This needs to be opt-in. If Google’s changing what a user sees when visiting a website, that raises all sorts of legal concerns unless the site’s owner has opted in. From copyright infringement to tortious interference with someone’s business, this idea that the patent just automatically means people can’t open a browser and see your website is just a nonstarter.
I’m sure Google understands this, but the author of the article over at Forbes seems oblivious to a company’s own interest in delivering their content to their audience.
Oh, that's not as strange as it seems, I need to use Reader View in firefox so often it's not even funny. It's genuinely more pleasant for one, and for two some pages are so egregiously bad you just need it.
The patent means only that Google can sue people who practice the claimed subject matter without Google's permission.
That doesn't mean there wouldn't be other prohibitions and restrictions.
Example: Suppose you were to invent a drug that boosted IQ by 50 points, and body strenth and endurance by 80%, for 12 hours. You might be legally entitled to a patent for it. But you'd still have to get FDA approval to market the drug. (And your patent might be sidelined before issuance under a secrecy order because of the potential military applications — see, e.g., "The Rush to Patent the Atomic Bomb" (NPR.org 2008). https://www.npr.org/2008/03/28/89127786/the-rush-to-patent-t....)
And as others are pointing out, practicing the claimed method might constitute copyright infringement.
Funny on this type of article linking to Google Patents. Such great possibilities for replacement. Google publishes Google has patented something. Nobody checks.
All I have to show for direct monetary damages is a drop in conversions if I’m using that site to sell or inform people about a product or a service.
If they’re changing the content of my website before showing it to viewers without my permission that also gets into copyright, tortious interference, possibly trademark, and maybe even CFAA causes.
I imagine this would be an opt-in service. Either the user uses a special browser that’s clearly marketed to do exactly this as opposed to the original content or the website operator opts in to having their content updated on the fly for users like this.
This seems like something a class action by a bunch of offended companies will make quick work of.
I also don't think regular users just want AI summaries of everything. That sounds like eating plain oatmeal for breakfast every morning. Devoid of fun and flavor.
This needs to be opt-in. If Google’s changing what a user sees when visiting a website, that raises all sorts of legal concerns unless the site’s owner has opted in. From copyright infringement to tortious interference with someone’s business, this idea that the patent just automatically means people can’t open a browser and see your website is just a nonstarter.
I’m sure Google understands this, but the author of the article over at Forbes seems oblivious to a company’s own interest in delivering their content to their audience.
You don’t want your page rank to suffer active WebMCP on your website otherwise we really can’t show your website in the top results.
OTOH in this post-reality dystopia we live in, it's quite fitting!
Substantially more relevant reading on this topic (the patent in question): https://patents.google.com/patent/US12536233B1/en
Oh, that's not as strange as it seems, I need to use Reader View in firefox so often it's not even funny. It's genuinely more pleasant for one, and for two some pages are so egregiously bad you just need it.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
FTA: "Google has legally protected the ability to do this."
Um, not quite, if read with one possible interpretation. (IP lawyer here.)
The patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12536233B1/en — see the claims, which are in the right-hand column of this Web page.
The patent means only that Google can sue people who practice the claimed subject matter without Google's permission.
That doesn't mean there wouldn't be other prohibitions and restrictions.
Example: Suppose you were to invent a drug that boosted IQ by 50 points, and body strenth and endurance by 80%, for 12 hours. You might be legally entitled to a patent for it. But you'd still have to get FDA approval to market the drug. (And your patent might be sidelined before issuance under a secrecy order because of the potential military applications — see, e.g., "The Rush to Patent the Atomic Bomb" (NPR.org 2008). https://www.npr.org/2008/03/28/89127786/the-rush-to-patent-t....)
And as others are pointing out, practicing the claimed method might constitute copyright infringement.
Funny on this type of article linking to Google Patents. Such great possibilities for replacement. Google publishes Google has patented something. Nobody checks.
USPTO Dossier Summary: https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/result/application/US/190097...
USPTO US 19009708 Documentation: https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/details/US/19009708/A/111855
USPTO EP 25191927 Documentation: https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/details/EP/25191927/A/130945
I don't see how they'd possibly actually implement this without running into trademark infringement
All you have to do is implement a custom ad server and you would be able to show damages from their AI site replacement.
Once you have damages you can sue.
All I have to show for direct monetary damages is a drop in conversions if I’m using that site to sell or inform people about a product or a service.
If they’re changing the content of my website before showing it to viewers without my permission that also gets into copyright, tortious interference, possibly trademark, and maybe even CFAA causes.
I imagine this would be an opt-in service. Either the user uses a special browser that’s clearly marketed to do exactly this as opposed to the original content or the website operator opts in to having their content updated on the fly for users like this.
It's the next evolution of amp.
So basically a watering hole attack.
This seems like something a class action by a bunch of offended companies will make quick work of.
I also don't think regular users just want AI summaries of everything. That sounds like eating plain oatmeal for breakfast every morning. Devoid of fun and flavor.
I'm quite sure that it is a phony patent worth nothing.
[flagged]
The article explains quite detailed what has been patented. The word summary is nowhere in the article. Who are you insulting as an idiot?