Amazon's Bezos Wants Web Advertising Patent

Wired? by rbolkey · 2003-03-21 01:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Weren't they the first to have banner adds?

Haven't read the application, but I assume they have some "novel" way of including advertisements.

Re:Wired? by 91degrees · 2003-03-21 01:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Seems to be more a way of handling bidding. Not quite sure how it works, but it looks more like an automated system where the probability of display is related to the bid.
Re:Wired? by bludstone · 2003-03-21 01:52 · Score: 5, Informative

No.

I believe the first people to have banner Adverts was happypuppy.com, tho I could be wrong.

--

no .sig
Re:Wired? by TopShelf · 2003-03-21 01:54 · Score: 4, Informative

It mostly deals with the interactive nature of selecting which ads to present based on the requesting website visitor and the pool of bids for advertising space. This would be novel and worthwhile if it was an older patent, but it says it was filed in October of 2002!

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Wired? by Textbook+Error · 2003-03-21 01:58 · Score: 4, Informative

this is apparently "one of the first". It's an ad for AT&T from Hotwired in 1994.

Anything earlier?

--

Nae bother
Re:Wired? by buro9 · 2003-03-21 02:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

which then becomes interesting as Vignette have patents which cover the personalisation and delivery of web pages and components thereof... So one fool would have just crossed the patent held by another fool... both of which there is prior art on.
Re:Wired? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:17 · Score: 0

This joke wasn't funny in 1987 when it was invented.
Re:Wired? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:18 · Score: 0

I remember netscape.com had banner ads on their main site back when they were the shit.

Man, that was like 8-9 years ago.
Re:Wired? by Zathrus · 2003-03-21 02:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

If it was filed in October 2002 then Amazon is claiming that they didn't use the method prior to October 2001... which I find doubtful. I also question that nobody else was using it prior to October 2001. Which is what needs to be proven to invalidate it.

And while the patent is somewhat novel, I don't think it's sufficiently different from other advertising models (magazine publishing, television, radio) that select what ads to play during which shows to be considered inobvious. But, hey, neither of us are patent clerks. Thank God.
Re:Wired? by 91degrees · 2003-03-21 02:51 · Score: 1

Bizarre. several people have decided to moderate this dull and largely harmless comment. Aren't there any mopre suitable commentsd? What a waste of mod points.
Re:Wired? by JWW · 2003-03-21 03:14 · Score: 1

Prodigy had banner adds in the early 90's. On every page, clickable. I think it would qualify as waaay prior art.
Re:Wired? by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-21 03:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Among patent lawyers, it is widely believed that Wired.com invented the banner ad, and that they lost a chance to be the gatekeepers for online publishers by failing to patent it. Even though banner ads seem like a trivial migration of advertising from paper into electronic documents, apparently the idea was novel enough to have stood a good chance of validity (by the USPTO's loose definitions)

Since then, other companies have attempted to patent more specific aspects of online advertising. Doubleclick.com's patent, for instance, was covered on /. when it came out.

However, the new Amazon patent is (apparently) not for something as general as banner ads, or tracking the users viewing ads- but on selecting ads to run by comparing them with the shopping behavior of a customer.

As usual, that's something which hardly seems worthy of the name "invention". Let us remember: Jeff Bezos agrees that the USPTO accepts patents far too liberally- but as a responsible businessman, he has no choice but to seize every advantage the government offers him.

One could even argue that high-profile abuses of the patent office serve to emphasize it's shortcomings, and set the stage for eventually fixing patent law. Call it a backwards form of civil disobedience, maybe?
Re:Wired? by Qzukk · 2003-03-21 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

as a responsible businessman, he has no choice but to seize every advantage the government offers him.

I wish people would STOP SPOUTING THIS BULLSHIT. Hiding your lack of ethics and/or morals behind the corporate veil is no excuse for this behavior.

Why do corporations feel that they are above the rest of us? If its Bezos's job to take advantage of the government due to poor enforcement for as long as he can get away with it, that must make it my job to take advantage of the government due to poor enforcement by killing people for as long as I can get away with it.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Wired? by TopShelf · 2003-03-21 04:02 · Score: 1

I could give them points for the nonobvious part, just not the prior art. To select advertisers for a particular space on a web page on the fly, based on the characteristics of the user and their activities, cross referencing to the bidding preferences of the advertisers, is indeed a significant advance over the magazine-TV-radio model. A different ad would be pitched to a man than a woman, for example, and also a different ad if they had just come from a search for cookbooks vs. technical reference manuals. That interactive matching makes for better value for the advertisers and more appropriate ads for the viewers. I just find it a little hard to believe that it was done prior to October 2001...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Wired? by Roblimo · 2003-03-21 04:33 · Score: 1

Hmmm... this patent looks suspiciously like the bid-based ad placement system my friend Dmitri Ereshenko has been using on his ispcheck.com site for at least 5 years now...

- Robin
Re:Wired? by Michael+Crutcher · 2003-03-21 04:37 · Score: 2, Informative

I remember using Prodigy in the early 90's or late 80's on a 1200 baud modem and they had banner ads. The adds were banners at the bottom of the page. I remember thinking that alot of bbs's were going to start using adds like that. Of course bbs's have turned into websites over the years.
Re:Wired? by hiryuu · 2003-03-21 04:48 · Score: 1

One could even argue that high-profile abuses of the patent office serve to emphasize it's shortcomings, and set the stage for eventually fixing patent law. Call it a backwards form of civil disobedience, maybe?

I think that's granting it a level of validity and altruism that doesn't remotely exist. This is exploitation of a broken system for a single reason - to make (more) money.

--
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
Re:Wired? by JonTurner · 2003-03-21 05:01 · Score: 4, Funny

If its Bezos's job to take advantage of the government due to poor enforcement for as long as he can get away with it, that must make it my job to take advantage of the government due to poor enforcement by killing people for as long as I can get away with it.

In the off-chance that you're not kidding... when you begin your rampage, can you please start somewhere FAR AWAY from where I live?
Thanks a bunch. --Jon
Re:Wired? by ichimunki · 2003-03-21 05:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think you had a good point up until your murder spree analogy. Murder is clearly illegal and immoral. Taking advantage of an overly vague and broad patent system is not illegal. Finally, the penalty for patent infringement is a civil penalty-- usually a cease and desist combined with some sort of monetary payment. Even so you can always infringe on this patent and hope a jury decides you have a point about how ridiculous the patent is.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Wired? by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-21 05:51 · Score: 1

If its Bezos's job to take advantage of the government due to poor enforcement for as long as he can get away with it,

Bezo has explicitly asked the government for permission to behave this way- and they agreed (that's what the patent application process is).

He's not being sneaky or hiding anything, and thus is "in reality expressing the highest respect for the law". (My apologies to MLK, for slightly twisting his quote. But it's still applicable)

If you'd like to kill some people, then you're free to go to Washington and ask for permission. It may sound like I'm making a joke, but depending on your proposal, they could be quite willing to support you. Maybe you'll even get a gun and ammunition provided! The easiest way to start is by submitting these forms.
Re:Wired? by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-21 05:59 · Score: 1

Agreed that profit is his primary motive.

However, Bezos has stated a belief that the US patent system is broken, and that by publicizing the problem, Amazon creates pressure to fix it.

(That letter was provoked by Tim O'Reilley.
Re:Wired? by notaspy · 2003-03-21 07:44 · Score: 1

The application has an effective filing date of November 10, 1999 (it is a divisional of an application filed that day).

--
hi!
Re:Wired? by geekoid · 2003-03-21 08:00 · Score: 1

No.

Warning, this post is coming from inside your house! ;)

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Wired? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 08:25 · Score: 0

But it's not because of poor enforcement; it's because of poor policy. Is the distinction really unclear to you? It's taking advantage of the system versus cheating the system. Let me explain it:

If you plead insanity after your criminal rampage, and the jury buys it, you're taking advantage of the system.

If you plead insanity, and the jury doesn't buy it, but you blakmail the jurors into an acquittal anyway, you're cheating the system.

Now do you get it?
Re:Wired? by EvilAlien · 2003-03-21 08:27 · Score: 1

Ever downloaded or shared an MP3 rip of someone else's music?
If you answered yes, they you are a hypocrite.

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Re:Wired? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 09:00 · Score: 0

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.
The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance.- Karl Marx
Re:Wired? by Qzukk · 2003-03-21 09:31 · Score: 1

He's not being sneaky or hiding anything

Here you are wrong. The patent process is a back-and-forth process by which Person X says "I want to patent the world", then the USPTO examiner says "You cannot patent the world. Try again."

