Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Admits to Using Sohu Database

Posted by CowboyNeal on Mon Apr 09, 2007 06:46 PM
from the cut-and-paste dept.
prostoalex writes "A few days ago a Chinese company, Sohu.com, alleged Google improperly tapped its database for its Pinyin IME product, stirring controversy on whether two databases were similar just due to normal research process. Today Google admitted that its new product for Chinese market 'was built leveraging some non-Google database resources.' 'The dictionaries used with both software from Google and Sohu shared several common mistakes, where Chinese characters were matched with the wrong Pinyin equivalents. In addition, both dictionaries listed the names of engineers who had developed Sohu's Sogou Pinyin IME.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Google Faces Plagiarism Questions Over Chinese Software 187 comments
yaohua2000 writes "Google's laboratory in China has launched its first product, a Pinyin Input Method Editor. The software allows the romanized characters to be translated to more traditional Chinese symbols , via entering on a QWERTY keyboard. Users soon discovered that the data Google used for the product was unusually similar to the data used by a Chinese rival, Sogou. Google has evaded the question about software similarities, reports PC World. 'The similarities, which included an error involving the name of a celebrity, were noted on a Google Labs discussion board about its Pinyin IME. Users noted that entering the Pinyin pinggong into the Google IME incorrectly produced the name of Feng Gong, an actor and comedian.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Tackhead (54550) on Monday April 09 2007, @06:53PM (#18669449)
    > Today Google admitted that its new product for Chinese market 'was built leveraging some non-Google database resources.' The dictionaries used with both software from Google and Sohu shared several common mistakes, where Chinese characters were matched with the wrong Pinyin equivalents.

    ...including the ones for "plagiarize", "research", and apparently a new one for the 2000s under "leverage".

    Leverage! Leverage!
    Let no one else's work cut short your edge,
    Against the truth you can surely hedge,
    So don't cut short your edge,
    But leverage, leverage, leverage!

    (One man deserves the credit! One man deserves the blame!
    And Sergei Brin Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name!)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2007, @06:55PM (#18669459)
    "In the future, Google invents a time machine that's used by a rogue employee to travel back in time to give Sohu this database. It's clear then that Sohu stole our database."
  • I'm sure someone will step up and help them save face in this embarrassing situation! When in doubt, you can always try to change the subject, that has worked well in the previous thread. Now that I think about it, we need a RoughlyDrafted-esque site for Google, anyone up to the task?
  • This reminds me of (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Diordna (815458) on Monday April 09 2007, @06:57PM (#18669475) Homepage
    "Stolen from Apple Computer" (whole story [folklore.org])
  • by slashbob22 (918040) on Monday April 09 2007, @06:58PM (#18669481)
    I guess Google Labs will have to subscribe to Turnitin.com now.
  • So... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2007, @06:58PM (#18669491)
    When caught making a mistake, they admit it, work to resolve it, and move on?
    I think there are a few other companies who could learn from that approach ...
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Timesprout (579035) on Monday April 09 2007, @07:16PM (#18669611)
      'Mistake' is a bit euphamistic here. The dictionary was never made public yet Google somehow managed to accquire it. They have not complied with Sohu's requests to date. They dragged their feet over the whole issue and only came clean when there more than sufficient proof they were infringing.

      Its not the first time Google have taken a fairly liberal interpretation of someone elses copyright either.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2007, @07:35PM (#18669709)
        > They have not complied with Sohu's requests to date.

        One of Sohu's demands was to remove it. They did that, even prior to the cease & desist deadline, per the article. It sounds like they'll have to compensate Sohu next, which isn't overly surprising. As for where they got it, perhaps someone sold it to them? We don't know, so I'll reserve judgment about whether it was acquired in an un-Google "evil" way until we hear the rest of the story.

        > It's not the first time Google have taken a fairly liberal interpretation of someone else's copyright either.

        As for the copyright stance, I honestly don't care. Yes, I dislike Microsoft's hypocrisy concerning copyright, but I don't really give a damn about imaginary property at this point in time, and I don't see Google out there telling people that copyright infringement is evil, wrong, Communist and anti-American.

        Frankly, I'm more inclined to distribute my works with only one request: that you do not acknowledge my authorship in any way. Of course, almost the only way to enforce that is to post AC :-)
        • In my mind, there is some question of whether a database of facts should, in fact (hee hee), be copyrightable at all. The characters were not original. The pinyin is not original. The pinyin for each character is, in fact, well established. Why should a compilation of public-domain facts which in itself is a derivative work be copyrightable?

