Local Search... Patented! Again!

from the well-this-ought-to-be-fun dept

Tue, Jun 26th 2007 6:49pm — Mike Masnick

Just a couple weeks ago we were writing about a patent holding company that was claiming a patent on location-based search, with plans to sue just about everyone. Apparently, they're not the only one. A company called Local.com put out its own press release today claiming it now has a location-based search patent. While the company doesn't announce that it's going to sue everyone, you don't put out such a press release for no reason. Also, the CEO of the company claims: "we believe the methods covered have subsequently become the de-facto standard for information retrieval in the local search industry." Of course, in saying that, he's basically admitting that the idea was pretty obvious, because everyone moved in that obvious direction. Won't stop them from demanding licensing fees though. The patent itself was filed in 2005 -- by which point just about everyone in the space had already begun investing heavily in local search offerings. While the patent supposedly explains one method of doing local search, as you read through it, it does seem like a pretty damn obvious way of doing local search. There must be some prior art on this. In the meantime, though, if you were wondering what a patent thicket is, now you know.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

5 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2007 @ 11:27pm

i think i read some where that in US owning the patent isnt enough you actually have to be the 1st to have used/invented the technology, so unless some1 can prove they are the 1st then it doesn't matter who owns the patent.

or am I miss informed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2007 @ 1:08am

To commenter #!
I wish you were right but I think you aren't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A N Other, 27 Jun 2007 @ 2:42am

If there are really 2..
...then surely atleats one of them was not valid due to the prior art in the other. It may end up that both get over thrown durning that battle of who's was right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shaun, 27 Jun 2007 @ 2:45am

Re: To commenter #!
Yeah the theory is that you have to be the first to "invent" a non-obvious idea I believe but it seems fairly shakey on both points.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Randomizer, 27 Jun 2007 @ 7:31am

Re: First to Invent vs. First to File
The first poster is correct. In the US, First to invent trumps first to file, so proving you did it first invalidates the patent. Everywhere else it's first to file counts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]