Google receives patent on highlighting search results. Sounds evil to me. Not what we're taught to expect by Google marketing. I hate Google bashing personally, too many are doing it too badly, but this should at least be watched for abuse.
On the other hand, these guys have a more relaxed attitude towards evil, while these guys can't seem to make up their mind.
If you live in Europe: Just say no. These people can help you do that.
Wouldn't you go for the patent, say, if you founded Google and experienced competitors basically copying your concept with almost no alterations ? honestly?
And, if you wouldn't go for the patent, what would you do, if any?
Posted by: Benjamin on February 2, 2005 12:02 AMI think that software is protected by the difficulty in making in - as described here: http://www.classy.dk/log/archive/001162.html
If you can't outinvent your competitors you should lose.
A patent such as this is obviously bogus. Its just a legal tactic, and we would al be better off if people just invented and didn't invest in silly tactics like this.
Come to think of it, this is a PRIME example of what should not be patentable. It takes about 2 minutes to come up with the idea. It takes considerable effort to implement it in a globally available search engine.
The cost is in exploiting the idea, NOT in having the idea. Therefore any reinventer could not fairly be characterized as a free rider - he has almost all the same costs the original inventor had. If he is better at implementing this feature the world wins (and he wins). If he's not - he won't win.
With patents we're stuck with the original inventors solution, even if it was not really very well done.