Jump to content

Google Kills a Little Piece of HAIF


Recommended Posts

Long-time HAIFers sometimes ask me, "What ever happened to all those funny HAIF logos? How come you don't do those anymore?"

As of this week, the answer is simple: Google killed them.

If you've been around for a while, you may have noticed that sometimes we'd change the HAIF logo to celebrate a particular holiday, or a local event, or maybe just for fun. Around the same time that HAIF started up, Google started doing the same thing. The difference, however, is that Google decided it owns the idea of funny logo, or as it calls them "Google Doodles."

Shockingly (to me), yesterday Google was awarded a patent on funny logos. You can read it here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,912,915.PN.&OS=PN/7,912,915&RS=PN/7,912,915

From Google's patent: “A system provides a periodically changing story line and/or a special event company logo to entice users to access a web page. … For the special event company logo, the system may modify a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo, associate one or more search terms with the special event logo, and upload the special event logo to the web page.”

In other words, the items we used to call "HAIF Headers" are now illegal, and are now the property of Google.

"Do no evil," my ass.

So, to mark this day of defeat, I'm publishing all of our old HAIF Headers that I can find right now. I'm sure there are lots more I could dig up, since we did close to a hundred of them over the years, but I'm already tempting Google's lawyers by posting this much.

Don't bother complaining to Google. It's a one-way system. Your complaints will be met with a form letter sent from an automated computer in India. But if you're really intent on protesting yet another Google grab, set your default search engine to Bing. It's the equivalent of picking between the lesser of two evils, but lately it's getting harder to tell which one is the bad guy.

AbstractHAIF001.gif

HAIF-Chase-Tower-Boarded-Up-Header.gif

HAIF-Foreground.png

HAIF-forum-domain-header.png

HAIF-Halloween-2008.gif

HAIF-Hurricane-Header.gif

HAIF-Patriot-Day-2008.gif

HAIF-Post-Hurricane-Header.gif

HAIF-Post-Storm-Header.gif

HAIF-Post-TropicalStorm-Header.gif

HAIF-Talk-Like-a-Pirate-Day-2008.gif

HAIFbook.gif

HAIFGenericBanner1.gif

HAIFGenericBanner1.png

HAIFGrunge001.jpg

HAIFIllusion1.gif

HAIFinanceChallenge.gif

HAIFLED.gif

HAIFMCMContestHeader.png

HAIFyChristmas2008.gif

HAIFyNewYear2009.gif

HappyTheNicheDay.png

RedScareDog1.gif

Thanksgiving2008.gif

WereMoving.png

HAIFHeader2__HAIFyNewYear.png

HAIFHeader2__SantaHat.png

HAIFHeader2_8Years.png

HAIFHeader2_OriginalSocialNetwork.png

HAIFHeader2.png

HAIF-Duran-Duran-Day-2008.gif

HAIF-HAIFNow-One.gif

HAIF-I-Quit.gif

HAIF-Indiana-Jones-1.gif

HAIF-Jobs-Powered.jpg

HAIF-Seven-Years.gif

HAIF-Spot-The-Editor-One.gif

HAIFBastilleDay.gif

HAIFChocolate1.gif

HAIFCO2.gif

HAIFDollarTease.png

HAIFDollarToday.gif

HAIFHeader.jpg

HAIFHurricane.gif

HAIFIndependenceDay2007.png

HAIFiPhoneDay.gif

HAIFLogo1.jpg

HAIFLogo2.jpg

HAIFLogo3.jpg

HAIFLogoChristmas.jpg

HAIFMemorialDay-001.gif

HAIFnano1.gif

HAIFShareThis.gif

HAIFTalkLikeAPirate.gif

HAIFTropicalStorm.gif

HAIFUFODay.gif

HAIFWatermark.gif

HAIFWatermark.png

HAIFy-Earth-Day-2008.gif

HAIFyHalloween-001.png

HAIFyHalloween2007.gif

HAIFYHanukkah-001.png

HAIFyMothersDay-001.gif

HAIFyNewYear-001.png

HAIFyPumapayanDay-001.gif

HAIFyThanksgiving-001.gif

Hanukkah2007.gif

GenericHAIFBanner1.gif

HAIF-6-Years-header-one.gif

WelcomeKatrina-400x50.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The patent was filed 10 years ago, and Google has never sued anyone for this patent. I think you'd be fine. Many, many sites do seasonal logos.

