parts of the payment? In this FIG. 22 example, the work 166 may pass from the author 164 to the publisher 168 and from the 45 publisher 168 to customer 95 in electronic form within one or more secure electronic containers 152. One or more electronic control sets 188 may be included within the same or different containers, these control sets being associated with the work 166 or other property. Control sets 188 may 50 specify, among other things, the amount of payment customer 95 must supply in order to be able to use the work 166.
Controls 188 may also specify and control how the customer’s payment will be disaggregated among the other value chain participants. For example, author 164 may 55 specify within controls 188b the author provides, that she is to receive $16 for each copy of work 166 purchased by an ultimate consumer 95. Because of the secure chain of handling and control provided in accordance with the virtual distribution environment (see the Ginter et al. patent 60 disclosure), author 164 can be confident (to the degree required by the commercial priorities of the author and allowed by the strength of the overall system) that publisher 168, customer 95 and any other consumers or potential users of property 166 will be subject to this control 188fc. The 65 publisher 168 may add its own controls to the one specified by author 164, the publisher controls 188c providing a $4
mark up (for example) that it will receive for the use of its brand name, distributing and marketing services.
Is this method automatic? What time-frame is this method happening? Is there a GUI handling human user interaction? What are the computer mechanics making this method work?
This prior art does nothing to teach how to make electronic split payments work from an internet payments service with membership escrow accounts.
Why don’t you show us your first independent claim? I’ll invalidate it for obviousness within 60 minutes of your post. That is, I will show you prior art for every element in your claim.
We are in touch with who we need to work this out with, there is no need to disclose this publicly.
What you can do is invalidate my applications that does single transaction split payments for up to 200+ recipients.
The closest you will get are some beta apps that may do it for up to 6 recipients, but then again, you will not likely see these apps until after november.
Lets see some apps, come on, show the world how wrong I am.
i don’t need to show you apps. I need to show you prior art that has all the elements of your claims.
For example, what does your software do that is not described by Patent #6,658,568?
You can’t invalidate nothing since what is patented is what we did first (and what is currently being copied). The only way around it is showing an application or service that did this before we did. Simple.
The patent system works especially when you have the first product in commerce as proof of your claims.
@Danko
“For example, what does your software do that is not described by Patent #6,658,568?”
Uses an “Formatted Code” as interpreted by an Application Programable Interface.
Have fun.
Your telling me that you’re the first to use formatted code as interpreted by an API???
Sorry, but I just don’t believe it.
“You can’t invalidate nothing since what is patented is what we did first (and what is currently being copied). The only way around it is showing an application or service that did this before we did. Simple.
The patent system works especially when you have the first product in commerce as proof of your claims.”
I don’t know what in the heck you are saying here.
1) “You can’t invalidate nothing” means I can invalidate something (double negative, as any good programmer would know).
2) “since what is patented is what we did first” So you have a patent? I’m sorry, it sounded like you haven’t even filed a patent application yet.
3) “The only way around it is showing an application or service that did this before we did. Simple.” The patent office rejects thousands of applications every day based on patents and patent applications. They hardly ever look to existing products to make their case.
4) “The patent system works especially when you have the first product in commerce as proof of your claims.” Not quite sure where you learned patent law, but you should ask for your money back. Being first in COMMERCE has nothing to do with proving anything. AA above just wrote how you REALLY need to talk to a patent lawyer.
@Darko,
Your mad for some reason, perhaps you work for one of the companies trying to use split-payments?
As I said already, it is what it is and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Why waste your time.
It may be working for you but you are only one out of many other situations. This world isn’t black or white…it’s all gray.
I remember reading about some guy who had a patent on a method of e-commerce. He used it to send letters to small mom-and-pop sites, extorting $10k per site with threats to sue. Funny how none of those letters ended up at Amazon or BestBuy.com.
Oh, and by the way, you’re able to do what you’re doing BECAUSE the indians were slaughtered for their land. Otherwise, the US would’ve been a country of 20 or so states without access to a lot of resources that made it what it is today.
Focus on your business and stop trying to make stupid points on a technology site.
I tell you what. Here is a business proposition to you Ken.
Find me a more powerful raw data digital distribution system than http://www.retailzip.com, simply one that can move 2TB as an e-mail attachment and charge $1 for it.
Then find me a more powerful media format to replace DVD and Blu-ray than http://www.str3em.com, something that can sell major hollywood films and adult movies totally replacing optical disc.
Then find me the company that own patents to all of it.