"I want to patent making things." "You cannot patent making things. Try again."

"I want to patent making shiny things." "You cannot patent making shiny things. Try again."

"I want to patent making shiny things that go zoom." "You cannot patent making shiny things that go zoom. Try again."

"I want to patent discombobulmentarian motion of a pharxic body in respect to the basal notion of tremwise widgetness." "Huh? Well, my kid needs a new bike, and you've managed to confuse me enough, so I'll give you the patent so I can get the commision." ... If you don't believe this is whats going on, just look at the discussion so far. Half the people think this is a patent on online auctions. Plenty of people thought it covers all online ads. Some people think it covers auctioning off online ads. Clearly the patent is misleading, as most modern software patents are.

I lost my cool and used a bad analogy. Clearly murder is nothing like what businessmen do when they kill off entire companies at once. After all, nobody is dead when they're done, they just have their lives ruined. (Oh wait... there was at least one well-publicized suicide due to the Enron crash. But thats OK, the businessmen were merely taking advantage of the government, so there is no blood on their hands)

Considerable fees are involved in having a patent cancelled, and defending against a patent lawsuit is not cheap stuff, and so we sit, watching the gears of stupidity grind on.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Wired? by Qzukk · 2003-03-21 09:42 · Score: 1

My complaint was about how businesspeople hide behind the corporate veil in general. During the Enron crash, there was at least one suicide directly relating to it. But, since the "company" was "merely" abusing vague accounting regulations, thats OK, there is no blood on the hands of the cowards behind the veil pulling the strings of the "company".

So it appears that if the patent is bad, my choices are "pay for it anyway" and "pay for defending it". Why should I have to pay? If I successfully defend against the patent infringement claim, it is unlikely that I can convince the holder (or to convince the court to order the holder) to pay my legal fees, so in the end I (as a single individual who writes software in my free time and may or may not infringe on patent x which I had never heard of) become bankrupt, possibly losing everything I own (normally, there are laws protecting some possessions from bankruptcy proceedings... but as an ex-student, I owe the government student loans, and the government ALWAYS gets their money)

I flew off the handle a bit there and chose a bad analogy. How about if I take advantage of the salvage laws that allow me to take trash from the curbside? After all, those cars left at the curbside must be trash too. I *know* the cars are not trash, just like Bezos must *know* his idea is not novel.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Wired? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 09:48 · Score: 0

I'm with you on this one. Corporate amorality has become a norm of sorts, and these folks garner hero status. When a CEO's main job is to maximize the stock price by any available means rather than maintain quality or service standards, or just plain run the business responsibly, something is very wrong.
I'd hold off on the killin' stuff, if you kill me, I'm kickin' yore ass.
Re:Wired? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 10:18 · Score: 0

Quick, patent banner page subsistution/filtering.
Serving a page is one thing, knowing the sucker saw it is another thing. P2P cookie syncing, so you can get in, old hat.
There are modified browsers out there, that would mortify the fools that buy advertising space.

The shit really hit the fan, when during a live TV broadcast, digital trickery was used to replace signs and hordings.
Wait till people swap PVR rcordings with commercial advertising stripped out - or replaced by other brands!!
No reason why PVR's cannot use spare cycles to filter out advertising altogether during of after the show has been recorded
Re:Wired? by Yokaze · 2003-03-21 11:22 · Score: 1

Well, actually you got the reverse of MLK, Jr.s quote:

An individual who acts within the law despite his conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the profit of taking advantage in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its possibilities, is in reality [fill logical consqequence here] the law"

The rest is left up to the reader.

--
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Re:Wired? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 11:49 · Score: 0

Myself and a couple friends had a site with banner ads that went online in august of 1994. It was with miller beer, so we can definitely get documentation. the site was wit.com if anyone remembers that.
Re:Wired? by ichimunki · 2003-03-21 13:14 · Score: 1

Well, there are other laws against stealing cars, too, which I'm guessing makes them not salvage, even by the roadside. ;)

But don't worry... we're on the same side here. I agree that "the shareholders might sue" is a lame excuse for ethically questionable and often nonsensical behavior on the part of corporations. I also agree that being able to take out questionable patents brings the whole patent system into question.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Wired? by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-21 13:28 · Score: 1

Exactly what I meant.

The most important part of the quote is that the individual acts in full view of the public and government, and thus serves as a messenger of truth and disclosure.

In either the Bezos case, or traditional civil disobedience, by stringently obeying the letter of the law, you can call attentions to shortcomings in that law.

On a related note, the majority of music-swapping copyright infringers are not practicing civil disobedience, because their actions are hidden. But Dr. Jack Kevorkian was, as he publicized his actions.
Re:Wired? by FuegoFuerte · 2003-03-21 18:18 · Score: 1

Try O'Reilly. I read on their site they believed they were probably the first to use advertising on the actual internet at least.
Re:Wired? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-22 01:58 · Score: 0

> In the off-chance that you're not kidding... when
> you begin your rampage, can you please start
> somewhere FAR AWAY from where I live?
> Thanks a bunch. -Jon

He actually did you this favor. He started in Badhdad. Is that far enough ?

Bezos == warmonger! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 01:48 · Score: 0, Funny

No Patents For Oil!

As if I didn't need a reason to NOT use Amazon by ShatteredDream · 2003-03-21 01:49 · Score: 5, Informative

There's always ebates.com's 4% money back deal for buying from barnes and nobles' website (and they have a long-running special, buy two or more items and get free shipping). Yeah, Amazon, you're not making it any easier on me.

--
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!

Re:As if I didn't need a reason to NOT use Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:05 · Score: 1, Interesting

I thought Amazon ran B&Ns website. So buying from them will only help Amazon.

I say... by codezion · 2003-03-21 01:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

Us, the community, should apply for patents for every good thing out there so that these predetors can't get a hold of it first. CVS is the first thing that comes to mind.

-- CodeZion

Re:I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:31 · Score: 1, Informative

Okay as long as you supply the $5k fee per patent application.
Re:I say... by Pharmboy · 2003-03-21 03:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Okay as long as you supply the $5k fee per patent application.

Our last patent was closer to $8k including legal fees and prior art searches. Many cost much more.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:36 · Score: 0

Us, the community, should apply for patents for every good thing out there so that these predetors can't get a hold of it first.
Us should apply for patents? I don't think you'll be getting any clever patents going, genius.
Re:I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 13:39 · Score: 0

8k including prior art ? ... at that rate Amazon's must've been real cheap!
Re:I say... by Pharmboy · 2003-03-21 13:48 · Score: 1

8k including prior art ? ... at that rate Amazon's must've been real cheap!

It all depends on the research necessary, thats often the biggest expense. Of course, if you lie like hell, fudge your fact (knowing the pat. off. wont check up on you anyway) then you can save a bundle. We didn't do that. more technical patents are more expensive than these 'theory' patents. Like the patent for using a static link for connecting to dynamic content. Yea. its really a patent.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

I hope the GET the patent by watzinaneihm · 2003-03-21 01:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe this will be the end of pop-up ads :-). Just don't go to amazon

--
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR

Re:I hope the GET the patent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 01:55 · Score: 0

I am currently working on a patent for spam. My royalties will be cheap - $0.01 per message.
Re:I hope the GET the patent by the_other_one · 2003-03-21 02:03 · Score: 1

Is that $0.01 per message sent or message received?

--
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Re:I hope the GET the patent by GeckoX · 2003-03-21 02:17 · Score: 1

For you, special deal! You can pay $0.01 for sending messages which will entitle you to receive messages for a meager 1 cent each! What a deal ehh?

--
No Comment.
Re:I hope the GET the patent by gilesjuk · 2003-03-21 02:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Good idea, someone patent spam quick!!
Re:I hope the GET the patent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:13 · Score: 0

Like there's no prior art on that. ;-p
Re:I hope the GET the patent by gilesjuk · 2003-03-21 04:42 · Score: 1

True :)

But it's the technical details that you would patent, automated mailings etc..

I hope he gets it by davetrainer · 2003-03-21 01:50 · Score: 5, Funny

How much easier would our lives be if amazon.com were the only site on the entire www with advertisements?

Yes, wishful thinking, I know.

Re:I hope he gets it by _Eric · 2003-03-21 01:54 · Score: 1

They wouldn't. They want to charge anyone on the blocks for using their patented groundbreaking discovery.

How long until they patent breathing?
Re:I hope he gets it by _Eric · 2003-03-21 01:57 · Score: 1

(sorry I repost, previous post looks broken)
They wouldn't. They want to charge anyone on the blocks for using their patented groundbreaking discovery.

