Obama's Director Of Citizen Participation Patents Displaying News With Financial Info
from the participation-indeed dept
theodp writes "Ex-Googler and now White House Director of Citizen Participation Katie Stanton, who's charged with promoting open public dialogues, snagged a patent on displaying financial news Thursday with her former employer. The patent for Interactive Financial Charting and Related News Correlation (as seen on Google Finance), which Google explains is an invention designed to 'facilitate and encourage the user's use and understanding of financial information,' expires in the year 2027."To be fair, Google has only been a defensive, rather than offensive, patenter, so I wouldn't read too much into this. However, it does seem a little ridiculous to patent the process of displaying news with financial information. It's a neat UI concept -- but deserving of monopoly protection for decades?
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
Filed Under: displaying news, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you can demonstrate that they have "been doing this for years" (for all values of 'this' where 'this' is what's actually covered by the patent claims instead of an imprecise, hand-waving explanation of them, and for values of "years" including times prior to February 24, 2006) then you can invalidate the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and don't assume that just because our broken patent office grants a patent it means that something has never been done before (ie: someone got a patent on swinging sideways on a swing and someone else got a patent on the wheel).
Oh, and to overturn a patent costs resources (ie: time, lawyers, money), even if it's a bogus patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's wrong with our patent system? Oh yes, people like Katie Stanton who are on the advisory committee.
Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeaaaah
Oh, wait, I get it. These guys aren't any more concerned about me than the last guys. Well, good to know. I'll feel that much less guilty about my contraband activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeaaaah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, patents != capitalism. Patents == government granted monopoly != capitalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The patent was filed February 24, 2006, almost 4 years before Obama was elected and likely about the same amount of time before Katie Stanton came on staff. The patent has nothing to do with Obama, it is something that would be mentioned in passing, not as the up front issue - unless you are trying to create an issue where none exists.
The patent isn't hers, it is assigned to Google, and was likely part of her "work product", along with the others listed. I suspect she will receive no benefit from the patent, not will she in any way control it.
The story reads more like another slap at Obama, rather than anything informative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, if you had actually read beyond the title, which you didn't, you would see that Obama is mentioned exactly 0 times beyond the title, and that the post focuses on Google.
But don't let your inability to read more than a few words before going on your predictable rants stop you from trying to make a point where none exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er, Bloomberg?
http://www.moaf.org/exhibits/financial_markets/exhibit_pics/Bloombergterminalweb.jpg
ht tp://www.kalliwoda.net/bilder/TMY_04_09_2006_sg550053.gif
And this classic
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/files/bank_jamaica.JPG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]