

Google gets patent for its doodles (2011) - bsullivan01
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20046034-71.html

======
colinbartlett
That patent system is broken. Period. Everyone knows this and yet movement
toward change is frustratingly slow... Against the backdrop of an industry
that changes faster than any other.

~~~
swayvil
Dear people who own almost everything.

Please modify the property laws so that entities like yourselves will be
constrained from willy-nilly acquiring more stuff (and/or stuff that isn't
really stuff).

Sincerely, the people who own doodly squat.

~~~
mfieldhouse
I like how you slipped in the use of 'doodly squat' there - very fitting.

------
dubrocks
Does anyone else find the doodles incredibly tacky?

------
throwawaykf02
Let me argue why I think this is patent is not too bad, and actually
interesting in some ways not typically discussed.

First here's the broadest claim (formatted for readability):

 _A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions
executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users
to a web page, comprising:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company
logo for a special event, where the instructions for creating the special
event logo includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with
one or more animated images;

instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event
logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the
search results relating to the special event;

instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page;

instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and
instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the
search results relating to the special event based on the user selection._

It's certainly not revolutionary, but patents rarely are. It was filed in 2001
and finally issued in 2011, being rejected multiple times along the way. That
may have been partly due to them trying to claim too much and partly the
"reject by default" unofficial policy then-director Dudas had instituted
within the USPTO during his reign. (Patent practitioners encouraged to chime
in here.) Nevertheless, what has emerged is not really too bad (for a certain
perspective of "bad") because it's a) pretty narrow, and thus, b) highly
unlikely to infringe by mistake. As such, this is not a good example of the
patent system being broken, even though at first glance it does not seem very
novel.

But I could also make an argument for novelty! Google Doodles probably _is_
pretty novel because Google was -- as far as I can tell -- the first company
to _systematically_ modify its logo this way. Sure, several brands modify
their logos once in a while, e.g. during Christmas, but Google took it to a
whole new level, and in doing so, cultivated a fun and carefree personality
for their brand. There's an interview with an early Google employee where he
says he was horrified by this practice because it went against everything he
was taught in Brand Management 101. I know nothing about brand management, but
if true, it makes a case for non-obviousness. Furthermore, this undoubtedly
system fulfills the title of the patent, because many people, including
myself, often visit the Google homepage just to check out the doodles. It's
undeniably a beneficial feature for their business.

Unfortunately, "systematically modifying a company logo to create a fun-loving
brand perception" is not what they patented. For various reasons, such as
being a business method and a rather abstract concept, such a claim would be
difficult to get through. (Yes, even in the USPTO.) Maybe they tried anyway,
which may be why it took 10 years to issue. But what they actually got was the
claim above, which is simply a collection of steps to change the company logo
during special events and link it to search results that really only applies
to web search engines. It says nothing of the execution and artistic chops
required to pull it off properly. It says nothing about brand management and
the unique brand perception it created. There are only certain things a patent
can protect.

And I'm honestly not sure why Google worked so hard to protect this with a
patent. There are easier ways to inflate a portfolio, and even if we assume it
to be a "good" patent, it's worthless. Because after 10 years and tens of
thousands of dollars put in, Google now has a patent that nobody else will
infringe simply because it's something that probably only Google can pull off
with their brand.

------
bsullivan01
"A system provides a periodically changing story line and/or a special event
company logo to entice users to access a Web page"...or change logo and upload
the new one to the website. Revolutionary!

~~~
yapcguy
Google has too much money, too much time and too much employee deadwood on its
hands.

Why would anyone even bother patenting this? It would have required the
employee to ask their boss who would then have to pass it up the chain of
command before legal looks over it and clears it for submission to the patent
office.

Fire them all!

~~~
adestefan
Because every time they make really good one everyone says, "Did you see
today's Google doodle?" If you can keep other people from doing the same
thing, then it keeps them from driving traffic to their site.

------
gibwell
This is ok because it's google and they are generally benevolent.