How long until they patent breathing?
Re:I hope he gets it by 42forty-two42 · 2003-03-21 04:05 · Score: 1

Already been done. ;)
Re:I hope he gets it by fatcat1111 · 2003-03-21 05:46 · Score: 1

Does anybody read the articles any more? The patent pretty clearly states that it's a method for on-the-fly agent bidding for banner space. Not on banners themselves.

I think that this is actually a pretty good idea, if you accept banners at all (personally, I block them. Call me a hypocrite), and probably doesn't have prior art.

--
How Politicians Lie: http://www.factcheck.org/

Good news! Or not? by Frans+Faase · 2003-03-21 01:50 · Score: 0, Interesting

If the patent would be granted that would be the end of online advertizing, as it is unlikely that anybody can still make some profit if they have to pay royalties for each advertisement. But that would also be the end of many free services.

Re:Good news! Or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 01:54 · Score: 0, Funny

Something needs to be done about this.
I still say patenting the proccess of patenting would put a swift and complete stop to all of this. It just needs to be vague enough to cover every patent ever issued.
Re:Good news! Or not? by elvum · 2003-03-21 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

No it wouldn't, because this is not an application for a patent on online advertising. For goodness' sake, actually go and read the application (linked in the story, even!) instead of writing knee-jerk reaction posts based on what you think it might be.

As for the moderator who thought this was "insightful", you should be ashamed of yourself.
Re:Good news! Or not? by Oddly_Drac · 2003-03-21 02:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

"this is not an application for a patent on online advertising"

Correct, although it appears to be based on every search engine's system of allowing paid links, which I believe goes back to Yahoo and AltaVista circa 1998.

Bezos has just sunk to a new low in terms of the crowd of idiots trying to patent things after the fact. For shame.

OD

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Good news! Or not? by 0xB00F · 2003-03-21 02:42 · Score: 4, Informative

It's not an application for a patent on online advertising. Rather, it's a patent application for how one gets one's advert/banner on a target webpage through a bidding system. i.e. you bid for what's called in the patent claim as "display space" the more you bid the more chances your ad will get placed on the page, thereby increasing visibility.

Either way, I am sure there is prior art for this.

Way to go Jeff!!! Rack up those patent claims. One day when your company eventually fails to become profitable, you can use those patents to sue other companies for $$$!
Re:Good news! Or not? by Virtex · 2003-03-21 03:45 · Score: 2, Funny

instead of writing knee-jerk reaction posts

<humor>
Given that it's Amazon that filed the patent application, I think these knee-jerk reactions are justified. I looked up "frivolous patent" in the dictionary and it said "see Amazon". You just can't argue against that.
</humor>

--
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.

Yea!!! by ryanvm · 2003-03-21 01:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Yea! No more banner ads! Welcome to the Internet circa 1993.

Re:Yea!!! by doodleboy · 2003-03-21 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wanna party like it's 1993? Just: Use mozilla to disable pop-ups and nosy cookies. Use the proximitron or filterproxy, depending on your OS. Use a big-ass hosts file and edexter (or eDexterJavaDog for non-windows users) if you want.

I use nt at work, linux at home, and I don't do ads. Bottom line, WE control what happens on our computers. Let's not forget that we have this power, or that we're going to have to fight to keep it.
Re:Yea!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:53 · Score: 0

Oh and don't forget to throw out the millions of AOL users and assorted dorks of other ISPs !
Re:Yea!!! by GigsVT · 2003-03-21 04:08 · Score: 1

Wanna party like it's 1993? Just: Use mozilla

But can it insert "Under Construction" signs on every page, and reformat every page to use way too many frames??

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Yea!!! by rI'HaD+martaq · 2003-03-21 15:12 · Score: 1

To stay on topic: I believe that Amazon trying to patent this is just sheer greed. They already make money from all the orders placed through them. They supplement this income by way of implementing a system that tracks your purchases and what you browse so that they can suggest products to you that you have a high chance of buying. Ads are simply a money grab my Amazon.com, in my opinion.
And now the offtopic part ;) - Ads? What are those? ..Umm, oh, those annoying things that waste my time and try to waste my money!
I haven't seen one in ages, especially since I use Ad Muncher ;) I beta test Ad Muncher for the developer, and it's a great piece of shareware. And it happens to be an excellent (and tiny!) program to help you take back control over what's displayed on your screen when you surf the web.
For example, in addition to having regular in-line ads, skyscraper ads, popups, mouseovers, and a bunch of other ads removed, I have Ad Muncher configured to block all SWF files, remove code that prevents me from right clicking, and a bunch of other stuff. Extremely handy, and the install file of the latest beta is only 136k. And yeah, that's the whole program, not just an installer stub. Last I heard, the beta is due to go gold within a week or less.
Some of you reading this might think that I'm insensitive to the webmasters of various popular sites, preventing them from staying on the 'Net by depriving them of a source of revenue. To that I say, how much do you think they make from advertisements? Not much, I can tell you.
Just as shareware asks you to pay nominal fee if you find the software to be of use, I have no problem with a website asking for a nominal fee if I find their content to be of use.

--
Qapla'!
Re:Yea!!! by Baloo+Ursidae · 2003-03-21 22:51 · Score: 1

Better yet, let your roommates in on the fun, too! Grab a spare box (or if your gateway's got a beefy (~300MHz or better) proc, your gateway box and then you can do it transparently), Squid, and Adzapper for a redirector. Takes about 20 minutes to install once compiled, including the time it takes to read the documentation to get it all set up right.
Debian users are halfway there once they
apt-get install adzapper squid
in Sid.

--
Help us build a better map!

What? by James_Duncan8181 · 2003-03-21 01:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Was this filed on April 1st?

--
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."

Re:What? by bheerssen · 2003-03-21 03:42 · Score: 0, Offtopic

No, man, it's O.K. You can go back to sleep now. We'll let you know when Duke Nukem Forever is released.

--
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Re:What? by Daetrin · 2003-03-21 04:14 · Score: 1

Strange, as far as I can remember, Gore never claimed to have invented anything.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Sounds more like eBay to me... by erat · 2003-03-21 01:51 · Score: 3, Informative

I only read the top part of the patent application, but the "advertisement" stuff actually sounds more like a typical eBay auction page (complete with the ability to take bids) than a banner ad.

I could be wrong.

Re:Sounds more like eBay to me... by Apreche · 2003-03-21 02:07 · Score: 4, Informative

You are indeed wrong. Slightly. It's not a patent on all web advertising. Nor is it a patent on ebay style auctions.

It is a patent on web advertisements that take up real estate on a web page, which would exclude pop ups, and flash flyouts would be gray area. Specifically when selling those advertisements based on bids. So you will be able to sell ad space on your site for a fixed rate, or a scaled rate, but not to the highest bidder. If this goes through, then techically and legally Amazon will be the only site that can sell banner ads, text ads, etc. to the highest bidder.

--
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Re:Sounds more like eBay to me... by Xformer · 2003-03-21 02:51 · Score: 1

Exactly. The only thing I've seen before that it seems like this might affect is the search keyword bidding that Tucows makes available to developers. Not that I've ever used that anyway with my software listings, so I'm not sweating :-)

--
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
Re:Sounds more like eBay to me... by Qzukk · 2003-03-21 03:31 · Score: 1

So negotiating the highest price possible for the ads will be a patent infringement? (how is this different from selling ads to company x who will pay more? from company x bidding more?) I wish the patent office would learn some common sense.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Sounds more like eBay to me... by frdmfghtr · 2003-03-21 05:16 · Score: 1

For example, the advertiser of a kayak cover may specify an advertising plan that specifies to display the advertisement on detailed web pages within a browse category of "kayaks," that specifies to display the advertisement to users are 18-30 years old, and that specifies to display the advertisement during evening hours for a given month.

And just how do they know how old the user is?

Scanning the patent app, it looks like it is an automatic means of buying and placing ads. The ads and bids are in a central database, and whomever is willing to pay the most gets the ad space for that particular served page. When the points are used up, that ad is deleted and the next highest bidder's ad is placed.

In essence, ad space is automatically auctioned, similar to eBay. Do I read this correctly?

Not that any of this matters to me. AdSubtract (http://www.adsubtract.com) blocks ads from my sight, auctioned or not. :)

--
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?

looks like we're screwed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 01:51 · Score: 5, Funny

I just talked with Al Gore and he said he helped Amazon place the first one on the web. Looks like they got this one.

