Europatent preview: Godado patents search engines [LWN.net]

Anybody who is curious about what benefits software patents might bring to Europe need look no further than UK patent GB2362971, entitled "A method of searching the internet and an internet search engine." This patent, held by the Italian company Godado Italia Srl, was first filed in May, 2000; it was assigned last February.

What does this patent cover?

Upon receipt of a search signification, a search is conducted for web sites having a textual match with the search signification. In addition, the thesaurus database is searched to determined the category of meaning to which the search signification belongs and the meaning of the search signification thus determined is used to identify related significations having a correlation with the meaning of the search signification. The enquirer is then provided with a list of web sites having a textual match with the search signification and with a list of related significations as a suggestion for supplementary research.

In other words, a search engine with the advanced capability of looking up additional search terms in a thesaurus and telling the user about those terms.

Godado is not content to sit on this patent. The company has applied with the EPO for a Europe-wide patent, and has also filed a claim in Italy. With those in hand, Godado has selected its first target: the financial portal Portalino. For the curious, Portalino has posted Godado's demand letter (in Italian); your editor has created an English translation to go along with it. Essentially, the letter accuses Portalino of the heinous crime of running a search engine, claims that said search engine is an infringement of Godado's patent, and demands that the search engine be shut down immediately.

One might assume that Godado does not intend to content itself with harassing Portalino; according to this Punto Informatico article, the patent has already been filed in Spain, Portugal, Germany, and France (along with the UK and Italy). A new litigation company, it would seem, has been turned loose in Europe.

This patent was not filed until 2000; chances are that, with a bit of (yes) searching, sufficient prior art can be found to invalidate it. This will not be the last shakedown attempt by a company wielding a suspect patent, however, especially if the European Union blesses software patents in their full glory. Godado shows that U.S.-style software patent hassles can become part of the European landscape. Unless, of course, the EU manages to avoid the imposition of union-wide software patents.

(Log in to post comments)

UK Patents Office complaints email address

Posted Jul 7, 2004 10:42 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

I have emailed a complaint about this patent. The address to complain to is
box49@patent.gov.uk

The grounds on which I have complained are:

a. Obscure English and grammatical errors in the abstract.

b. The obvious nature of the claimed innovation.

c. The existence of prior art (e.g. existing thesauruses and search engines).

d. Denial of human rights of programmers to freedom of expression through creative construction of semantic relationships in program source code through software patents monopolising connections of this kind. Rights to freedom of expression in languages of choice are guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

e. The fact that software patents are not legal within the EU despite failed attempts to make them legal.

UK Patents Office complaints email address

Posted Jul 8, 2004 10:10 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

That's an interesting and new approach. I wonder did you think up this yourself, or has it been used successfully (or otherwise) before?

Rich.

patents deny freedom of speech

Posted Jul 8, 2004 11:10 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

I guess this connection is as obvious as the patent I'm complaining about ! There have been interesting cases in the US linking freedom of speech with rights of programmers to create code, so it's an obvious idea to connect this to software patents. In practice, if as a programmer, you have to check a million semantic relationships registered as patents to avoid risk of expensive litigation before you write a line of code, this will restrict freedom of thought and expression as well as impact upon innovation.

Previous case

Posted Jul 8, 2004 15:10 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

Ed Felten has done a lot of work in this area.

UK Patents Office complaints email address

Posted Jul 19, 2004 1:25 UTC (Mon) by Wolfbone (guest, #23135) [Link]

It's not a new idea; it's just an aspect that has been downplayed, as a matter of policy, by the major opponents of software patentability in Europe, especially the FFII. I believe it was thought that the economic arguments alone were strong enough to demonstrate the foolhardyness of allowing software patentability in Europe and they are much easier arguments to explain to politicians and journalists etc. This was probably the right approach - it certainly proved successful in convincing the European Parliament, though that may turn out not to have been enough of course.

If you look at the history of opposition to software patents you'll find that the earliest arguments, such as those by Salin, were often fundamentally freedom of expression arguments and just as it is arguable that software patents were (and still are) unconstitutional in the USA, in Europe we have Article 10 of the ECHR (European convention on human rights). In the U.K, the adoption of the EHCR into U.K. law in 1998? makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a manner incompatible with any of the convention rights. Article 10 states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority...".

It is that last phrase which is interesting: Is not the E.P.O. or the U.K. Patent Office interfering in the expression, imparting and reception of information and ideas when it grants a software patent? I think it is but I have no idea what a court might think. If the U.S. constitution can be conveniently ignored, why not the ECHR too?