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.
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.'
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.
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).
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.