The patent was filed 10 years ago, but was granted yesterday. Google can't sue over a patent until it's granted. Now it is clear to sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally lost...not getting it. How can Google have control over someone else's intellectual property (artwork for a logo that changes that is not Google's).

The patent is for the "process" right? Whatever that may be? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now would be an appropriate time to patent the "extending one's middle finger towards Google" process.

I do miss the revolving banners.

It seems like its not the act of changing out your banners on a periodic basis that would get your in trouble.. is it more the code to do so on an automatic basis ?

How would google even be able to track all the companies that do that and know how they do it ? Well.. scratch that.. but I say eff them, I'm sure you'd get plenty of cease and desist letters before they tried to sue ya.. if they bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm too lazy to read their patent right now, but those are banners you made, not logos. According to me, and I am the public who consumes such banners.

You really have widened your diet, haven't you?

Personally, I don't think it really applies to you that much. You're not a conglomerate (yet), and odds are you'd get a S&D order first.

I'm willing to throw in a few bucks for a defense. :)

I won't switch to Bing out of sheer principal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Google is certainly not the benevolent beast they claim to be (I saw a headline recently claiming Microsoft was found to be more ethical than Google and Apple), I seriously doubt the patent applies to your artwork. It can't. It is your intellectual property, and is protected by its own set of laws. You needn't worry about having your haify banners taken from you by force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Google is certainly not the benevolent beast they claim to be (I saw a headline recently claiming Microsoft was found to be more ethical than Google and Apple), I seriously doubt the patent applies to your artwork. It can't. It is your intellectual property, and is protected by its own set of laws. You needn't worry about having your haify banners taken from you by force.

It sounded as though the ownership of the artwork itself is not in dispute. It is the concept and process of changing up website logos based on holidays or special occasions. You should read over the patent. You'll find yourself thinking of loopholes as you go through the document and then finding that they're addressed later in the document.

I can see how a competitor might be grossly imitative, but what they've managed to get a patent on is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised they were able to secure a patent for this. The practice of changing a logo for an event or season is nothing new and predates the internet. It seems like an infringement on free speech.

Seems like it could make some interesting case law. Editor probably has a years-long injunction preventing Google from enforcing its patent to look forward to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised that something that sounds more like an activity or fun seasonal trend can be patented.

Either way. . .the only day that mattered was Pumapayam Day! :lol:

And I just noticed, I am coming on 6 years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like it could make some interesting case law. Editor probably has a years-long injunction preventing Google from enforcing its patent to look forward to.

There's a 7 year clock on patents. I wonder if an injunction resets the clock or runs it out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, Google doesn't have a legal or ethical leg to stand on. One cannot claim a patent on creativity.

I'll explain that to their legal department, which will, I'm sure, see the error of their ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this doesn't make sense.....so, target cannot hang a santa cap on the target logo at christmas or target cannot program a seasonal target logo that reoccurs each year? is google patenting it's specific designs? i could understand that, but not something so vague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this doesn't make sense.....so, target cannot hang a santa cap on the target logo at christmas or target cannot program a seasonal target logo that reoccurs each year? is google patenting it's specific designs? i could understand that, but not something so vague.

Heh heh, money talks you know what walks :D

Not much left out there for the little guy, soon as you walk out your door every morning you become a criminal. No that can't be right, now it's soon as you turn on your computer and go on line. That's the great thing about growing old you don't have too much time to worry about stuff like this so it really isn't important. There was one win for the little guy last week, the congress stopped that take over by the FCC clowns, that was a major win for everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh heh, money talks you know what walks :D

Not much left out there for the little guy, soon as you walk out your door every morning you become a criminal. No that can't be right, now it's soon as you turn on your computer and go on line. That's the great thing about growing old you don't have too much time to worry about stuff like this so it really isn't important. There was one win for the little guy last week, the congress stopped that take over by the FCC clowns, that was a major win for everyone!