I will pay you $1000 if you can find anything to beat my business and stupid points.
Wow! Can you plug your crappy websites any more on a single blog? You don’t even have a contact email address or form on retailzip. How am I supposed to contact you to license you magical technology?
Its called Web 3.0 (cloud computing).
It all just works.
wow. you want to pay someone $1k for the research you should be doing for your stupid companies?
good luck with the spamming
What in God’s name are you talking about? This is a joke right? Is there a camera in my office and this will all be on some japanese game show tomorrow??
The more comments you type, the more of an idiot you begin to sound like.
You seem to be talking about US patent law even though it sounds as if you are still learning English.
And I went to your 3.0 website and stared at it for a LONG time, and it did not just work. I couldn’t send you an email.
William,
Now you are being silly.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
You bought this discussion on yourself with your fantastical claims.
When good, honest, engaged people spend their time responding — you switch the discussion to something nonsensical.
Wait, are you a democrat? I’ve seen that ‘debate’ tactic used extensively by my liberal friends.
It is initially effective at deflecting strong counter-arguments, but it in no way deflates or defeats a good counter-argument. In the end, that tactic just means intelligent people ignore you.
And so here I am — feeling very sorry I invested my time with you — it is time I won’t ever get back.
Rob
@Rob
Some mountains are left to be admired and not climbed.
@ Robert S
At the end of the day, it is what it is and there is nothing that no one can do about it.
So the lucky button is in violation of a patent? What, a glorified redirect? I guess Bit.ly and tinyurl.com might want to watch out as well. Or anyone using regular links.
Software patents are ridiculous and ought to be abolished.
Once again the patent is still mighty.
So does this mean openDNS infringe? They allow me to set “techcrunch” to forward to techcrunch.com, or am I missing how it works?
I don’t see how search engines could ever infringe upon this, as people have pointed out above.
As far as I know, OpenDNS, doesn’t determine your geographical location.
Technically, I don’t even see how this could work. If all that the receiving software gets is whatever the user entered into the URL space, then how is the geographical determining done.
Major enablement issue.
Thats okay, all of you are violating my patent on waking up in the morning. Pay up!
CONGrads! why didnt I think of that!!!
RealNames did this from 1997. And I have a patent.
http://www.goog...2keith+teare%22
And the patent office did not cite it in their examination. Go get ‘em Keith. It will only cost you $3000 to ask for a reexamination!
So what is the difference between the method and concept? Seems to me that if it’s a method, then they need to get the mula
a concept: I think it would be cool if a user could type in google in the address bar and the browser brings the user to google.com
a method: when a user types in a keyword, a db is queried to return the domain that the keyword is matched up with.
a concept: a person can put words down on paper using some sort of writing utensile.
a method: a bearing holds ink in a reserve until the bearing is pressed firmly on a surface releasing ink and allowing a user to write on the surface.
If ….. then $$$
Isn’t this what AOL used to do with the whole “AOL KEYWORD” thing they had going back in the day?
this is ludacris. If he wasnt Jew there would be no way to patent such a ridiculous function. Thats like patenting the enter button. There should be laws against this.
You sir, are an idiot.
ludicrous. your arguments would be a lot stronger if you spelled your words properly and didn’t resort to antisemitic baiting.
This is ridiculous… and one day i’m gonna patent the “thinking procedure”
ie: the process of chewing on my pen while looking 45degress upwards while simultaneously using my brain”
then everyone who thinks will have to pay me royalties.
This patent may seem trivial now, 11 years later, since it is commonplace in every browser and navigation plugin. But the fact remains that it’s a patent whose application was made before Google even existed.
I have enough experience with search patents that this is so far from substantial that this is probably just stock manipulation.
The article omits vital details that would substantiate the value of what is instead only being alluded to. But with an understanding of patent law and the process one must undertake to extract royalties in such a case, lets assume that there is a defensible patent here. And lets also assume that it had been used in a search engine interface/function (which I have never experienced).
A search engine company would only have to pay a royalty if the owner can prove the search engine KNOWINGLY used the search method/function/feature DURING (or after) the patent application process. And then the owner would look forward to a protracted court battle to win a judgement (and no one can expect to outspend and outlast Google). Even Yahoo couldn’t go the distance with Google over patent “361″. They settled out of court very secretly. But that’s another story.
Only jews get awarded ridiculous patents. They have no sense of innovation, they just take the non executive route and think the thought and then PATENT IT.
Pretty soon you being paying royalties on your thoughts.