Demystifying Google's new patent

On August 22, 2006, Google's latest patent (#7096214) was approved.? This patent is extremely interesting in light of the recent excitement surrounding social search.? The patent if broken down into its most simplistic form states, Google is going to take their existing algorithm and temper it with shared book marking sites and other trust networks.?
?
The Patent itself is called, "System and method for supporting editorial opinion in the ranking of search results".? What does this all mean?? If your web site has gained and lost significant ranking over the past month, it is very likely due to your inclusion or not in trust networks, such as links from www.myspace.com, http://del.icio.us<, Google Co-op and others.? Though the patent does not go into detail on which sites are trusted sites and which are not, it is likely that the trusted sites are the ones that are being talked about heavily with in the social networking arena.?
?
It is also important to note, that just having a patent approved does not necessarily mean that you must use the patent.?? Filing for a patent further does not mean that you have disclosed everything there is to know an invention.? For example, it is common practice to withhold all trade secrets from any patent application, because a patent becomes public knowledge and anyone can read it.?

Prior to filing the aforementioned patent application, Google used a computer generated algorithm which did not take human editorial comments or votes into its ranking, with the exception of links from relevant web sites.? The new patent, takes the search results that would appear previously, and then checks to see if any of the sites in the results "relate to a list of favored or non-favored sources", or whether any of the web sites correspond to at least one major category of favored web sites.
The patent makes reference to a plethora of claims.? However, a select few claims express very telling statements.? In claim #3, Google speaks to how it will determine a score of a web site that is not linked to on either favored or non-favored sites using a primary set of logical parameters (the general algorithm).? The claim goes on further to state Google will determine a score for web sites that are referenced by Google's list of favored or non-favored sites, using that same set of parameters and then takes into account an editorial option, and ranking the final search results based on the score.? This seems to implicate that a web site which is listed on a favored site, and has solid editorial opinions will rank higher than a site which is not referenced by the favored or non-favored sites, even if it is still keyword dense, has great titles and all other factors that has been used in the past to rank a site.

In the next few claims the patent backs up claim #3, by stating the editorial opinions cause the rank of those web sites, Flash movies, images etc. that correspond to favored sites to be increased while those corresponding to non-favored sites will be decreased.? Claim #10 goes on to restate how Google will score a web site based on its relationship to a favored or non favored web site and if so, that the ranking will be further fine tuned by an editorial opinion of those favored sites.?
The statements about these favored and non-favored sites as well as editorial opinions leads one to believe that Google is simply referring to good and bad neighborhoods, which have been used in the past.? The editorial opinions leads one to believe Google is looking for specific positive or negative content on shared book marking sites and human reviewed directory sites such as Myspace.? Myspace is especially high on this attorney's list of sites Google may be relying on based on their recent acquisition of ad space on myspace.com.

What is the reasoning behind this new patent of Google?? There must be a way to fine tune the results of general searches.? For example, a search for printers will come up with thousands if not millions of results.? Why not utilize the experience of web users, and enhance the ranking of search results by integration editorial opinions into the scoring of web sites, then applying the score of an overall web site to each individual page, which will be relevant to a keyword search.?
It appears as if Google has made huge strides in exploiting the social networking craze that is sweeping the SEO world.? Yahoo has already done so, with their local search, Yahoo Answers, Flickr, Trip Planner and other programs, but Google is the one who has come out and actually documented what they are doing and provided search engine marketers a manual of sorts to better optimize their client's web sites for the most popular search engine on the planet.

The above entry was written by Michael Goldstein, Esq.?of Goldstein and Clegg, LLC.? A Massachusetts trademark law firmDisclaimer: Attorney Goldstein is not a member of the United States Patent Bar, and his opinions should not be taken as legal advice in any shape, mean or manor, nor should his opinion be legally relied upon.

