An Interest In:
Web News this Week
- April 25, 2024
- April 24, 2024
- April 23, 2024
- April 22, 2024
- April 21, 2024
- April 20, 2024
- April 19, 2024
Some of Our Sources
- Technology Review
- Pearsonified
- Spoon Graphics
- Inspiredology
- Fudge Graphics
- Web Design Ledger
- CSS Globe
- CSS Tricks
- Willems Lab
- Hashedout
Help Webnuz
Referal links:
September 22, 2012 05:00 pm GMT
This week Google was granted a patent for "Social computing personas for protecting identity in online social interactions"; in other words, "a pseudonym could be presented as someones name based upon their choices of who would see that name or their 'real' name." Sound familiar? It does to me. Two months before the patent was filed, I wrote here "Suppose Google ... let Plus users define which of their Circles see their real names, while others can only see their nicknames?"I know, I know. You don't patent ideas, you patent implementations. I was interested enough to fight my way through the legal wording and try to work out what they're actually talking about. (Which was not easy, incidentally, even though I'm an experienced software engineer; patentese is incredibly hard to read.) There are a few nifty ideas in there: "one-time anonymous personae" and "a single persona with multiple users." Cool. But there's really no breathtaking insight or brilliant solution. The whole thing just seems like a very competent solution to the problem of online pseudonyms, one much like that which any other small group of good programmers would have designed.I don't mean to come down on Google. Their patent policies are much better than those of most tech companies. But I bet most Google engineers -- along with the overwhelming majority of software engineers in general -- would agree with the following statement in a heartbeat: most software patents are total bullshit.
Original Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/ggdtUudNxZ8/
Google Granted Pseudonym Patent (Youre Welcome. And, What Is Wrong With You)
This week Google was granted a patent for "Social computing personas for protecting identity in online social interactions"; in other words, "a pseudonym could be presented as someones name based upon their choices of who would see that name or their 'real' name." Sound familiar? It does to me. Two months before the patent was filed, I wrote here "Suppose Google ... let Plus users define which of their Circles see their real names, while others can only see their nicknames?"I know, I know. You don't patent ideas, you patent implementations. I was interested enough to fight my way through the legal wording and try to work out what they're actually talking about. (Which was not easy, incidentally, even though I'm an experienced software engineer; patentese is incredibly hard to read.) There are a few nifty ideas in there: "one-time anonymous personae" and "a single persona with multiple users." Cool. But there's really no breathtaking insight or brilliant solution. The whole thing just seems like a very competent solution to the problem of online pseudonyms, one much like that which any other small group of good programmers would have designed.I don't mean to come down on Google. Their patent policies are much better than those of most tech companies. But I bet most Google engineers -- along with the overwhelming majority of software engineers in general -- would agree with the following statement in a heartbeat: most software patents are total bullshit.Original Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/ggdtUudNxZ8/
Share this article:
Tweet
View Full Article
Techcrunch
TechCrunch is a leading technology blog, dedicated to obsessively profiling startups, reviewing new Internet products, and breaking tech news.More About this Source Visit Techcrunch