What? by mschoolbus · 2003-03-21 01:51 · Score: 2, Funny

I always thought Al Gore invented those too...

Did you read the patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 01:51 · Score: 5, Informative

This is not a patent for all advertising on web pages. It is for a method of allocating display space to advertisers based on a bidding system.
NOT "all web advertising"

Re:Did you read the patent? by watzinaneihm · 2003-03-21 01:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

. A method in a computer system for allocating display space on a web page, the method comprising: receiving multiple bids indicating a bid amount and an advertisement; receiving a request to provide the web page to a user; selecting, based at least in part on review of bid amounts, a received bid; and adding the advertisement of the selected bid to the web page.
24. A method in a computer system for selecting an advertisement to present to a user, the method comprising: identifying an advertisement for an item to be presented to the user; when an advertisement for a related item has previously been presented to the user, analyzing activity of the user associated with the advertisement for the related item; and when the analysis indicates that the user may not be interested in the item of the identified advertisement, identifying an advertisement for another item.
Covers most of advertising on auction sites and targeted advertising methinks. IANAL!IANAL!!!

--
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
Re:Did you read the patent? by pork_spies · 2003-03-21 02:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is /. - of course nobody read it. They were all posting desperately in the hope they'd get the low hanging karma-fruits.
Re:Did you read the patent? by unitron · 2003-03-21 02:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

"It is for a method of allocating display space to advertisers based on a bidding system."
Don't newpapers and magazines do this already?

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:Did you read the patent? by Pharmboy · 2003-03-21 03:34 · Score: 1

This is /. - of course nobody read it. They were all posting desperately in the hope they'd get the low hanging karma-fruits.

Wow, nice analogy. I might have to steal that one and pretend I made it up.

Moderators, mod the parent up.......... oh wait.... ;)

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Did you read the patent? by pwtrash · 2003-03-21 05:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

IANAL. Unfortunately, I have done a good bit of patent crap.
The independent claims are the important part. There are 4 (#1, #10, #24, & #27). The first two are more about the producer, whereas the last two are about the consumer.
#1: Auction process of web page display space. (Since it does not presume automation, this probably has some severe prior art issues. However, an automated bid process might have some footing.)
#10: Point-based purchasing system for web page display space. (I have no idea if this has any merit or not. I would bet this has been done in non-advertising web pages before. They might be asked to make this more specific.)
#24: Targeted ad exclusion & replacement based on user responses to previous ads for products like it. (Notice that this is not specific to web pages, but to computer systems. Since your digital cable box can probably be considered a computing system, this might have some crossover effect with some of the ad targeting pursued by cable companies, although it does take into account measuring user response.)
#27: Targeted ad inclusion. (Same basic stuff as #24 except inclusion-based, not exclusion-based)
Pretty interesting. I wonder if folks are doing #24 & 27 yet. You would think so, but that requires pretty good user tracking.
Re:Did you read the patent? by MagikSlinger · 2003-03-21 06:36 · Score: 1

IANAL!IANAL!!!

You certainly are not. It says it's a specific method for selecting advertisements to present to a user. It's not patenting the idea of selecting advertisements to present to a user. You can still put ads on your web-page, but you can't use an auction-style selection algorithm, which is what Amazon is patenting.

So yes, you got one thing right: you are not a lawyer.

--
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com

Hmmm..... by mistermund · 2003-03-21 01:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, one could consider that those who apply for these patents on various forms of annoying web advertising could really be held responsible for those. I mean, how many times have you said to yourself, "If could only find the !#@*&er who came up with these things"? Now we have the answer. Anyone want to register the patent for spam?

Prodigy was first by niola · 2003-03-21 01:52 · Score: 4, Informative

I worked for Prodigy in the early 90's and we used to run banner ads on our old proprietary service back as early as 1991.

If you google it, Prodigy is often regarded as the first.

--Jon

Re:Prodigy was first by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:04 · Score: 0, Funny

we used to run banner ads on our old proprietary service back as early as 1991.

You killed the Internet! You bastards!
Re:Prodigy was first by telstar · 2003-03-21 02:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, but that's the logical answer. The US Patent Office is only really concerned with who files a PATENT for something ... not if there's any merit to the patent application.
Re:Prodigy was first by Zathrus · 2003-03-21 02:29 · Score: 1

Yes, and AOL was doing it prior to Prodigy on their proprietary service.

I (or, more likely, my parents) somehow got solicited as a beta tester for AOL when they were first releasing their PC client. This was in the late 80's. It ran on GeoWorks and sucked... badly. Didn't handle anything faster than 2400 baud (I believe I had a USR 9600 HST at the time) and apparantly used xmodem as the transfer protocol.

And while AOL still sucks, it doesn't suck nearly as much as it once did. Scary thought.
Re:Prodigy was first by diablobynight · 2003-03-21 02:55 · Score: 4, Informative

It isn't just a patent on banner adds. It's a patent on banner adds that are displayed through a certain process. Please read the article before posting.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:Prodigy was first by Dun+Malg · 2003-03-21 04:10 · Score: 1

It isn't just a patent on banner adds. It's a patent on banner adds that are displayed through a certain process
Yes, but that's like patenting "newspaper ads printed on printing presses using (new print process A)", when adverts have been in newspapers for years, only printed with (older print process B). The method of delivery is irrelevant, unless you're patenting a delivery process alone, which they are NOT.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:Prodigy was first by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 04:59 · Score: 0

Please read the article before posting.

You're new here, right?
Re:Prodigy was first by diablobynight · 2003-03-21 07:16 · Score: 1

Companies do patent printing processes for printing specific kinds of graphics. The point is that they developed a method of getting specific banners to specific users. As apposed to showing me tampon banners and a women penis enlargement banners.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

RTFP by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 01:53 · Score: 0

It's ebay for selling banners ads. Bezos is dumping all his ad sales staff it seems since he won't be needing them anymore.

Oh pu-leeeze! by unitron · 2003-03-21 01:54 · Score: 1, Funny

This whole Amazon patents fire and the wheel situation is going from ridiculous to hilarious.

Can I patent adding something that isn't an ad to a web page?

--

I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Re:Oh pu-leeeze! by telstar · 2003-03-21 02:26 · Score: 1
"Can I patent adding something that isn't an ad to a web page?"
- Shhhhhh... You're giving them ideas!
Re:Oh pu-leeeze! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 11:08 · Score: 0

Pretty soon you'll be able to patent the novel idea of a webpage WITHOUT advertising on it!

Hmmm by Ravenscall · 2003-03-21 01:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thin this may actually be a bid to make Amazon a profitable entity?

I have not been paying much attention to thier profit reports of late, but it seems that royalties, even very small royalties, on this would put them over the top.

Either that or do away with banner ads altogether, which I cannot really complain about :-)

--
You say you want a revolution....

How is this going to effect Google??? by terraformer · 2003-03-21 01:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

A method and system for allocating display space on web page. In one embodiment, the display space system receives multiple bids each indicating a bid amount and an advertisement. When a request is received to provide a web page that includes the display space, the display space system selects a bid based in part on the bid amount. The display space system then adds the advertisement of the selected bid to the web page.

This seems *very* similar to Google's system of advertising. The rest of the patent also seems to be like ad words.

--
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.

Re:How is this going to effect Google??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 01:56 · Score: 0

It's an ad auction. Those have been around since 96 for sure. But wouldn't this proccess infringe on the other auction patents issued over the last couple years? Do the patent people even care?

Ok... Jeez...enough is enough.... by eyegor · 2003-03-21 01:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

As much as I try to like Amazon.com, they keep pissing me off with their patents. What's next? Patenting buying books on the internet? Patenting online sales that are available 24 hours a day?

Stuff like this will only serve to stifle competition on the internet (which is probably the intent) and generally muck up internet commerce in general.

In a capitalistic society, greed is good, But Mr. Bezos is taking it a bit too far, I think.

Time to start boycotting them.

--

Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.

Re:Ok... Jeez...enough is enough.... by TheDauthi · 2003-03-21 02:49 · Score: 1

He needs to get the patent on getting stupid patents. Sure, there's prior art, but I think he could do it.
Re:Ok... Jeez...enough is enough.... by fudgefactor7 · 2003-03-21 03:03 · Score: 1

You know, if every (American) wrote to your congresspersons and demanded a department that had the right to review and revoke patents and trademarks this sort of thing could be contested and dealt with at a federal level. It would also help weed out the loser ideas at the get-go since they'd be instantly afraid of filing for something that might get challenged and revoked.

...just a thought...