Intellectual Property - Trade Mark Infringement - Figurative Community Trademark

In the case of Sportwetten GmbH Gera v the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (?OHIM?) (2005), it was held that the registration of a Community trade mark was not contrary to public policy or public morality.

On 11 January 1999, OHIM published a figurative mark incorporating the word INTERTOPS in respect of Class 42: bookmakers and betting services of all kinds.

Sportwetten GmbH was the proprietor of the trade mark INTERTOPS SPORTWETTEN, registered in Germany in respect of the same types of services.

On 17 May 1999, Sportwetten lodged an application for a declaration of invalidity concerning the INTERTOPS registration. The application was rejected by OHIM and Sportwetten appealed to the Court of First Instance.

Sportwetten contended that:

▪ registration infringed Article 51 of Regulation No 40/94 read together with Article 7 (1) (f) and (2) because the proprietor was not licensed to offer or advertise in Germany the services in respect of which the mark had been registered; and ▪ the INTERTOPS trade mark was contrary to public policy or to accepted principles in Germany and other Member States.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal and confirmed that:

▪ it is the trade mark itself, not the circumstances relating to the conduct of the person applying for registration, that is to be assessed in order to determine whether the mark is contrary to public policy or accepted standards of morality for the purpose of Article 7; ▪ consequently the fact that the INTERTOPS proprietor was prohibited from offering betting services in Germany did not have the effect of rendering the trade mark itself contrary to public policy or principles of morality; and ▪ therefore there was no grounds for which the decision should be annulled and therefore the application for a declaration of invalidity was denied.

If you require further information contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or Visit http://www.rtcoopersiplaw.com or http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_intellectualproperty.php

? RT COOPERS, 2005. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

Full service commercial law firm based in the City of London intangible property, intellectual properties, intellectual property, intellectual property law, intellectual property escrow, intellectual property laws, intellectual property attorney, intellectual property definition, intellectual property issues. intellectual property agreement, managing intellectual property, intellectual property attorneys, world intellectual property, intellectual property litigation, intellectual property contract, trademark, copyrights, infringement, copyright, copyright law, copyright protection, copyright laws, trademark search, copyright notice, copyright infringement, trademark symbol, trademark law, trademark attorneys, trademark lawyers, legal patent, patents law, patent laws, patent lawyers, trademark laws, legal trademark, patent law, european patent law, patent infringement law, biotechnology patent law, uk patent law, trademark infringement law

Visit our websites at http://www.rtcoopersiplaw.com or visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_intellectualproperty.php

Trademarks and Proprietary Rights in Franchise Systems

One of the things that a franchisor has to offer a potential franchisee is their brand name. A strong brand name means the built-in potential customers for the franchisee and his franchise outlet. Each franchisor must stipulate how their trademarks and proprietary information within the confidential operations manual will be used during the term of the franchise. It is far better in my opinion to be upfront with this issue into address it in the franchise agreement prior to the signing or exchanging of any monies for the franchise business. It is for this reason that I developed a clause to put into our franchise agreement, which was a little different than most other franchisors. Below is a copy of that clause;

3.11.1 Proprietary Rights

Franchisee acknowledges the exclusive right, title and interest of Franchisor in and to the Marks. Franchisee agrees that the Service Marks, Confidential Operations Manual, and System are Franchisor?s sole and exclusive property. Nothing in this Agreement or any other agreement will give Franchisee or others any right, title, or interest whatsoever in or to the Service Marks, Confidential Operations Manual, or System as it exists or as it is developed. Franchisee?s license to use the Service Marks is non-exclusive. Franchisor, in its sole discretion, may operate under the Service Marks and may grant licenses to others to use the Service Marks on any terms and conditions Franchisor deems appropriate. Franchisor may make reasonable efforts to protect Franchisee?s rights to use the Service Marks. In those states and nations where applicable, Franchisee agrees to execute on request all documents necessary to record Franchisee as a registered user of the Service Marks.

