Well, not quite. Being a bit tongue in cheek. But continuing on a theme of interesting patents, a story in Boing Boing referring to Flickr filing a patent for “interestingness” and how some feel they shouldn’t be able to:
I read the Flickr patent this morning and FWIW I don’t think Flickr should be able to get a broad patent on “interestingness”. There’s a very large number of papers in the image processing and collaborative filtering areas that all define various notions of relevance, interestingness, salience, or novelty. A specific innovative technique might be patentable, but not the general idea of computing how interesting an image or media object is to a person or set of people.
Of course, to flickr’s credit, I’m not sure whether flickr’s patent is so broad to be too broad. It does, after all, go through and enumerate certain steps in its method that don’t necesarily need to be steps in other methods of determining “interestingness”, so I don’t think it really goes so far as to patent the general idea of computing or figuring out how interesting a media object is. If it were,Ã‚Â well, you might be in violation right now. That is, if you find this entry interesting. Or at least more or less interesting that some other entry…