Ok... here's the google the page everyone knows and loves. It's simple, it works. There's no song and dance and over the topness on the main page. It's not too busy or anything, and it's owning the search engine market.
Check out the new set up for the msn search page. Me thinks they be copying... but wait check out what Yahoo have come up with! It's so blantent it made me smile. Worrying stuff...
Full Version: Wow, they don't even try and be subtle
Well, why not? If it works, it works. Don't tell me you haven't noticed that damn near every advert for dishwasher tablets has a sparkling clean glass in it. If its something which attracts the public to buy/use your product, why not take advantage of it?
because I want choice, not a million versions of the same thing.
*stamps his feet like a bratty spoilt child*
*stamps his feet like a bratty spoilt child*
QUOTE ({Gothic Angel} @ Sep 8 2005, 05:28 PM)
Well, why not? If it works, it works. Don't tell me you haven't noticed that damn near every advert for dishwasher tablets has a sparkling clean glass in it. If its something which attracts the public to buy/use your product, why not take advantage of it?
Yeah, but this is so similar it looks like theres a breach of copyright... and possibly a passing off infringment.
It's not that they advertise something with the same result - it's that they are using the same colours, layout, wording, types of search possible, and format. Passing off and Copyright violations as it appears.
msn isn't too bad - that seems like a logical layout.
Yahoo is blatantly ripping off Google, but I think that they would be able to defend themselves well enough in court.
Yahoo is blatantly ripping off Google, but I think that they would be able to defend themselves well enough in court.
It would be hard to press this in court. Software copyright is a murky business where people are trying to take ownership of thinks like double-clicking or scroll-bars.
It's true that they may have ripped of the design, but they could say it is simply functionality. It's just the search bar surrounded by a few pertinent links. I would say it is less of a design and more of a mechanism or tool, like frames in HTML. If so then it may be protected from action.
Afterall, you don't sue someone for making a car with breaks if you happenned to do it first. It's something that is expected to be inherent in the object. If your breaks resemble those of your compititor... well they're breaks. They are going to have to be similar if they are going to carry out the same job.
It's true that they may have ripped of the design, but they could say it is simply functionality. It's just the search bar surrounded by a few pertinent links. I would say it is less of a design and more of a mechanism or tool, like frames in HTML. If so then it may be protected from action.
Afterall, you don't sue someone for making a car with breaks if you happenned to do it first. It's something that is expected to be inherent in the object. If your breaks resemble those of your compititor... well they're breaks. They are going to have to be similar if they are going to carry out the same job.
I say, "Hoorah!" It's about time they decluttered their front pages. That's what I love the most about Google.
I don't know about MSN, having never used that search engine, but Yahoo could simply argue that it is reverting back to its original design style. Way back in the mists of time, the Yahoo start page was incredibly basic.
I don't know about MSN, having never used that search engine, but Yahoo could simply argue that it is reverting back to its original design style. Way back in the mists of time, the Yahoo start page was incredibly basic.
I for one am glad they've learned a lesson from Google. Nobody needs fancy cluttered search pages. And Google don't have a copyright on simplicity.
As far as I know, software copyright focuses only on the implementation (how it works) not outward appearance or functionality, as long as the guts are different I doubt google could sue.
Having said that I may be wrong, since Apple go around sueing anyone and everyone who make anything similar to their user interface, including a tribute to it that appeared on the front page of google for a while.
Software patents on the other hand (I think these got tossed out over here, I hope so anyway, curse my memory) are a horrendous business and would allow things like double clicking, the scroll bar or even the concept of a for loop (really basic and rather essential programming concept) to be patented.
Having said that I may be wrong, since Apple go around sueing anyone and everyone who make anything similar to their user interface, including a tribute to it that appeared on the front page of google for a while.
Software patents on the other hand (I think these got tossed out over here, I hope so anyway, curse my memory) are a horrendous business and would allow things like double clicking, the scroll bar or even the concept of a for loop (really basic and rather essential programming concept) to be patented.
Design and layout are too similar - this coupled with the types of functions used (and the name their called) can easily result in an action for 'passing off'. This is providing your own product to look like someone elses - in the hope that all the advertising, good will and consumer brand loyalty that Google have worked so hard to develop and maintain, becomes yours.
Eg. - Penguin chocolate (candy) bar is a popular UK snack, so another company then created a puffin bar (which is almost the same and packaged identically - the picture of the puffin on the wrapper looking more like a tubby penguin than a real puffin) in the hope penguin customers will start buying puffins instead. Very little hard work was put in to advertising and marketing or developing brand consumer loyalty for Puffins - they just jumped on penguin's hard earned customers base by copying the look. This was a real case and one which Puffin lost.
In the Yahoo / Google comparisen The front pages are almost identical, from colour of text to layout and style. At least MSN is different, though it uses the same layout and similar options.
In a basic search both MSN and Yahoo present the results in the same way to Google, right down to using the same colour scheme Blue main title text, black descriptive text and green url text. They also present the much the same content, suggesting that the code for the search engines is significantly similar. ___________
The search engine itself may be subject to copyright (yes you can copyright simplicity, if it is a simple programme that is). The code can and will have been copyrighted and if significant amounts have been copied then Yahoo is in breach and will be sued.