Actually, do we WANT to challenge this? by Fallen+Kell · 2003-03-21 01:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Seriously, if they get a patent on banner ads, and charge people for using the patent, everyone who uses banner ads will have to stop as I am sure they do not make enough money to cover the costs along with the patent costs. So in the end, NO MORE BANNER ADS!!! YEA!!!!!!!! CHEERS!!!!! JOY!!!!!

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"

Re:Actually, do we WANT to challenge this? by roman_mir · 2003-03-21 03:13 · Score: 1

Bullshit, we'll just have to pay more for the products sold on the web since there will be another hidden cost (banner ad licensing cost) in it too.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Actually, do we WANT to challenge this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 05:36 · Score: 0

try just ignoring it.

i think you'll find that doing so will have absolutely no impact on your life, and you'll obviously remove some unwanted feelings of annoyance from your system.

Patent spam by Alain+Williams · 2003-03-21 01:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you think that if I got a patent that covered spamming then we could all heave a sigh of relief ... ?

Please repost all comments from last patent by jj_johny · 2003-03-21 01:58 · Score: 1

This topic is really stale. Every one of these patents has the same basic issues and everyone posts the same stuff each time. Could we just put up stupid, repetitive items (stupid because of USPTO actions) and not allow any comment - cause I read it all before.

Re:Please repost all comments from last patent by PrimeNumber · 2003-03-21 04:52 · Score: 1

No doubt.
I think someone should have a cron job that automatically submits stories about dumb patents, Microsoft security vulnerabilities, and case mods every week. You can further enhance this system by automatically having it post *those really redundant and lame* 'In Soviet Russia', 'In other news...', and BSOD jokes. Throw in a few clever ELIZA generated trolls and 'I know I am going to get modded down for this...' posts and you could sell rubber neeeples and rule the world!

I did, I did!!! by adamofgreyskull · 2003-03-21 01:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Quite, and isn't the Google advertising model sort of similar to this?

I.E. A system of showing ads based on companies' bid amounts??

Re:I did, I did!!! by cabraverde · 2003-03-21 03:34 · Score: 5, Funny

I.E. A system of showing ads based on companies' bid amounts??

Yes, I'd say that sums up IE fairly accurately!

Boycott by n1ywb · 2003-03-21 01:59 · Score: 1, Redundant

That's just the last straw. I will not buy from Amazon again.

--
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com

The only thing Bezos won't try to patent by unitron · 2003-03-21 02:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Apparently the only thing ol' Jeff won't be able to justity getting a patent on is making an actual profit off of doing business on the internet.

--

I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Re:The only thing Bezos won't try to patent by Ravenscall · 2003-03-21 02:14 · Score: 0

Just because it does not work does not nmean you cannot patent it ;-)

I mean, check out the magnet bracelets and whatnot they hawk to the terminally hypochondriac.

--
You say you want a revolution....

Press release/ Patent issues as free advertising by SolemnDragon · 2003-03-21 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

has anyone considered- and i know that many of you probably already have, but i'm wondering whether anyone has read articles, has inside views, etc- the fact that these stupid patent issues maybe keep coming up because you can't buy publicity like this? For every 50 people who look at amazon now and think, 'stupid patent lawsuit,' there are going to be a half dozen like my grandmother, who only remember, "hey! came up with the first internet ad system!" regardless, of course, of whether this is true or not.

And those half dozen or so, the ones who answer spam, the ones who believe everything that they see on the TV ads for Ebay, are now the targets for a whole new realm of name-awareness advertising... Patent lawsuits, class action lawsuits, and so on. The whole McDonald's thing- that's one in reverse. People say, 'oh, look at the dumb class-action lawsuit' (regardless of its validity or silliness, these people are only going to hear about it in the media, where it's been given the general spin already) and will recite, 'people who can't control their eating habits-' then go on to discount the lawsuit altogether, and the "McDonald's" logo has gotten one more creep into their brains. So they go have a Bic Mac. Yeah, i know that this might get a lot of nasty responses from clever people who have something to pick at with all this ramblimng, but how bout it? Are lawsuits becoming a whole new marketing venue?

--
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.

In other news... by ar1550 · 2003-03-21 02:04 · Score: 1

Amazon sues popular Internet tech site Slashdot for patent infringement after the editors displayed "banner ads" for online retailer Amazon.com.

Oh wait...

Seriously, WHY do the Amazon & assorted ads at the top of the page have the exact same text style, color scheme, etc., as Slashdot content? At least force them to change the background color, a la Google ads.

--
I once shot a man in Reno 'cause they cancelled Firefly.

I hope that he gets it. by WindBourne · 2003-03-21 02:05 · Score: 1

Someone *has* to have prior art on this In a way, I hope not. Beezo may be using this as a way of showing how stupid patents are, as applied to software. Beezo has shown himself to be more in the grey area than black area. At the very least, he may actually force the web to undergo massive changes.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

the first honest lie of the internet mania by kraksmoka · 2003-03-21 02:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

who needs banner ads anyway? the only traffic that a banner ad really drives is the volume on the floor of the nasdaq (well, on the network anyhow). seriously folks, they do some good, and did alot of good when they were so new they were still interesting, but the reality is, they were the first honest lie of the internet boom.

that being said, i hate stupid patents.

--
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel

irony ? by tmark · 2003-03-21 02:05 · Score: 1

Sure would be ironic if those 50,000 online banner impressions on oreillynet.com Amazon receives ... turn out to constitute patent infringement.

Even if Amazon received a whole dollar for every single impression - which you can sure they don't - the total is a drop in a large bucket.

Prior art by UtilityFog · 2003-03-21 02:06 · Score: 5, Informative

This patent seems to be mostly about selling space for ads via an automated market process. FWIW, I published a paper in 1998 describing a similar process (to be used for the design of, e.g., chip layouts). The ref is

Hall, J Storrs, Louis Steinberg and Brian D Davison (1998) "Combining agoric and genetic methods in stochastic design" Nanotechnology 9 No 3 (September 1998) 274-284

the paper can be found here

Re:Prior art by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · 2003-03-21 02:59 · Score: 1

Automated Marketing is making in-roads into all sorts of areas.

I used to be involved in a project at one of the big Telco's that was looking at automated marketing of transatlantic bandwidth.

As far as I know it never got off the ground because the telco industry couldn't organise a jumble sale with the state it's in at the moment.
Re:Prior art by Cy+Guy · 2003-03-21 03:19 · Score: 1

This patent seems to be mostly about selling space for ads via an automated market process.

Well, SPAM selling banner ad space was being sent out at least as early as
February 1996. I love how the text of the spam says the site displaying the ad the gets two - three hundred hits per day.

(Note the 'patented' process for having an ad embedded in my /. sig below)

--
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Re:Prior art by Sebby · 2003-03-21 03:20 · Score: 1

so go submit it to the USPTO as such

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null
Re:Prior art by GigsVT · 2003-03-21 04:02 · Score: 1

Maybe spam is useful after all. Wow.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.

Plenty of alternatives by dark-nl · 2003-03-21 02:09 · Score: 4, Informative

There's a huge list of other online booksellers at noamazon.

Too bad... by sh00z · 2003-03-21 02:09 · Score: 1

...Robert Crumb didn't patent his version of this image.

Agreed... by Lysol · 2003-03-21 02:10 · Score: 1

I 'came back' to Amazon after a length boycott during the O'Reilly/Bezos 'solution to patents' days. However, it seems that Bezos doesn't really care about being a good software neighbor anymore. Thusly the only thing I (and others) can do is to definitely hit 'em where it hurts most - the pocketbook. I will never again (or until Bezos gives up all patents, or the patent office does something wonderful and amazing, like nullifying all software patents - fat chance!) buy anything from Amazon and make sure my friends and relatives do the same. I just deleted all my whish list and other various pieces of info.

I agree, this is getting utterly ridiculous and Bezos is turning into a real cancer (if I may just throw that term around) on the Internet community.

As far as greed being good for a capitalist society, it's actually only good for a few. Hmmm, sounds like so many kings, queens, and dictators throughout history.

why? by Joe+the+Lesser · 2003-03-21 02:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

You know, I really wonder what is going through Bezos' mind. I think most people in the tech field are going to scoff at this, and he's just damaging his reputation by blatantly trying to patent something that everyone uses.

Sometimes these tech lords really don't help their case.

--
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)

Re:why? by GigsVT · 2003-03-21 04:15 · Score: 1

If you look at the thousands of MS or IBM patents, you'd see why. Most of the time, these companies get away with this stuff. It's only by Bill's grace that he doesn't use the MS patent portfolio in an offensive way, but it's always there, their ace in the hole.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.

