Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Patents Transportation Your Rights Online

Google Awarded Driverless Vehicle Patent 121

theodp writes "On Tuesday, Google was awarded U.S. Patent No. 8,078,349 for methods and devices for Transitioning a Mixed-mode Autonomous Vehicle from a Human Driven Mode to an Autonomously Driven Mode. From the fast-tracked patent application, which was filed last May and kept under wraps at Google's request: 'The autonomous vehicle may be used as a virtual tour guide of Millennium Park in Chicago. In the example embodiment, the vehicle may have an instruction to drive to the Cloud Gate (Silver Bean) sculpture at Millennium Park. When the vehicle arrives, the autonomous instruction may tell it to wait in the location for a predetermined amount of time, for example 5 minutes. The instruction may then direct the vehicle to drive to the Crown Fountain at Millennium Park and again wait for 5 minutes. Next, the instruction may tell the vehicle to drive to the Ice Rink at Millennium Park and wait for another predetermined amount of time. Finally, the vehicle instruction may tell the vehicle to return to its starting position.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Awarded Driverless Vehicle Patent

Comments Filter:
  • Slashdot's reaction (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bonch ( 38532 ) * on Wednesday December 14, 2011 @07:35PM (#38377670)

    Slashdot's reaction to this will be interesting. On the one hand, it's a patent, and we know how much Slashdot hates patents, especially when a company tries to fast-track one in a clandestine manner. On the other hand, Johnny Cab [virtualworldlets.net].

  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2011 @07:49PM (#38377878)

    I guess my question is: Why?

    The application is in. The patent is on the way. Once its granted, it will be published for all to see. So the only thing this prevents is public inspection and comment during the review process. Not that the patent examiners pay attention to public comment in all cases. But if they would, this is only an end run around someone calling "Bullsh*t!" on the application.

    Input from practitioners in the art are the best way to shut down worthless patent applications. Before the patent is granted and it will cost someone massive legal fees to challenge.

  • by v(*_*)vvvv ( 233078 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2011 @07:56PM (#38377966)

    No one should have the right to prevent someone from using a solution or an idea. The problem isn't with patents existing, it is with their restrictions on re-use and elaboration by other people.

    When someone claims to have invented something, they're just hiding their sources of inspiration. If we all made our sources open, then we would have so much more to "invent".

    Anyone should be able to use anything and profit. Instead of it being about ownership and theft, it should be about free redistribution, transparency, and paying it backwards to those you owe credit.

  • by Grond ( 15515 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2011 @08:00PM (#38378010) Homepage

    It's pretty much a patent on software. Software for controlling a vehicle, but software nonetheless. Claim 15, for example:

    An article of manufacture including a tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable instructions encoded thereon, the instructions comprising: instructions for detecting a landing strip with a first sensor responsive to a vehicle stopping; instructions for detecting a reference indicator with a second sensor, responsive to the first sensor detecting the landing strip; instructions for identifying reference data associated with the detected reference indicator, wherein the reference data comprises an internet address; instructions for wirelessly retrieving the autonomous vehicle instruction based on at least the reference data; instructions for switching a vehicle to autonomous operation mode; and, instructions for performing the autonomous vehicle instruction.

    This claim format is known as a Beauregard claim [wikipedia.org]. Such claims have long been used as one of several ways of claiming software-implemented inventions, though their long-term viability is somewhat suspect (hence all the "tangible non-transitory" hedging language). The other claims are to a method (also basically software) and to a vehicle running the software on a control module (since Google didn't invent the car, that's basically another software claim).

"Can you program?" "Well, I'm literate, if that's what you mean!"

Working...