Need Your Help With This New Stanford PageRank Patent

Sharing is caring!

I’m on the road, visiting the main offices of Key Relevance in Texas, many miles from home. I brought my laptop with me, but somehow ended up leaving the power cord home in Delaware. Tonight, while checking for newly granted patents, I came across one naming Lawrence Page as inventor, and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University listed as the assigned owners of the patent.

The new patent is Scoring documents in a linked database, filed December 1, 2004, and granted September 11, 2007. In a number of ways, it is very similar to Method for scoring documents in a linked database, also from Page and Stanford but filed July 6, 2001, and granted September 28, 2004.

As much as I would like to stay up all night looking at Stanford’s new patent, I have about an hour and 1/2 of battery time left. I’d love to compare and contrast the two documents, and point out things like the expanded claims section of the newer document to 14 claim statements in the new document, compared to only one in the earlier version.

If you have the time and inclination, would you take a look at the two, and try to capture the differences between the older version, and the newer version of the patented processes in these documents. I have to conserve a little battery time, to do things like check email, and write blog posts over the next day or two. Thanks.

Sharing is caring!

10 thoughts on “Need Your Help With This New Stanford PageRank Patent”

  1. Well, I shall have a read as it is mildly curious as to why they’d have the two. Let me see if anything is of interest there — Dave

  2. Ok Bill.. here’s what I came up with. There is nothing earth shattering, it looks like some minor editions and edits to me. Here’s details – Tale of 2 search patents

    Hope that helps….

  3. Welcome to Texas, Bill. Hope your stay here is great!

    Any new patent that mentions Google definitely is worth looking at. From what I can tell, I’m not sure if there’s anything earth-shattering, though. Perhaps they just wanted to update the patent?

  4. Thanks, Dave,

    I was hoping that they didn’t sneak anything too drastic in the newer version. Appreciate the detailed look that you took on your site. There were some incomplete sentences in the original, and some ideas that just never took off, at least in Google’s implementation. Would have been fun if there was more there.

    Thanks, Bill.

    My first visit to Texas, and I’m enjoying it immensely so far. I borrowed a power cord, and was able to charge up my laptop’s battery, so I have a couple more hours of surfing before heading back east tomorrow.

  5. Same here, I was captitivated by the thought of them trying to sneak one by, thus my interest. In the end some corrections with the ‘rush to market’ and a few comptuational clarifications was all it seems to be about.

    … but as a fellow ‘over technical’ guy, I couldn’t resits the temptation.

    You have always made me feel so ‘not alone’ in the search world, it was the least I could do……

    Alas… more smoke than fire…. maybe next time.

    Enjoy the time off and keep in touch.


  6. It was great having you take a look at this patent, Dave.

    I’m not sure that Stanford really knew what they had, or how important it might become when the original was published. It makes sense for them to have cleaned this up some, especially with some of the errors in the original.

    It is always interesting to see a primary resource on such an important document, even if it is only there for clarification.

  7. Well, thanks to you I have been a ‘patent hound’ for a few years now and find I learn more usable info from them in search than anywhere else. The mind set of a indexing and retrieval engineer is always handy.

    If you remember, a while back I went nuts on the series of ‘phrase based indexing and retrieval patents ( I wrote about 5 related patents, I can send link if ya want, to many to drop here – search ‘phrase based indexing and retrieval’ – number 4 or so, ‘Reliable SEO’).

    Anyways, I have read them until my eyes bleed, if ya ever want company disseminating something or another perspective, count me in M8.

    … I hope ‘cutting the chord’ for a few days worked out… happy to help, just wish there was more goodies on that one. It certainly seems like clarifications and protectionism. Interesting historically I suppose, as U mentioned, but that’s about it. I am still going to go back over the tightening of the computations, maybe something I missed, but unlikely.

    Later…. best wishes… Dave

  8. Getting that perspective from the search side is invaluable.

    I remember you writing about the phrase based indexing patents in a lot of detail.

    I’ve got another one that I can send your way, that you might find interesting. Was going to wait on it for the weekend, but I can send it your way in the morning, to see what you think about it.

  9. Bill,
    I might be a bit late on this, but (as usual) I am catching up on my readings and will definitely have to take a look and see about this!

  10. Hi Stephen,


    Dave did a very nice job of describing the differences between the older version, and the newer version of the patents. Before you do anything with it, definitely check out his writeup – Tale of the two PageRank patents

Comments are closed.