It's only time before by FunkyMarcus · 2003-03-21 02:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Superflous Patenting Patented

SEATTLE, March 20, 2004 -- Amazon, Inc. (Pink Sheets: AMZNQ) announced today that the U.S. Patent Office has granted it a patent for "a method to systematically patent all things obvious and previously discovered by others." Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, indicated that this patent places the company firmly on the path to reorganization as an intellectual property and rights management firm. "I fully expect this strategy to enable us to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection later this year," Bezos said at a press conference this morning, where he outlined his plan to an enthusiastic crowd of such totalitarian dictators as Fidel Castro and Bill Gates. The remaining points of his strategy include patenting patent infringement as well as a method to litigate patent infringement cases.

Mark

Re:It's only time before by Randolpho · 2003-03-21 02:23 · Score: 1

Comedy Gold!

--
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson

In related news... by SlashdotLemming · 2003-03-21 02:13 · Score: 4, Funny

In addition to patenting "adding advertisements to web pages" Slashdot reports that in the same patent, titled "Method and system for allocating display space", Jeff Bezos is also trying to patent "adding the word 'and' to a patent application".

The Slashdot community is in outrage

"There must be prior art. I mean someone must have the word 'and' in a patent application" writes one reader.

"I never read the patent, but I can see from the other comments that this monster is really trying to patent the word 'and'!! How ridiculous. The patent office is ensuring its own doom with this one."

"No one is sure if Bezos' secret agents in the patent office will get this one approved," reports the Slashdot editor who posted the story, "but this is yet another sign of the impeding downfall of western civilization"

Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:28 · Score: 2, Funny

You silly person, that's utterly ridiculous. I mean:

"No one is sure if Bezos' secret agents in the patent office will get this one approved," reports the Slashdot editor who posted the story, "but this is yet another sign of the impeding downfall of western civilization"

there's only one spelling and one grammar mistake in that. Slashdot editor comments require a minimum of three easily-spotted errors.

Prior Art by dmarx · 2003-03-21 02:15 · Score: 2, Informative

AOL used banner ads in its online service well before the establishment of Amazon.com.

--
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"

Re:Prior art this, prior art that by Elbereth · 2003-03-21 02:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

The only reason this article was posted is because the Slashdot "editors" know that they'll get a zillion posts complaining about the patent office. One or two of these Slashbots are bound to click on the banner ads. Even if they don't, those ad impressions will generate a few cents.

In other words, the story is a troll.

Is it just me, or does every submission on Slashdot have more links than actual words now? What the hell is up with these people? Why is O'Reilly mentioned in this submission? Why are there so many links? Why does anyone care about this stupid patent?

Back to reading about lesbian monkeys...

The Claims are what is important by cryofan5 · 2003-03-21 02:17 · Score: 5, Informative

I work as a patent agent. THe claims are what determines the area that the patent covers. Let's take a look at claim 1, which should be the broadest, most encompassing claim in the patent:
1. A method in a computer system for allocating display space on a web page, the method comprising:
receiving multiple bids indicating a bid amount and an advertisement;
receiving a request to provide the web page to a user;
selecting, based at least in part on review of bid amounts, a received bid;
and adding the advertisement of the selected bid to the web page.
>>>
It's clear that the "advertisement" is an advertisement of an item up for bids on an online auction, such as ebay. Therefore, this patent does not deal with online advertisements such as banner ads, etc.
However, this patent attempts to claim online auctions. Period. In that sense, it is very broad and all-encompassing. If Bezos gets this claim, he gets the rights to a monopoly on online auctions, in many senses.

Re:The Claims are what is important by cryofan2 · 2003-03-21 02:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

I work as a patent agent. THe claims are what determines the area that the patent covers. Let's take a look at claim 1, which should be the broadest, most encompassing claim in the patent:
1. A method in a computer system for allocating display space on a web page, the method comprising:
receiving multiple bids indicating a bid amount and an advertisement;
receiving a request to provide the web page to a user;
selecting, based at least in part on review of bid amounts, a received bid;
and adding the advertisement of the selected bid to the web page.
>>>
It's clear that the "advertisement" is an advertisement of an item up for bids on an online auction, such as ebay. Therefore, this patent does not deal with online advertisements such as banner ads, etc.
However, this patent attempts to claim online auctions. Period. In that sense, it is very broad and all-encompassing. If Bezos gets this claim, he gets the rights to a monopoly on online auctions, in many senses.
>>>

Also, don't forget that an infringer must infringe on all claims. Sso therefore, the advertisement must be in the context of a online auction.

--
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
Re:The Claims are what is important by cryofan2 · 2003-03-21 02:31 · Score: 1

OOps. I meant to say that the infringer must infringe on all elements of the above claim.

--
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
Re:The Claims are what is important by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:41 · Score: 0

Good insight. It seems as most people who complain about patents do not understand the complexities of the patent system and regulations.

Furthermore, people have to realize this is nothing more than a publication, not a patent. It has no legal weight, except for use as prior art. According to the USPTO website's PAIR system, this application is sitting on a shelf gathering dust and has not even been touched by an examiner.
Re:The Claims are what is important by Qzukk · 2003-03-21 03:40 · Score: 2, Informative

It's clear that the "advertisement" is an advertisement of an item up for bids on an online auction, such as ebay

Wrong.

"selecting, based at least in part on review of bid amounts, a received bid;
and adding the advertisement of the selected bid to the web page."

This is indicating that the ad is added to the webpage based on (at least partly) the amount of the bid. It covers both outright sale of a slot to the highest bidder (you paid the most, so your ad will always show up), AND sale of the same ad slot to multiple people, with timesharing based on the amount each bid (A paid $1000, A's ad shows up 90/100 pages. B paid $100, B's ad shows up 9/100 pages. C paid $10, C's ad shows up 1/10 pages.)

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:The Claims are what is important by poot_rootbeer · 2003-03-21 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's clear that the "advertisement" is an advertisement of an item up for bids on an online auction, such as ebay.

You read it wrong. The patent is on a system for allowing advertisers to bid on ad avails, and has nothing to do with the content of the advertisements.

If you really are a patent agent, thank you for proving to Slashdot that patent agents do indeed lack the comprehension skills necessary to evaluate technical patent applications.

How Pathetic by masq · 2003-03-21 02:20 · Score: 1

Everytime a company starts pushing for stupid, anal patents like this one, I swear I can psychically hear their accountants jingling the company's last two coins together and nodding ruefully.

In other words, Amazon's fast on the way to a permanent financial dirt nap and are desperate to stay alive by any means necessary - kind of like SCO.

and auctions in general... by zogger · 2003-03-21 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

..and auctions in general have been around since caveman days probably. Just another corporate abuse of the system.

I am starting to get the "impression" pun intended that any company composed of more than two people should be suspect of being crooked and just generally lame.

And any governments of more than ONE person.

I think it's time to just scrap patents all together and scrap copyrights, or at most make them for a very short period, like two years max. And I don't care about the temporary economic models, it will change to whatever it needs to change to, because humans want stuff more than they don't want stuff, so stuff will still get invented and built and sold.

I'd also like to see an end to corporations being "persons", where the profits are protected and accumulated and spent by HUMANS, but the liabilities always seem to go to this fictititous "person".

This stuff is just completely out to lunch outta control.

out of control by SubtleNuance · 2003-03-21 02:21 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Attention Americans:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop the insanity in Washington. Allowing "patents" like these are a direct result of your Plutocratic administration.

Can you people PLEASE vote for someone other than a Republicrat?

Re:out of control by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:40 · Score: 0

I don't vote for authoritarian Christians. I won't vote Democrat either, if that's what you want; Soviet Russia is proof enough that socialism is a fraud. I vote Libertarian. Government has no business granting monopolies, redistributing wealth, or legislating morality.
Re:out of control by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 06:54 · Score: 0

Attention SubtleNuance:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE fuck off! Really, you can leave and nobody will miss you.

Thank you.

B&N online is dependent on Amazon by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-03-21 02:22 · Score: 1

There's always ebates.com's 4% money back deal for buying from barnes and nobles' website (and they have a long-running special, buy two or more items and get free shipping). Yeah, Amazon, you're not making it any easier on me.

I could be wrong but isn't run by Amazon?

That's why it's got the same interface - rather than develop their own technology to cater for online customers, B&N licensed Amazon's technology from them. A bit like buying an off-the-shelf database as opposed to writing your own one.

