Note that this is a <i>design</i> patent. This is not a patent in the ordinary sense; it doesn't mean they're claiming ownership of the idea of a page with a logo and a search box.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent</a>
Since it's a design patent you would have to be really, really, close to the design laid forth in the patent to infringe it.<p>Will this invalidate all search type pages with a logo on top, an input box, and a search button? No. Will this stop a company named go0g13 having a home page with a search box, and two search buttons under the box? Most likely.<p>Honestly though, there is no need for internet outrage about a design patent, taking off the "feeling lucky" button and not having a multi-colored logo similar to Google's should be enough to skate around it.
It really sucks when a company that supposedly has ethics high in their set of values does things like this.<p>If they would just come out and say we're just like all the other cutthroats out there it would be one thing, but to have all these lofty ideals and then to do stuff like this at the same time creates a real problem.<p>People will start to think that this kind of patent is ok. It's not. It's a web based user interface, a hole in a page with a couple of buttons next to it. There have been many sites before google that started out with an interface like that. The only thing special about the google page is that they kept it like that.
I do not honestly know much about patents and the wording of laws, but on the Wiki page about Design Patents the phrase "Thus a design that was arrived at independently can still infringe a design patent." seems troubling. Hopefully it's as Perceval says, that they are just covering their ass from patent trolls.<p>Also Google's patent for "Collaborative web page authoring" <a href="http://bit.ly/2t287H" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/2t287H</a> seems more disturbing than the design one.