The field of social network analysis[SNA] has much prior art in the first four boxes [405 thru 420]. Much of the SNA experience is with off-line social networks, though on-line social networks are being mapped and analyzed with increased frequency since the late 1990s. The blogosphere has been a popular source of open source data for social network analysis.
The value-added for Google is to place the electronic ad with the most influential person(s) in the network. Pharmaceutical firms have been doing social network analysis within physician networks since the mid-1960s. Big Pharma has always recruited the most influential doctors to suggest brand new drugs to other doctors in their social circle. And, companies like Visible Path have been selling social network discovery to clients for many years.
So, what makes this Google patent novel and non-obvious???
Posts
9 comments:
Sadder still is that they go to all the trouble of identifying "influencers" on social networks, just to go and serve them some adwords and banners.
That's like using the Caxton printing press to print hand bills to promote the town crier.
It's not the business method but their algorithm for finding the influencers which I think is probably novel. Something similar to what I'm doing in my PhD thesis.
algorithms by themselves are not patentable, it is the business method that uses an algorithm that is patentable
I don't think either the algorithms or the business method is new here. This sounds like patenting e-commerce.
I am sure current social network services are already trying to exploit social connections by placing ads to structural holes, finding clusters, densities, and distributing ads based on the shape of the graph.
Thanks for the lead. I've been discussing innovations and patents with some undergrads.
I wonder if it is also a defensive patent. They are worried someone else would make this patent and then try and force google to pay up.
How do they determine influencers? Some sort of centrality measure?
Influence is not a centrality, or prominence metric -- it is a prestige metric based on asymmetric ties.
This has been discussed on the INSNA listserv. The problem does not have to do with how novel Google's claims are, it has to do with the expertise of the assigned patent examiners. While there is *significant* prior art in this patent and several others from the field of social network analysis, if the USPTO is not made aware of them, the patent will be issued.
There are two alternatives to this; one, the patents will stand until a competitor challenges the validity of the patent by demonstrating the prior art. I'm no attorney, but this is a feasible strategy; however, the incumbent patent has the advantage of the defensive position, and it requires a plaintiff with the vested interest and capital to challenge the patent.
The alternative is to set up a pro-bono advisory committee of SNA experts, preferably representing a scientific body, and offer their services to the USPTO. While the INSNA members showed interest in this, the outrage did not translate into self-organization sufficient for action!
Algorithms can be patented if they're a key part of an invention such as a computer-implemented system. However, I'd like to know what is really novel about Google's algorithm.
You have to look at the independent claims to see what they really think is novel.
I'm assuming this is only a patent application and not an issued patent, right?
Companies like Google throw hundreds of patent applications at the wall to see what sticks.
Dr. Krebs should be complaining to the patent examiner assigned to prosecute the application. That would make for more interesting blogging.
Patenting is about claiming the unclaimed or at least getting away with the perception that you are claiming the unclaimed. Problem is it is expensive to reveal that it's a perception in most cases.
Better yet. Dr. Krebs should sent to Google's patent counsel a letter stating what the prior art is. By law, Google's patent counsel needs to supply any material information to the patent examiner. But the applicant doesn't have to provide interpretations. That's why Mr. Valadis should also write to the patent examiner and provide his interpretation.
Post a Comment