[Nottingham] Google Gets Umbrella Patent For Cloud Operating Systems

[Jason Irwin]

On 03/09/12 16:59, Martin wrote:
> Is this for real?!...
Yes, and there is quite a bit of contention about it.  I have not read
the specific patent and don't know if the USPTO has dropped a clanger
(again) or if there is something truly innovative in here (it was filed
in 2009).  This, of course, ignores any arguments about software patents
in general.

> "...the tone of the patent is much more than that. Google may have, in
> fact, received a patent that covers client cloud operating systems in
> general. ..."
I would have thought that enough prior art would exist.  After all,
given a decent WiFi network, and various proxies/gateways; would
something running X not have qualified as a "cloud OS".  Then there is
Dan Steinman's JavaScript UI.  Does that constitute prior art?  Is a
Cloud OS really just a dumb terminal, or some kind of dynamic-scaling
madness?  Dunno (yet).

> Or is that another money-making ploy by the patents office and lawyers
> in league with them to make money over all the ensuing arguments?
I think it's arse-corvering given the USA patent system.  Love or loathe
it, it exists and you'd be a fool to not take precautionary measures.
Or maybe this sweeping patent is going to be part of a Goog push for
reform?  Not that I really credit Google with that much public spirit.

> After all, if a certain company could patent use of the
> rectangle-with-slightly-rounded-corners, who knows?...
Patenting a shape is not that usual.  Coca-Cola bottles were patented,
for example (trademark would not be good enough because it would only
apply to fizzy-pop and the shape identified the company, and copyright
really doesn't do it either) and it's fairly common practice to try and
combat passing-off.  Where the problem arises is when a shape/thing get
a patent when there is only one answer (or a very small number).  From
my understanding, in these cases the patent office is meant to tell you
to bugger off.

J.