          It reminds me of a court case a few years ago in Thailand, where a judge put several Thai fonts into the public domain, stating "No one owns the Thai alphabet. It belongs to the people."
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            meh, the argument for why compilations of public domain "facts" should be considered a copyrightable work is that it is work to compile those facts. Why people can't understand that not all work results in property is beyond me, but there's ya reasoning.
              • Again, it is not the "known data" that is at question here, but the database as an object in its entirety.

                Nobody is accusing Google of "copying Chinese characters", but rather of copying a specific collection that somebody has invested time and money in creating. This is not a corpus, but rather more like a dictionary. Anyone can create one, but google - which I have emminent respect for in other areas, but not this one - has decided to take somebody else's "dictionary" rather than creating their own. The
      • Its not the first time Google have taken a fairly liberal interpretation of someone elses copyright either.

        Perhaps so. But then, Google has billions of dollars in the bank. They have no need to steal anything from anyone, and every reason not to.

        Can you really suppose that anyone in Google management decided to snag Sohu's database? Google is in the database business, so they know all about the salting of databases. They had to know that any commercial database will be filled with giveaway records (e.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Breakfast Pants (323698) on Monday April 09 2007, @07:16PM (#18669613) Journal
      Actually, when caught, they just removed the developer's names from the dictionary. When a big deal of it was made, *then* they went to town 'not doing evil'. They still haven't said how it happened; I bet they will quietly settle it, and we will never hear more.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      When caught making a mistake, they admit it, work to resolve it, and move on?
      I think there are a few other companies who could learn from that approach ...


      What a great approach indeed! Steal, and if caught, deny it a little, then cover it up.

      Actually I think Google learned that from someone else's company, or is Google "innovating" here? A debate for the coming generations.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2007, @07:02PM (#18669519)
    surely after helping so many students copy their research papers you should know the number 1 rule of copying another persons work: Change the F*CKING NAME!
  • Is this a single isolated incident or simply the first one of more coming from the company that does no evil?
  • by GFree (853379) on Monday April 09 2007, @07:12PM (#18669587)
    "Do no evil"

    should be changed to

    "Do just a tiny bit of evil"

    which at this rate will probably end up as

    "All your web are belong to us"
    • Do no evil, or don't get caught.
      We redefine evil.
      Emulate or Innovate, which ever is more convenient.
    • by LarsG (31008) on Monday April 09 2007, @07:33PM (#18669695) Journal
      This reminds me of Animal Farm and how the commandments on the barn wall changed.

      The people outside looked from Google to MS, and from MS to Google, and from Google to MS again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  • Car stereo (Score:4, Funny)

    by DogDude (805747) on Monday April 09 2007, @07:17PM (#18669623) Homepage
    So then, did the guy who stole my car stereo, was he "leveraging some non-car thief assets"?
  • Do no evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by z-j-y (1056250) on Monday April 09 2007, @07:26PM (#18669671)
    Google is going to release a statement that stealing code/data is not evil in China, and Google must fit in local cultures and abide by local laws.

    Seriously, this is just pathetic. I am appalled by the Google apologists on slashdot.

    Chinese input is a well established market; Google Giant forces itself into the market with a product that is very similar to existing ones and offers no innovation. That is not evil enough? They did this by stealing data and who knows what from others. Mind you that the data is not publicly available, so Google must have committed certain crimes to obtain the data.

    For those who don't see what's the big deal: the mapping from ASCII sequence to Chinese character/phrase is not trivial; actually it is what Chinese input is all about.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      There is no way to tell if the copying was done by 'Google' or if it was done by some engineer on their own. Sure, 'Google' needs to take steps to make sure that they what they put out meets some sort of standard, but the backpedaling and what not is pretty much the response you would get no matter how the copying was initiated, so there isn't much reason to assume where the responsibility for the copying lies.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Or done by a Chinese company which Google outsourced to. Isn't that how all corporations do their evil? Outsource it to Evil Inc. Everyone except Microsoft and Enron I guess.
    • Google Giant forces itself into the market with a product that is very similar to existing ones and offers no innovation. That is not evil enough?