Amazon might not be profitting as much from a B&N online sale as it would from a similar online sale that it made itself but it's still making money on that sale somewhere.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:B&N online is dependent on Amazon by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-03-21 02:24 · Score: 1

Grrr. Damn HTML screwed up on me. Here's the post as it should have appeared.

There's always ebates.com's 4% money back deal for buying from barnes and nobles' website (and they have a long-running special, buy two or more items and get free shipping). Yeah, Amazon, you're not making it any easier on me.

I could be wrong but isn't Barnes & Noble's web site isn't run by Amazon?

That's why it's got the same interface - rather than develop their own technology to cater for online customers, B&N licensed Amazon's technology from them. A bit like buying an off-the-shelf database as opposed to writing your own one.

Amazon might not be profitting as much from a B&N online sale as it would from a similar online sale that it made itself but it's still making money on that sale somewhere. [barnesandnoble.com]

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:B&N online is dependent on Amazon by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-03-21 02:27 · Score: 0

Ignore that second "isn't" in the third paragraph down.

This is what you get if you post in haste.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:B&N online is dependent on Amazon by robocord · 2003-03-21 02:41 · Score: 5, Informative

I believe you're thinking of Borders, not BN. BN and Amazon are still bitter enemies, AFAIK. Amazon has taken over Borders, We Be Toys 'N Shit, and a few others. BN is still separate, but a sad shadow of Amazon.com.

If you really want to Fight the Man(TM), you might want to check out Powell's City of Books
Re:B&N online is dependent on Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:01 · Score: 1

Dude... learn to use that preview button in the post form... :)
Re:B&N online is dependent on Amazon by StandardDeviant · 2003-03-21 05:20 · Score: 4, Informative

And for cheap computer books, a phrase I predict to be quite popular on this site ;), you can take a look at Bookpool. Cheap prices, nice interface, quick shipping, and great service. What's not to like? With bookpool, I haven't bought a single computer book from Amazon in years...

--

News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Re:B&N online is dependent on Amazon by indiigo · 2003-03-21 05:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Living in Portland, Powell's management is seen as "The Man." They've been exploiting their workers for 10+ years and severely punished former employees at attempting to form a labor union.

http://www.nwlaborpress.org/12-18-98Powells.html

--
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-86 8650 3-985-fdsg8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-9
Re:B&N online is dependent on Amazon by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 07:06 · Score: 0

Cool. Someone sharing useful information on slashdot. Thanks much.

I never buy from Amazon anyway. For some reason, they've always seemed morally bankrupt. I typically support my local bookstores if I can. Still, I'm just another unemployed tech person trying to find a job so the locals will have to wait for me to make more money. Until then, it's the inexpensive online tech book path for me.

Not a Patent Yet... by InfraredEyes · 2003-03-21 02:23 · Score: 1

...this is a patent APPLICATION. The words "United States Patent Application" in the top left-hand corner really should have tipped you off.

This is a ploy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

I thought Bezos was a proponent of patent reform. Maybe he's acquiring bogus patents in order to make a mockery of the U.S. patent office, and so help bring change in the long run..?

Look at the old BBS's by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Most of the older BBS's, Major BBS, WildCat, etc.. before the web was around, offered many of services now being patented, e-commerce, advertising, classified ads, forums, ratings, files sharing, online games, and on and on, AOL and Prodigy were BBS's before web. Anybody got an old Boardwatch Mag, look at some of the advertisments for these software packages, BEFORE software patents were available!!

Prior art holders and USPTO by Zocalo · 2003-03-21 02:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

A thought just occurred to me reading the Slashdot write-up for this. Inevitably when someone patents something stupid under the USPTO there is a comment about prior art in the Slashdot write-up, the tone of which seems to be "if someone has prior art, then the bad patent will go away", but is this *really* the case? Suppose I have the ultimate prior art on a bogus US patent but hadn't applied for a patent because I thought it was so obvious, could I produce the prior art, overturning the patent, then apply for a patent of my own and sue the ass off the original patent applicant for licensing fees, since they would now be infringing on *my* patent?

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

Re:Prior art holders and USPTO by McFly777 · 2003-03-21 03:09 · Score: 2, Informative

could I produce the prior art, overturning the patent, then apply for a patent of my own and sue the ass off the original patent applicant for licensing fees, since they would now be infringing on *my* patent?

Nope. You have to apply within one year of the original disclosure of your idea to *anyone*. Therefore, if you could produce the prior art, the most you could do is get the patent invalidated, but you would have to go to court to do that.

--

McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Re:Prior art holders and USPTO by Minna+Kirai · 2003-03-21 03:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

No.

To apply for a patent, paperwork must be recieved at the USPTO within 1 year of the invention's public use or publication. "Prior artists" who hadn't thought about filing a patent before will usually find it's too late to start one now.

(Note that once the application process has started, it's possible to drag it on for years and re-apply several times before the patent is granted or denied. Some companies have intentionally delayed the awarding of their patents, as a way to extend the eventual expiration date)
Re:Prior art holders and USPTO by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:35 · Score: 1, Informative

could I produce the prior art, overturning the patent?

Yup, you can cite it, challenge it, have it ruled on, appeal the ruling and realize your efforts

No, but I read the misleading title and submission by gosand · 2003-03-21 02:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is not a patent for all advertising on web pages. It is for a method of allocating display space to advertisers based on a bidding system. NOT "all web advertising"

It would be nice if people read the articles that were posted here, but sometimes that isn't possible because the sites get slashdotted.

What would be even nicer is if the submitters and the editors would read the articles themselves, and not put a bunch of misleading information into the submission and the title.

You know what else would be nice? A cold beer.
One out of three ain't bad. :-)

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

My New Patent by djkitsch · 2003-03-21 02:34 · Score: 1

I have just patented a method for reading information distributed worldwide by means of a chair, internet access and a web browser running on a computer.

I believe you all owe me royalties?

--
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)

Re:My New Patent by Holi · 2003-03-21 02:50 · Score: 1

Not me, I am standing.

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Re:My New Patent by djkitsch · 2003-03-21 03:01 · Score: 1

I didn't say that it matters what you're doing with the chair...

--
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)

I have *never* voted Republican. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:37 · Score: 0

I don't vote for authoritarian Christians. I won't vote Democrat either, if that's what you want; Soviet Russia is proof enough that socialism is a fraud.

Warez by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:38 · Score: 0

How about all of the warez kids putting ansi/ascii art in their file_id.nfo?

Finally! by aborchers · 2003-03-21 02:41 · Score: 2, Funny

A way to make money from banner ads!

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.

This is for AUCTIONS guys... by CokoBWare · 2003-03-21 02:42 · Score: 4, Informative

I have read the abstract, and everyone who has their nipples in a twist should actually read the abstract. He's not patenting web advertising per se, but advertising relating to bids in auctions. I would have thought that the word "bid" in the patent application would have given this away.

BTW, I hate dumb patents.

Re:This is for AUCTIONS guys... by cultobill · 2003-03-21 03:27 · Score: 1

I have read the abstract, and everyone who has their nipples in a twist should actually read the abstract. He's not patenting web advertising per se, but advertising relating to bids in auctions. I would have thought that the word "bid" in the patent application would have given this away.

I love it when people act indignant but are wrong :)

The "bid" is for the advertising. This is the method of taking bids from advertisers ($x for y impressions) and having the webpage decide which one to use on the fly. In essence, the ad serving system used by most of the web.

Like so many other posters, I am torn. Would they actually slow/stop the ever growing flood of web ads? Would they simply be assholes and demand money from their enemies? Will they siply sit on it like a nuclear weapon, ready to loose at the poor company that pisses them off?

--
-- Bill "Houdini" Weiss
Re:This is for AUCTIONS guys... by poot_rootbeer · 2003-03-21 04:29 · Score: 1

No it's not!!

This is about BIDDING on ADVERTISING, not ADVERTISING for BIDs.
Re:This is for AUCTIONS guys... by CokoBWare · 2003-03-21 05:15 · Score: 1

Heh... I'll admit it when I am a doofus too... I read the patent... obviously not too well.

No big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 02:43 · Score: 0

The patent is for a way to bid for advertisisng space on a web page. If you win the auction, your advertisement is listed on a web page.

No big deal, especially if your bid is too low.

shame on you. by Erris · 2003-03-21 02:44 · Score: 1

No it wouldn't, because this is not an application for a patent on online advertising. For goodness' sake, actually go and read the application (linked in the story, even!) instead of writing knee-jerk reaction posts based on what you think it might be. As for the moderator who thought this was "insightful", you should be ashamed of yourself.

