
Open source implementation of Google PageRank - known
http://aspseek.org/
======
wheels
Again, PageRank as an algorithm (not including all of the other elements of
Google's search and ranking) is trivial to implement. You can do it in a
couple hours. It's been implemented dozens of times and is even included in
text books as an example these days.

------
btw0
I searched `aspseek' on aspseek powered <http://aspseek.com>, it told me
`Sorry, but search returned no results. Try to compose less restrictive search
query or check spelling.'

~~~
wheels
It did that with every query that I tried.

------
13ren
If it does implement the PageRank patent, it will be interesting to see how
Google handles this.

~~~
RobGR
It's not illegal to implement a patent that you don't own. Part of the whole
"deal" of a patent, is that in exchange for exclusivity of it's commercial
exploitation, you have to reveal it for other people to examine and experiment
with. So it is entirely legal for someone to take a patent, implement it in a
lab and screw around with it.

You can't start selling it though, or exploit it in any commercial way. Google
might have a case against you if you implemented their patent and had ads on
the resulting site, or used the search feature to get traffic to something
else you were selling, etc.

It used to be that manufacturers searching for a new product would review all
the patents that had expired that year, looking for a good idea that was never
executed or marketed correctly. I think it is evidence of the complete
brokenness of the current patent system, that no one bothers to do that
anymore. If a patent doesn't describe anything anyone would ever want to do,
well enough that they can take the patent as instructions on how to do it,
then it is not a patent.

I think most software and business method patents are worthless. They are not
only bad in the sense that Stallman and other anti-patent crusaders hate them,
although those guys are correct, they are worthless in that the business or
individual could get more return if he had the $7,000 to $15,000 he spent
getting the patent in hand.

~~~
13ren
_So it is entirely legal for someone to take a patent, implement it in a lab
and screw around with it._

For sure. But these guys are making it publicly available. I think the test is
not whether you make money from it, but whether it takes money away from the
patent holder (or potentially does).

Yes, most of them appear to be worthless (actually, I think 99%+ of _all_
patents are worthless). The research labs of big technology corps think only
some of their work is worth patenting - but I've seen at least one interesting
idea there that wasn't in the academic literature...

I think a low success rate is true for most research, most startups, most
ideas =) ... things involving uncertainty and discovery. But if each play
costs $ 000's, I agree it's a game for the rich (or the
foolhardy/courageous/overconfident).

~~~
RobGR
These guys are making the code publicly available. They are not making a
search engine page that actually competes with google publically available.
(Every search on aspseek.com returns no results.)

Also, I don't think the test is commercial damage to the patent holder; it is
commercial advantage to the patent violator. That's just the letter of the
law, of course, and doesn't predict any actual court rulings, particularly in
this era of pretty knee-jerk pro-corporate judges.