      So, offering a 'me too' product is now evil?
    • Re:Do no evil (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShawnDoc (572959) on Monday April 09 2007, @08:07PM (#18669943) Homepage
      This is a serious problem when dealing with Chinese companies. Now that Google has opened offices in China and has staffed them with native Chinese people, they're going to have a hard time enforcing western style ideas about copyright and what constitutes "doing no evil". Its a problem we've run into in the past with our Chinese operations. The way the problem was "solved", by removing the engineers names, but still clearly using the other company's engine (they didn't remove the identical bugs), is something I have seen happen in the past when dealing with our R&D team in China when we've found them using code they "borrowed" either from open source code or from an engineers past employer. I've never seen it handled in public like this however. Google is going to need to take some serious Q&A steps in their Chinese offices to keep stuff like this from happening again or else risk their Chinese office ruining the entire company's reputation.
    • I'm appalled, too. I'm also surprised. What I'm not is a Google apologist. I still stand by the crux of my comment [slashdot.org] based on my work in I18N and with IMEs.

      Google must have committed certain crimes to obtain the data.
      No, or at least, "Not necessarily intentionally". The dictionary could've been indexed via the spiders. It could've been indexed via the desktop search app. There are lots of ways that Google could've got the information. Anyone who works for Google, knows the deep ins and outs of their data

  • Ok, so we do do some evil, but jusy with our competitor's code. That isn't so bad, is it?
  • OK, so now that Google has admitted to copying the sohu.com pinyin database... exactly how did they get a copy in the first place? Is there a publicly available file for personal use or was there some sort of web scraping or what?

    I suspect that there's more to this story that we're not hearing.
    • by tooyoung (853621) on Monday April 09 2007, @08:45PM (#18670171)

      OK, so now that Google has admitted to copying the sohu.com pinyin database... exactly how did they get a copy in the first place? Is there a publicly available file for personal use or was there some sort of web scraping or what?

      I suspect that there's more to this story that we're not hearing.


      Exactly. Reading 95% of the comments for this story and yesterday's story, everyone seems to think that this is about stealing code. This is about Google using the same data to train an algorithm. Both algorithms make the same mistakes because they were trained using the same data, which contained incorrectly labled information. It is whether or not this data was publicly available that is the issue.

      For (a horribly contrived) example: Lets say that I write some hand writing recognition software using a neural-net. In order to train my software, I use a large database of handwriting samples that I have found on the web. However, the person that compiled this database made the mistake of labeling all of the sample images of the letter 'n' as the letter 'q', and all of the images of the letter 'q' are labeled as the letter 'n'. Person B comes along and uses the same data set to train a naïve-Bayes classifier. Guess what? Both algorithms will make the same mistakes when it comes to the letters 'n' and 'q'. Not because I stole code from Person B, but because we used the same training data.

      I'm not defending Google at all here. If they stole the data from Sohu, they should get in trouble. Based on the fact that Google is in the web-mining business, I would guess that they just grabbed this data off of the net, and someone forgot to think about if they had the right to use it.
      • To paraphrase Wirth: "Programs = Code + Data"

        According to TFA, the data (which apparently was built by the Sohu company) was not publically available and was not licensed to other companies. Obviously, the data must exist in some form within the product itself. That would suggest that either the company had some unsecured internal servers, or that Google hired some of their people who conveniently kept a copy of the data, or they figured out how to decode the data dictionary from a copy of the product.

        I

  • by martin-boundary (547041) on Monday April 09 2007, @07:34PM (#18669705)
    It is clear from this example that _some_ Google engineers have not the first clue about what clean room engineering [groklaw.net] is and when it should be used. Everyone in the software industry is under pressure to produce, that doesn't mean cutting corners is acceptable.

    This reminds me of the recent story about GPL code found in OpenBSD [slashdot.org]. There too, an OpenBSD developer took someone else's code and started modifying it without keeping the GPL license. He apparently thought it was ok to do this as long as all the offending functions would be renamed in the final release, but was caught checking in unmodified functions by accident.

    Google is well known for using a lot of GPL software, but it is also true that they do not distribute the source code of their flagship programs to the public. Episodes like this make people wonder if they "accidentally" use some GPL code in their distributed products without telling anyone.

    • Uh huh. Are you trying to suggest that there is something wrong with this:

      1. Take existing code under incompatible license
      2. Write new functionality and integrate into your code
      3. Test and develop your application until it is "ready"
      4. Replace incompatible code with your own code

      I mean, if you were talking about using proprietary code in the first step then I could imagine that you might have some kind of argument.. but it's GPL code man.. you're free to do whatever you want with it. Only when you distrib
  • Ironic (Score:5, Funny)

    by smackt4rd (950154) on Monday April 09 2007, @07:42PM (#18669775)
    So now american companies are pirating chinese software? Oh the irony! :)
  • ... Theo De Raadt says that the Chinese are INHUMAN.

