No more "Martin logos" for Red Nose Day, St. David's Day and more due to Google? blog

anewman

A patent to entice users to use a website? I use Google regardless of the changing logo, I happen to see it and think "oh that's interesting". So long as the images on your site are not copyrighted I cannot see what the problem is.

jenniewb

Regardless of if this affects MSE or not, what I want to know is which idiot granted the patent?? Google didn't create the idea of putting a stylised logo out and changing it every new celebration, cards for example have been around for hundreds of years!

Makes me think that either Google are desperate, times are hard and they are trying to grab coins from wherever they can, or they are flexing their muscles and suffering from some inferioroty complex and want to appear bigger then they actually are. What harm does it do Google or any other company to have their own celebrationary logos each season? its not as if people think "Oh I must shop at XX now because they will have their new red-nose/Easter/Xmas logo up" This is just stupid and I think should be appealed against. I'd like to hear what the person granting the patent was paid by Google in order to spoil things for the rest of us.

If it is then not allowed to have celebrationary logos all it means is the world looks a little more bland for the rest of us. Yeah, thanks google, we owe you....(karma, what goes around comes around, heres to google and your greed.)

Crabman

Anyone remember when Google released Chrome, there was a clause in the terms which asserted copyright (or words to that effect) on all content posted anywhere on the internet using Chrome.

Following a backlash Google made a U-turn and removed that clause.

They also recently convinced newspapers not to publish photos of their streetview cars which were damaged in Jersey. It's concerning when a corporation wields such power over publications thanks to their massive advertising budget...

Errata

First you give 'em what they want for free until they become addicted, then you dictate how much and how, just about sums up google's game plan.

John_Pierpoint

Surely a patent has to be for a unique application of technology?
EG a bag-less vacuum cleaner or an air-bed where .
the plug and socket are all moulded from the same bit of molten plastic.

Are you sure that this is not Google trying to protect its trademark from being copied with various changes - like stopping the "T" shirt that showed what appeared to be the "Mr Men" in sexually compromising poses.

Could go "viral".

Lum

The US Patent system tends to grant patents without much checking and then wait for someone to challenge it in court. It's been criticised many times, especially in the area of computer software where many patents are granted for things that are simple, obvious, and common knowledge in the field, such as the patent for using XOR to display a flashing cursor.

Martin's logos are a perfect example of "prior art" which would invalidate this patent should Google attempt to sue MSE. There's also plenty of other sites that do it, such as overclockers.co.uk who do a version of their logo on a Christmas cake every year.

John_Pierpoint

Like giving patents on plant extracts in the Amazon basin, that local tribe's people have known about for generations?
It is a bit like stealing native American land because they did not understand the concept of property rights and thought the land was God given.

jamesd

"Other References Yahoo! Main page, Dec. 23, 1996; http://web.archive.org/web/19961223150621/http://www8.yahoo.com accessed May 7, 2006. cited by examiner ."



Yet the patent was granted. Which implies rather strongly that for some reason the examiners didn't consider that the simple displaying of a seasonal image was conflicting with the granted patent. If it did they would have had to decline on the basis of prior art.

Even if there was some reason to be concerned in spite of that prior art, I don't think that the pictures of Martin Lewis are the company logo so they appear not to be affected by a patent that appears to be specific to company logos.

It's very hard to believe that there's no prior art. CompuServe is where I'd normally look but I don't recall anything specific related to this.

NASA_2

I think the banners are pointless in any case so would be happy if they were to be prevented.

Kered

Any resolution to this?

Peeps have just noticed that this weekends banners are missing