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.

The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 and Your Online Business

Creating the right trademark that distinguishes your product or service from others is the key to a successful business both online and off. However, one recent legislative enactment is worthy of note, as it might influence your decision in choosing the next name or graphic for your online business. ?

Like its predecessor, the Federal Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 ("Act"), signed into law in mid-October by President Bush, provides remedies for owners of "famous" trademarks (e.g. trademarks that are widely recognized by the general consuming public in the U.S. as a designation of source of goods or services of the trademark owner). Plaintiffs can file an action for dilution and obtain injunctive relief by showing their trademark has been "diluted" by the unauthorized use of another.

The Act provides for the cause of action known as "dilution." Dilution is a relatively new addition to trademark law that allows a plaintiff to recover from another's unauthorized use of his trademark where such use degraded or diminished the uniqueness and/or distinctiveness of his famous trademark.

Usually dilution is referenced together with the concepts of blurring and tarnishment. The revised Act specifically cites "dilution by blurring" and "dilution by tarnishment" as new causes of action in themselves. In all its forms lies the dangerous misperception that dilution claims require a showing of consumer confusion. Dilution claims, including blurring and tarnishment, require no showing or likelihood of confusion. ?

The revised Act is especially relevant to the online business owner in the initial stages of choosing a trademark name or graphic. Under the new cause of action for "dilution by blurring" you may run into problems simply by choosing a trademark that is similar to a famous trademark that causes the famous mark to lose its distinctiveness. Regardless if you adopted your trademark in good faith with no intention of piggy-backing off of the goodwill of a famous name brand, you may be sued for dilution by blurring. Similarly, under the new cause of action for "dilution by tarnishment" you may encounter problems by choosing a name similar to a famous brand if your use causes the famous trademark to suffer loss to its reputation.

It is particularly important to note that the new causes of action for dilution, dilution by blurring and dilution by tarnishment apply a "likelihood" of dilution rather than an actual dilution standard. This means that a plaintiff need only allege that your use is likely to cause or may potentially cause damage to their reputation or to the distinctiveness of their trademark. This new standard wields great power to owners of famous trademarks and could prove potentially lethal to the unsavvy online business owner or entrepreneur.

However, this new power is not absolute and will likely have little effect on comparative marketing and advertising both online and off. Under the revised Act, it is not actionable to compare your goods with that of a famous brand. It is also not actionable to parody a famous brand or trademarked product. For online marketers, this is important, as the Act preserved the traditional free-market idea of comparative advertising. Thankfully Congress recognized and appreciated the benefits of comparative advertising, maintaining its integrity in the revised Act.

From the recent Google decision and this revised Act by Congress, one can glean that although the strings are drawing tighter around the ever-expanding World Wide Web, it remains open to free-market competition and entrepeneurism. However, as trademark law evolves through judicial opinions and legislative enactments, it is always the best advice to consult an experienced intellectual property attorney before setting your branded product or service out into the world through the ether or otherwise.?

This article was written by Gemma E. Hoffman, a graduate of the Franklin Pierce Law School, specializing in intellectual property law.? Gemma writes select pieces regarding intellectual property for the law firm of Goldstein and Clegg, LLC, a Massachusetts Trademark and copyright law firm. ?

Creating the right trademark that distinguishes your product or service from others is the key to a successful business both online and off. However, one recent legislative enactment is worthy of note, as it might influence your decision in choosing the next name or graphic for your online business.