Brian PrenticeRecently, Google was granted US Design Patent No. 599, 372. Ostensibly, this was to protect the design “innovation” of Google’s home page from blatant rip offs.
As I’ve noted, the design innovation of Google.com is basically the white space. That makes this a Seinfeld patent – it’s a patent about nothing. But let’s for a moment assume that a search field and a couple of pieces of hyperlinked text above it constitute a design innovation.
Well then, it seems to me that Bing is a flagrant infringement. Here’s Google’s submission to the Patent & Trademark Office:
And here’s the Bing display:
Keep in mind that the logo isn’t included in the design patent. And most of Bing’s linked text is the same as Google’s.
So Google, it looks like its time to stand up for your property rights. You sought the patent and its clearly being infringed. If you decide not to press your rights as a patent holder it would be most appreciated if you can help us all understand what the point of seeking the patent was in the first place.
Mind you, if Google does sue and lose without an invalidation of their patent I think we’ll all have to admit that they indeed hold a design patent for an empty screen because the only thing that differentiates bing.com from google.com is a picture behind the fields and linked text.
Category: Uncategorized Tags:
5 responses so far ↓
1 Kristin Whitman September 21, 2009 at 10:03 am
Now, I am not a patent attorney (at Intellogist.com I focus on the patent information side of the industry), but I have a question about this post. You mentioned that the only thing that differentiates the two interfaces is the picture behind the search box and linked text – however, what about the difference in the relative location of the search box on the page? Also, there are two large buttons below the search box on the Google interface that are not on the Bing interface. It seems to me that I can easily visually distinguish between the two products on these differences.
Is there something in the case law on design patent litigation that would clarify this?
2 Brian Prentice September 21, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Hi Kristin – thanks for the comment. Just to be clear I think Google’s design patent is utterly silly. And for a company that has so much to say about fixing the patent system I am surprised that they have not rushed this patent into a commons much less having sought this patent in the first place.
Now, I’m not a patent attorney either and I’m not sure how they litigate design patents. Although I have read that they are very hard to enforce (so, why bother getting it in the first place then). And while I take your point about the slight differences I think it’s fair to say that if you step away from the screen a couple of feet these two web pages look remarkably similar.
My point here is that Google seems to be saying one thing about patents and doing another. So, I think this is a clear enough that they should either push Microsoft or clarify what their position is on obtaining these patents in the first place. If they go for the former option I think they should remember Apple’s “look and feel” lawsuit against Microsoft in the late 80′s, early 90′s?
3 Tweets that mention Go On Google, Sue Microsoft…I Dare You! -- Topsy.com September 22, 2009 at 11:30 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ajay Kumar, ameliaa and ameliaa. ameliaa said: Hmm. Will Google take up this dare? http://bit.ly/1wXLA3 [...]
4 Jon Donley September 27, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Actually, having followed the link you provided, I find nothing like the illustration in your post above.
The drawings accompanying the patent filing don’t just show what you’ve provided, they show an entire layout system for the interior layouts of search results pages . . . a layout style that was what made Google stand out from the herd from the get-go. Any web designer could analyze and define those page elements, which are much more than you describe. And Google’s competition has certainly rushed to copy its GUI – not just a search text entry box and a couple of buttons, but the entire groupings of SERP elements and contextual advertising layout. Characterizing that as a blank page is to misunderstand design elements. Just because they’re totally utilitarian doesn’t mean they’re not there.
Google certainly set itself apart from the herd, not only by its Spartan home page, but the increasingly useful interior layouts pictured in the patent filing. But to misquote President Clinton, “It’s not the design, it’s the algorithm.” With so many others adopting similar GUIs, you almost have to wonder if this three-year-old filing was more in the nature of a defensive move, rather than an offensive one.
5 Brian Prentice September 27, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Hi Jon – Thanks for the comments. I do appreciate your perspective. Now, I’m not sure why the link doesn’t show the screen. Go to this address at the USPTO site – http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week35/OG/html/1346-1/USD0599372-20090901.html. You’re right that the design patent covers the SERP but as you’ll see it also covers the home page.
Please keep in mind that I have always said that Google’s UI design was a real breakthrough. And, I continue to site Google as a company that understands the power of simplicity. But that doesn’t mean what they’ve done – either with the search home page or their SERP – is either novel or non-obvious. And while I agree that this patent is likely defensive in nature I hold Google to a higher standard because of their public position on the problems with the patent system and the political lobbying they’re applying to change it.
I would also add that Bing’s SERP looks very similar to Google’s too – yet another reason for Google to sue. It seems to me there’s a clear infringement. So, if they don’t would it be nice to know why?