    *ducks*
  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Monday April 09 2007, @08:22PM (#18670025)

    If you ask around in the GIS/mapping community, it's known that the [street] map data providers (Delorme, Garmin, etc) will insert garbage data here and there. A street name is slightly wrong, or they have a mystery street that doesn't exist in the real world. They use it to try and tell if/when someone steals their data. If Zyugyz Road in Somecity, CA exists- the legal team fires at will.

    It's kind of weird, considering that most mapping companies do little more than get their hands on town/county/state GIS data for cheap, massage it a bit, then charge assloads of money for it.

    • The same happens with government medical related data. Take the ICD9 database for example. It is distributed in a database format not conducive to programmatic access. For example, there are hundreds of codes with the description of "Other". Its description only makes sense in the context of all its parent levels, which then produces an extremely large, redundant description. Companies will simply reformat the data, take copyright and profit.

      Dan East
  • Shame! (Score:3, Funny)

    by BluBall (16231) on Monday April 09 2007, @08:24PM (#18670047)
    Following the protocols established by the recent OpenBSD/Linux Broadcom driver fiasco, the proper response would be to denounce Sohu for having been ripped off by Google.

    Shame on you Sohu! This is inhuman!
  • by SEE (7681) on Monday April 09 2007, @08:33PM (#18670097) Homepage
    After all, we know that all Google employees are under Total Management Mind Control, and that Google Knows Everything Everyone's Doing. It's not even remotely possible that a handful of Google employees in China could shadily cut corners (using an already-extant database instead of compiling one from their own company's data) without Sergey Brin and Larry Page having personally authorized it from Mountain View, or that it would actually take a bit of time for upper management to investigate an issue when it's uncovered.
    • Oh please... if Google wanted to distance itself from it, they could have done so long ago. "Sorry, mates, some of our employees fucked up, they've been fired and the offending code/product/database is now being pulled off the market until we build our own replacement."

      The whole bullshit, including trying to get away with just deleting the original developpers' names, and press releases about "leveraging non-Google assets" is what's damning Google. It's not just that the original incident happened, it's tha
  • by microbee (682094) on Monday April 09 2007, @09:02PM (#18670255)
    There are a lot of misundertstandings about how IME works and how Google copied non-public databases. So let me explain.

    IME accepts keyboard input and converts it into certain language characters. There are many different input methods that decide how to generate Chinese characters by using English keyboards, and pinyin is one of them (and the most popular one).

    pinyin is popular because it's simple and bears almost no learning curve. However, it suffers the problem of aliasing. For example, "shi" under pinyin will convert into "" "" "" ... in general, the same sequence could map to many different words (could be several dozens), and you usually need to select from them by choosing 1, 2, 3, ...(the input bar will display them from which you could choose, somtimes needing page-down). A native implementation of pinyin is thus very slow and cumbersome to use.

    A good implementation uses following approaches:
    1. adjust word location by how frequently it's used in the past. So most frequently used words are shift to the front, making selection much faster. Typically they should fit into the first page (no scrolling required).
    2. allow partial input for common phrases. This inputs a whole phrase at once, each character only requiring the first English letters. It speeds up input significantly.

    So the quality of the pinyin method depends heavily on how well the input could guess and prioritize the guesses, and thus the dictionary that is being used. And generating this dictionary (keeping it both contemporary and accurate) takes a lot of time.

    The dictionary is typically distributed together with the input method (or it wouldn't work). You could obtain sohu's dictionary by just installing its input method, and Google has likely obtained it this way. However, I don't think it's in an open-standard format, so Google probably has done certain reverse-engineering to be able to actually use it in its own software.

  • by wrook (134116) on Monday April 09 2007, @09:03PM (#18670265) Homepage
    I've been thinking about this. Throwing the evilness of Google aside for a moment, why should someone be able to copyright a listing of the phonetic pronunciation of an alphabet?

    Let's just imagine how I might create this list. I would have to hire people who spoke the Chinese. Then I would ask them to record the pronunciation of each character that they know. This is pretty easy because in Chinese each character has only one pronunciation (per dialect, anyway). There are about 3500 characters that you need to know in order to be literate. And all of these people would have learned these at school.

