Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DoubleClick Banner Ad Patent Busted

Posted by timothy on from the bam-bam-bam dept.

RWoody writes "Noticed today that BountyQuest paid $10 Grand to a porn king for info on the DoubleClick banner ad patent. As always, the porn guys were way ahead of the curve: he had an ad affiliate program long before DoubleClick. Also noticed that they started going after copyrights as well as patents. Not much help for Napster, but I bet there are plenty of companies being pushed around by bogus copyrights, just like with bogus patents."

4 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Captain Obvious Rides Again by SubtleNuance · · Score: 5

    Simple Logic: Why doesnt the Patent Office fire up a Slashcode based website and give the community-at-large an opportunity to diffuse patents *before* they are issued?

    If disclosure is a problem - just issue ALL (*everything* not just technology) patents with a 2-3-4mos. 'community review period. Simple. No more bad patents.

  2. p0rn and pri0r art. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5

    I understand that the p0rn industry also has prior art on lots of innovative ways to make babies, including methods that aren't obvious to every skilled worker in the field.

    --

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. Gotta love those porn guys... by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 5

    You know, seriously, part of me wonders just how much innovation over the internet has come as a direct result of the demands of the porn industry. I mean, where else is personal security being violated more of an embarassment? Where else are video demands as high? I remember when our government office was looking at having some of their meetings broadcast live over the internet, and were wondering if it was possible, and I wanted to say, "Sure! Heh heh, just check out this site over here..."

    --

    --------
    Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

  4. Patent NOT busted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5

    Get your headline right. BountyQuest has identified what it thinks is prior art. As the article states, the patent stands until either a court or the USPTO invalidates it. It appears that geeks know of the law what lawyers know of code.