Franchisee will immediately notify Franchisor of any infringement of, or challenge to, their use of the Service Marks. Franchisor will have sole discretion to take or not to take action, as Franchisor deems appropriate. If Franchisor undertakes the defense or prosecution of any litigation involving Franchisee or any litigation involving the Service Marks, Franchisee agree to execute any and all documents and to do all acts and things, that in the opinion of Franchisor?s counsel are necessary or advisable to carry out the defense or prosecution. This may be done either in Franchisor?s name or in Franchisee?s name, as Franchisor will elect. Franchisee will modify or discontinue use of any franchise names or Service Marks, or will use one or more substitute names or marks, if Franchisor so directs in writing at any time.

Franchisor?s sole obligation in this event will be to reimburse Franchisee for their tangible costs in complying with Franchisor?s direction (i.e., cost of changing signs, stationery, etc.). Under no circumstances will Franchisor be liable to Franchisee for any other damages, costs, losses, rights, or detriments related to any modification, discontinuance, or substitution. All obligations or requirements imposed upon Franchisee relating to the Service Marks will apply with equal force to any modified or substituted names or marks.

Franchisee will not contest, directly or indirectly: Franchisor?s ownership, title, right, or interest in the Service Marks, the Confidential Operations Manual, the Confidential Marketing Manuals or the System; or Franchisor?s exclusive right to register, use, or license others to use the Service Marks, Confidential Operations Manual, the Confidential Marketing Manuals and System. Franchisee will not advertise or use the Service Marks without following Franchisor?s then current guidelines and requirements. These may include, but will not be limited to, the placement of appropriate (C) or (R) copyright and registration marks, or the designations TM or SM, where applicable.

Any and all goodwill associated with the Service Marks, as existing or as developed, including any goodwill that might be deemed to have arisen through Franchisee?s activities, will accrue directly and exclusively to the Franchisor?s benefit, except as otherwise provided by applicable law. Franchisee appoints Franchisor as their agent and attorney-in-fact to amend or cancel any Registered User or Business Name filings obtained by Franchisee or on Franchisee?s behalf that involve or pertain to the Service Marks.

Franchisee acknowledges and agrees at all times and in all respects that Franchisor?s trademarks, trade names, service marks, patents, copyrights and all goodwill (local, regional and national) are the Franchisor?s sole and exclusive property. Franchisee also acknowledges that Franchisee has only a license to use such rights and marks according to the provisions of this Franchise Agreement and in strict accordance with the standards, specifications and procedures as outlined in the Confidential Operations Manual. Franchisee will not take any action contesting or impairing the exclusive right, title and interest of the Franchisor?s in any trademarks, trade names, service marks, patents and copyrights. Franchisee will not represent that Franchisee has any ownership rights in the Marks and Franchisee acknowledges that use of the Marks will not create in its favor any right, title or interest in or to the Marks, but that all uses will inure to the benefit of the Franchisor. Neither Franchisee nor any officer, director, agent or employee of Franchisee shall in any way register or attempt to register the Marks, whether within or outside the Marketing Area, with any government or any other authority, nor dispute or impugn the validity of the Marks, any registration or application to register any of the Marks, Franchisor?s rights to the Marks, or Franchisor?s rights to use Marks or grant licenses to others to use the Marks.

Franchisee must affix and change trademark notices and indications of registration when and as instructed by Franchisor. Franchisee must assist Franchisor to the extent reasonable requested in obtaining or maintaining any registration of any of the Marks to the extent reasonably requested, including by providing advertising samples.

It behooves all franchisors to make an audit of their brand-name ended their proprietary information and decide how best to protect its value. It is advised to discuss this at length, as it is money well spent with a competent, knowledgeable and experienced franchise attorney to best strategize ways to protect your franchisee company and its proprietary information. Do consider this in 2006.

Lance Winslow, a retired entrepreneur, adventurer, modern day philosopher and perpetual tourist.