    But how did they learn them? Well, they had a textbook and they memorized the list from the textbook.

    Wait. I can't just memorize a list from one book and put it in another book. That's copyright infringement. In order for it not to be copyright infringement, I need to make sure that my sources all memorized the pronunciations from different sources. That's going to be difficult.

    But let's say I do that. Now I have a list of the 3500 most common characters. And with that, I've probably got 99% of everything that's in a newspaper. But that's probably not good enough. I probably want a list
    of say 60,000 characters. Otherwise it's pretty useless in a general sense. Uncommon characters are uncommon, but you *will* bump into the words over time.

    So where do I find these characters? Can I hire some guy that knows them all? It would be very difficult. The best place to look is in a book. But wait... what am I going to do? Every time I find a character my people don't know, look it up in a book? Why don't I just copy it from the book in the first place? That's just copyright infringement again.

    Really, the task of creating this list authoritatively without infringing copyright is monumental. Probably the *only* way to do it is with a community project where people just submit the pronunciations they know.

    But if I'm going to have a community project like this, what the heck do I need copyright for? What am I protecting? If everyone is going to contribute, everyone should benefit.

    So, personally, I don't think one should have copyright on this kind of material (same thing for spelling). It's just not in the public interest. This goes doubly so now that we have the internet and creating these kinds of projects is very inexpensive.

    OK, I've gone on long enough... But one more rant. What's with this "do no evil" thing? Isn't that setting the bar a little low. If I told my parents that I'd work hard not to be evil, I think they'd be somewhat disappointed in me. If Google wanted to actually "do some good" rather than "do no evil", they could start a community project to collect this data and share it with the world.

    Sigh... I guess we'll have to wait for some guy in his garage (but here's betting that someone has already started something).
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      This is pretty easy because in Chinese each character has only one pronunciation (per dialect, anyway).

      In the case of mandarin, while it is the case most of the time that each character has only one pronunciation there are cases where are character may have a different reading depending on the compound word it is in. The case with simplified Chinese as per the mainland makes this even more burdensome as multiple characters with different tones or different pronunciations altogether were combined to make

  • by gatkinso (15975) on Monday April 09 2007, @09:38PM (#18670471)
    TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY.

    Ok fine, we have stolen from them before... but Beef and Broccoli don't count.
    • by pedantic bore (740196) on Monday April 09 2007, @09:03PM (#18670263)
      "The internet is about the free exchange of other people's ideas!"
        • Re:Do no evil? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by setagllib (753300) on Monday April 09 2007, @10:00PM (#18670643)
          They're significantly reducing the lockin to Microsoft products, by encouraging, buying and thereafter funding web application projects that often overlap with what is currently locked in to Microsoft. They even brew some of their own sometimes. They continue the development of Linux and Python with a wide adoption of both. All of these things are creating wealth for everyone, and crippling Microsoft little by little, which we know is what we want. I'd much rather have a Google & Microsoft duopoly if it means Microsoft would finally have to clean up its shit and accomodate whatever open source platform Google would support in that scenario.
        • Chinks are chinese, gooks are vietnamese. People need to learn to keep their racial slurs straight or soon we won't be able to tell who anybody hates, and that would be terrible!
          • Re:Is this... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by 808140 (808140) on Tuesday April 10 2007, @12:43AM (#18671923)
            No, actually, "gook" is a term that originated in the Korean war for Korean people. Because many of the soldiers who fought in the Korean war were officers in the Vietnam war, their racial slurs were adopted and modified by a new generation, leading to great confusion about the origins of the term.

            The etymology of the word gook is interesting, because it may be one of the few racial slurs that originated with a people's term for themselves. In Korean, guk means "country" and by extension a country's people; when it is not modified (cf. waiguk, outside country, foreigner) it is understood to be Korea or its peoples. Speakers of Chinese will recognize the word as having sintic origin (gúo, country, and wàigúo, foreign country, respectively, in Mandarin).

            The term was appropriated by the Americans during the Korean war and used as a racial slur for Korean people in general, which must have been confusing to the Koreans (imagine someone using "American" as a slur for Americans to get an idea). Then, in Vietnam, the old "Asians are all the same" mentality prompted GIs to extend its meaning (imagine "American" being a racial slur for all white people, for example -- yes, I know many Americans aren't white, it's not a perfect analogy, deal with it).