I assume the 'FCC clowns' remark is regard to net neutrality.

This is a complex issue. I'm starting a thread on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the 'FCC clowns' remark is regard to net neutrality.

This is a complex issue. I'm starting a thread on this topic.

I have one concern with this FCC issue and that is the FCC does not have the authority to pass laws. The attempt to regulate was an attempt to silence free speech and had nothing to do with provider rates and usage. The overall plan was to be able to sue and silence people using obscure laws that they made up, one being that all providers were to keep all traffic from your IP on permanent record. I call it privacy invasion and also it leads to criminal activity when your private information has been stolen, because we know how well the government guards our private information don't we. It was a blatant arrogant attempt to destroy one more of our rights as a free people. Think about this for a moment, if you are an enemy to someone in high places all they have to do to smear you or cause trouble for you is look at what you've said on an email or a forum, now take it from there. What's good for the Country is not the goal of either party, in the future something will have to be done to neutralize all the division caused by these self serving politicians. The constitution has served us well and anyone deviating from following the constitution should be barred from ever holding any public office.

It's hard to have Net Neutrality when you have a very small group of people telling you what you can say or do! Freedom of Speech for the Win.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one concern with this FCC issue and that is the FCC does not have the authority to pass laws. The attempt to regulate was an attempt to silence free speech and had nothing to do with provider rates and usage. The overall plan was to be able to sue and silence people using obscure laws that they made up, one being that all providers were to keep all traffic from your IP on permanent record. I call it privacy invasion and also it leads to criminal activity when your private information has been stolen, because we know how well the government guards our private information don't we. It was a blatant arrogant attempt to destroy one more of our rights as a free people. Think about this for a moment, if you are an enemy to someone in high places all they have to do to smear you or cause trouble for you is look at what you've said on an email or a forum, now take it from there. What's good for the Country is not the goal of either party, in the future something will have to be done to neutralize all the division caused by these self serving politicians. The constitution has served us well and anyone deviating from following the constitution should be barred from ever holding any public office.

It's hard to have Net Neutrality when you have a very small group of people telling you what you can say or do! Freedom of Speech for the Win.........

Thanks for your input. A thread has been started regarding this issue, here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I say tell Google to pound sand where the sun don't shine, and I don't mean London. The HAIF banners are nothing like the Google Doodles, so I say keep them coming. Giving in to an implied threat only encourages the bastards.

Bring on the Money-Guns-and Lawyers. Or is it Sex-Drugs-and Rock & Roll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally got around to reading this - then showing it to an IP attorney-friend of mine.

@Editor: I don't think you have anything to worry about. The excerpt you quoted isn't the whole story (no pun intended). The crux of the patent is in its primary, independent claim, as follows:

A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising: instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, where the instructions for creating the special event logo includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images; instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating to the special event; instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page; instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the special event based on the user selection.

In other words, the patent is given for a specific process through which a special event logo is created that specifically stores instructions related to searches/documentation related to the special event. As long as you don't do that, in particular, you should be okay.

You may also notice that the examiner even references a special event Yahoo logo (here), the creation and distribution of which precedes the filing of the patent application by Google by 5-1/2 years.

My friend suggests that even IF the patent is interpreted by Google in the way you've suggested - i.e., in the broadest way - it can still be challenged on the basis that such an interpretation would imply a characteristic of the process or logo which is neither new nor non-obvious. Remember: The exclusive rights granted by a patent to its holder are not irreversible; an eligible third-party - in this case, you - can file a challenge against the patent holder which can result in a change in its interpretation or even in a retraction of the patent grant itself.

I'm not an attorney - I'm a business consultant who has helped clients with patents in the past, who has also sought unofficial legal advice in this matter from an IP attorney. Based on the above information, which I believe to be true, I really don't think you have anything to worry about. I'd advise seeing if you can contact an attorney or patent agent in this matter; you may even be able to contact someone at the UH Law Center for a bit of pro bono advice. I'd really hate to see HAIF lose this to the 'big, bad' Google.

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...