'That new Google button was our idea', claims lawsuit Google has reportedly been slapped with a lawsuit from a New York-based startup that claimed a video sharing feature added to YouTube and Google+ was similar to the one it pitched to the company in 2011. Be In, which maintains a website called CamUp, made the allegations in a suit filed [PDF] in San Jose, California on 28 June …
Well, no. They're saying 'we went to Google to pitch an idea, Google decided they liked it but didn't want to pay us for it, so they stopped answering our calls and implemented it themselves'.
Now there's all sorts of questions to ask there, and I can answer hardly any of them. Did it happen? I don't know. Presumably the company has evidence to present to a court, but one can't anticipate that process. If it happened, did any of the activity described constitute a criminal or civil offence? Ditto; that's for a court and judge/jury to decide, on the basis of the evidence, if it gets that far. But what the company is *claiming* is quite limited and specific, and it certainly isn't what you describe.
...because they have the patents.
Part of the problem with ideas like these though, are that they are elegant and only "obvious" after you've seen them - that's the hallmark of a good idea (it's not just a hyperlink).
I'm surprised these guys went to talk with anybody, anywhere in the U.S. without some intimidating legal backup. I'm even more surprised they had backers - unless their business plan was precisely to honey trap Google.
I think there have been a "share" button in existence since from forever. Appending the word at the end of "share [things]" does not make a good patent. Even designing an entire software/mechanism to share such content is only good until someone makes a slightly different software/mechanism.
"The wording on the button is identical"
So they had a mock up of what the button would look like and had ideas of how to monetise that link. But exactly what it would do and how it would do it is a "trade secret" apparently.
Anyone care to see when they will sue Facebook for the Like/Share button - or any button that shares items with your friends or colleagues?
Sorry - according to the suit - They showed Google(UK) the idea in May2011 and then in June2011 Google released Google+ with similar functionality.
1) They are claiming that Google(UK) never mentioned that anything similar was in production... if you actually know how Google works - you will be aware that a team works on a project, pretty much in secret (look at every Android release and even the Nexus7) - I can quite easily believe that Google(UK) had no knowledge at all of the social network project.
2) Google might be extremely quick at iterations - but I'm really not convinced they could rip off another product of this sort of scale in just a month?
3) When Google+ launched - yes you could watch YouTube videos in a hangout with friends, but the button didn't appear on YouTube pages to watch the video in a hangout for at least another month after the launch.
4) When designing something that is based on some product that already exists - a good way to guarantee a chance of success is to fully explore the competing product looking for ways to make it better or do things in a more intuitive / less complicated way.
Additionally - this one I love:
"37. The Google+ hangouts feature also includes several elements of blah blah trade dress <snip> specifically the inclusion of several video chat screens directly underneath a main screen...."
Oh... you mean like... Skype? Or.... well pretty much any video chat system that involves more than 2 participants?
54 claims that people might be confused because Google+ hangouts look similar to CamUps system.... um.... no I am fairly sure people know when they are in a Google+ hangout....
Finally.... $75,000 - is that is - really - you claim a big company has ripped you off and you are only claiming $75,000 ?!?!
I'm not saying that Google didn't rip off someone else's product - because - well I don't know that - but - the timescale involved makes me highly suspicious that
I thought it would be cool if there was some kind of device (like a back scratcher) where I could apply suntan lotion to my own back.
I asked at my local Walgreens about such a thing.
The saleswoman at the drug store thought the whole concept was preposterous.
Eventually I did find the thing at Bed, Bath, and Beyond, months later.
I suppose I COULD sue, since I had the idea before the product was available. It DOES look a lot like a back scratcher, just as I described.
But what kind of self-absorbed megalomaniac would I have to be to believe that this idea was so unique nobody else could have come up with it independently?
"The low amount might be to encourage Google to just pay up as it'll cost more than that to get their lawyers to write a reply."
The low amount might but it also might encorage more trolls to try the same trick. Sometimes it can be cheaper to hit cases like this hard just to make the next person who thinks they can put it over Google think twice about it
Video game makers have a similar problem. How to deal with unsolicited e-mails and post containing so-called great game ideas. They all just put them into the bin unopened. They need to protect themselves from the "you stole my idea" brigade. Same thing here. The idea itself is worthless, it's the implementation that's important. It's like me going to MS/whoever and saying I've got a great way for a program to be able to remember what the user was doing between sessions - I call it "Save File" - now I'll sue you for copying my idea!
This post has been deleted by its author
"If you have a meeting with someone about an idea they propose, by having that meeting you are excepting that it's their idea, unless you can prove otherwise. If you didn't want to buy there ideas you shouldn't have had the meeting."
No patent, no copyright, no payment. Competitors copy each other's product improvements, that's pure capitalism working as the sky fairy intended.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