The items / functions that the Yahoo engine utilises may be so generic that copyright is not enforceable, there may also be a competition element that means Google will have to allow competitors to come up with thier own versions of Image Search etc... however the processes (coding that allows the programme to work) cannot be the same without risking legal action for copyright or even breach of patent, and it must look significantly different, or face passing off action.
___________
It may seem like this is a good thing, lots of healthy internet competition, but why should one company be allowed to take the hard work and ideas owned by another company and profit off someone else's programmes and code. Unless of course Yahoo are doing this all under specifically agreed licence with Google Inc.
Eg. - Penguin chocolate (candy) bar is a popular UK snack, so another company then created a puffin bar (which is almost the same and packaged identically - the picture of the puffin on the wrapper looking more like a tubby penguin than a real puffin) in the hope penguin customers will start buying puffins instead. Very little hard work was put in to advertising and marketing or developing brand consumer loyalty for Puffins - they just jumped on penguin's hard earned customers base by copying the look. This was a real case and one which Puffin lost.
In the Yahoo / Google comparisen The front pages are almost identical, from colour of text to layout and style. At least MSN is different, though it uses the same layout and similar options.
In a basic search both MSN and Yahoo present the results in the same way to Google, right down to using the same colour scheme Blue main title text, black descriptive text and green url text. They also present the much the same content, suggesting that the code for the search engines is significantly similar. ___________
The search engine itself may be subject to copyright (yes you can copyright simplicity, if it is a simple programme that is). The code can and will have been copyrighted and if significant amounts have been copied then Yahoo is in breach and will be sued.
The items / functions that the Yahoo engine utilises may be so generic that copyright is not enforceable, there may also be a competition element that means Google will have to allow competitors to come up with thier own versions of Image Search etc... however the processes (coding that allows the programme to work) cannot be the same without risking legal action for copyright or even breach of patent, and it must look significantly different, or face passing off action.
___________
It may seem like this is a good thing, lots of healthy internet competition, but why should one company be allowed to take the hard work and ideas owned by another company and profit off someone else's programmes and code. Unless of course Yahoo are doing this all under specifically agreed licence with Google Inc.
just a quickie to say that did you know that Yahoo actually uses Google as it's earch engine 
QUOTE (bryden42 @ Sep 10 2005, 12:41 PM)
just a quickie to say that did you know that Yahoo actually uses Google as it's earch engine
No, it doesn't. At least, entering the same search into both pages gets markedly different results.
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 10 2005, 04:52 AM)
QUOTE (bryden42 @ Sep 10 2005, 12:41 PM)
just a quickie to say that did you know that Yahoo actually uses Google as it's earch engine
No, it doesn't. At least, entering the same search into both pages gets markedly different results.
It could be that they licensed the search engine from Google but run it with their own database and spiders?
[edit]Aaaagh! She's been home for like 3 days and It's still happening. This is moop. >_<[/edit]
QUOTE (Overfriendly_Kitten @ Sep 9 2005, 01:04 PM)
... Unless of course Yahoo are doing this all under specifically agreed licence with Google Inc.
QUOTE (bryden42 @ Sep 10 2005, 12:41 PM)
just a quickie to say that did you know that Yahoo actually uses Google as it's earch engine
Well that's that one sorted out then. Thanks.
QUOTE (Calantyr @ Sep 8 2005, 06:18 PM)
It would be hard to press this in court. Software copyright is a murky business where people are trying to take ownership of thinks like double-clicking or scroll-bars.
It's true that they may have ripped of the design, but they could say it is simply functionality. It's just the search bar surrounded by a few pertinent links. I would say it is less of a design and more of a mechanism or tool, like frames in HTML. If so then it may be protected from action.
Afterall, you don't sue someone for making a car with breaks if you happenned to do it first. It's something that is expected to be inherent in the object. If your breaks resemble those of your compititor... well they're breaks. They are going to have to be similar if they are going to carry out the same job.
It's true that they may have ripped of the design, but they could say it is simply functionality. It's just the search bar surrounded by a few pertinent links. I would say it is less of a design and more of a mechanism or tool, like frames in HTML. If so then it may be protected from action.
Afterall, you don't sue someone for making a car with breaks if you happenned to do it first. It's something that is expected to be inherent in the object. If your breaks resemble those of your compititor... well they're breaks. They are going to have to be similar if they are going to carry out the same job.
Didn't two guys actualy manage to get patent rights for the binary code? Well, not the code its self but the action of changing one into zero, and zero into one?
QUOTE (Daria @ Sep 10 2005, 09:22 PM)
Didn't two guys actualy manage to get patent rights for the binary code? Well, not the code its self but the action of changing one into zero, and zero into one?
I don't know but it wouldn't suprise me if someone tried. Hell, people have tried to copyright HIGHLIGHTING TEXT.
*shakes head*
So far it's being resisted, but in a lesser degree in the US than say, the EU.
I don't care what Yahoo and MSN do, I'm sticking with Google. It's original and I tend to get fewer annoying ads when I look for things there. It's the model of simplicity, and the information is easy to find. A mere change in design won't convince many people to switch search engines.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.