That's quite a slam and like most slams it's uniformative and wrong. I just read most of the damb, dull generic description of a mundane function. Nowhere did I see details that might differentiate this from ANY sytem of selling advert space to the highest bidder. Can you tell me why having a clerk answering a sales line would not be covered by this? The patent obviously tries to make exclusive common business methods.

What's next, a patent on sorting made so general that anyone who uses the alphabet owes them money? Every few months these idiots remind me not to shop with them.

--
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.

Re:shame on you. by elvum · 2003-03-21 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Can you tell me why having a clerk answering a sales line would not be covered by this?

Yes. The first sentence of the first paragraph of the patent is "A method and system for allocating display space on web page."

I don't want to argu by diablobynight · 2003-03-21 02:48 · Score: 1

But I think you misread the patent greatly. And seem to have said something very silly. The patent had multiple details stating why a person answering a phone would not be covered by this. Please re read the patent, his slam was accurate.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

Your going to get modded down for that by diablobynight · 2003-03-21 02:51 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Slashdot has greatly declined, there is no doubt about that. They throw up hasty articles. That don't really matter, and word them in a way that will scare or disturb slash dotters. I think Slashdot should team up with Fox News, They seem to have a lot in common. Mod me down, see if I care.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

Am I the only one... by Quietust · 2003-03-21 02:55 · Score: 3, Funny

...who initially read the title as "Amazon's Bozos Wants Web Advertising Patent"?

--
* Q
P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.

re: Do the patent people even care? by McFly777 · 2003-03-21 02:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

To a certain extent they don't, and that is part of the way the system is designed to work.

As an example, If I had a patent on the concept of a stool (probably called an elevated sitting device ;-) but my patent describes a board with three legs, somebody else could patent an improvement of a stool with 4 legs. For that matter a thrid person could patent a stool with 4 legs and a back (essentially a chair).

Neither of the improvment inventors could make or sell their improved sitting devices without paying me royalties for my basic patent. I however could not utilize any of their improvements without paying them royalties.

Often in cases such as these, a cross licencing contract is created to allow us both to use the other's patented ideas. This is why IBM et al. try to get patents on anything and everything; if you try to sue them, they reach into their files and find something where you infringe on one of their patents.

This is the difficulty in the patent examiner's job. He has to decide whether an application is essentially the same as an existing item, or is an improvement on the prior art. Often, the examiner may ask the applicant to remove one or more claims (which the examiner thinks are duplicative of the prior art) leaving only the claims that represent the improvement.

--

McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman

Correct. Prior out exists. by abulafia · 2003-03-21 03:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

I contracted to a company called Narrowline in 1994-1995. They were an early competitor to Doubleclick. The important difference was that they attempted to be a neutral market for advertising, matching buyers and sellers.

The system was exactly what what described here.

Now I need to hunt down the folks who used to work there...

--
I forget what 8 was for.

Grrr by Moloch666 · 2003-03-21 03:03 · Score: 1

I've been day dreaming about a cold beer since this morning. I've had a very stressful week. All I can think of is getting home, firing up the grill, cooking some buffalo burgers, and getting nice and drunk.

--
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek

Wrong word by ComputarMastar · 2003-03-21 03:06 · Score: 1

Its not "and", its "web".

Only an Application by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:06 · Score: 0

It has to be remembered that this is only a publication of an application with no legal weight except as prior art.

According the USPTO website, this application is sitting on a shelf gathering dust and has not even been touched by an examiner.

prior art avenue by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:10 · Score: 0

Here is a book I purchased a couple of years ago off of Amazon that would prove valuable in uncovering paths toward prior art:

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Internet advertising is still a business finding its legs, but it is already an important part of most successful commercial sites. And for companies that are not Web-based, the Internet is now an important medium to consider for marketing strategies. In the second edition of Advertising on the Internet, authors and Net advertising professionals Robbin Zeff and Brad Aronson survey the current state of advertising online.

Though many of the concepts the authors present are extensions of traditional advertising issues, the book offers a very comprehensive view of things; even seasoned Webmasters will learn from this title. The various advertising models and techniques are illustrated, with the balance of effectiveness versus user annoyance discussed frequently.

In addition to the technical aspects of getting your word out on the Web, the book also covers special international considerations, legal restrictions and cautions, and targeting techniques, plus it includes a lengthy resource list. Zeff and Aronson's analysis of the Web details how to track site and user statistics to monitor usage patterns and ad effectiveness. Whether you're a techie or not, this book provides some useful insights. --Stephen W. Plain

Topics covered: Online ad models, direct marketing, Web measurement, targeting, pricing models, selling ads, buying ads, market research, international advertising, legal issues, and advertising for free (or almost).......

Also, I wonder what sort of similar bidding systems have been built for tv/radio add placement that would deem this "invention" as obvious.

Prior art? So what? by surprise_audit · 2003-03-21 03:13 · Score: 1

Why would prior art stop this particular patent? The USPTO doesn't seem to have given prior art much consideration in a number of other recent trivial patent applications...

I have a feeling.. by radon28 · 2003-03-21 03:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I bet he's not going to try to patent anything like crashing your helicopter in Texas.

Re:I have a feeling.. by stephanruby · 2003-03-21 11:07 · Score: 1

Thank god he didn't die, or we would never have been blessed with this great ad-delivery innovation.

Pud from F***'d Company by caldroun · 2003-03-21 03:20 · Score: 1

Was just explaining how he does this on The Screensavers last night.

--
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg

Read it again... by rdean400 · 2003-03-21 03:27 · Score: 4, Informative

The patent application is for a system allowing advertisers to bid for advertising space available on a website and the plumbing to make that all work without human intervention. It is not for advertisements in and of themselves.

However, I really question the non-obviousness of the implementation. Any practitioner of the art would be able to easily create this...there's no value in its disclosure to the IT community, and so the value of the "invention" as an advancement of the arts and sciences is pretty well worthless.

petents by evanism · 2003-03-21 03:27 · Score: 1

Sorry, since when has reality hit?. Patents on the obvious, things activly done since 95?.

Dropping bombs on innocents?. Deny it as an individual... I'm innocent! Why should facts get in the way of a good murder, perhaps politcal spin would help.

I know, I'll hire a lawyer to cover a "complaint" patent. Can I patent a war?... Thats my idea!, no the yanks obviously hold this patent... they bought it many years ago....

--
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.

Re:petents by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:54 · Score: 0

Can I patent a war?... Thats my idea!, no the yanks obviously hold this patent

That patent expired a long time ago, bloke.
Re:petents by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 09:28 · Score: 0

Don't drink and post, kids

hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:32 · Score: 0

I love how that comment was modded off topic, but when someone says something like, First post or some shit, it's modded up as funny. Who are these moderators, they must have been that kid who talked to himself in highschool.

And I want a pony! by Thud457 · 2003-03-21 03:39 · Score: 1

errrr, what I really want right about now is a cold, frosty beer!
Or eight.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"Liberal" media's lies by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:42 · Score: 0

Excerpted from this interesting article

Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that he could patent the science, though that's how the quotation has been manipulated. Hence the disingenuous substitution of "inventing" for the actual language.

But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"

Wired is good for sense of wonder science articles and gadgets, but I'm not sure you should trust their political reporting.

Guess it doesn't matter now, Bush used this kind of crap to make Gore untrustworthy enough to steal 2000, so it's kind of moot. Wonder if oilfields would be burning under President Gore?

OH, ITS A PROFIT THING! by Pharmboy · 2003-03-21 03:45 · Score: 1

Ok ok ok ok, I think I have figured all this patent stuff out. We were all wrong. All these patents are filed for network testing and cost savings only. Follow my thought processes here (scary, but try):

1. file obscene patent.
2. get it posted on Slashdot.
3. your servers are flooded with tens of thousands of /. users just reading and hax0rs with an ax to grind.
4. assuming your network doesn't buckle, you now have fully tested your network servers for the small cost of a patent, saving your company hundreds of thousands of $ in tradional testing ;)
5. Profit. oh, no wait, wrong gag.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Prior Art: Search Engines by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 03:47 · Score: 0

This patent is not about showing web pages, but about SELECTING them. But that's what a search engine does.... based on information, it selects the best fit results. Payment for web ads equates to payment for search result listings. Other currency relates to advertising "points" as to "number of links" and other non-tangeable scores.

This is simply a dynamic selection based on several criteria.

Yahoo? by supabeast! · 2003-03-21 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is it just me, or does anyone else remember Yahoo making money with advertising before there even was an Amazon?

OK, so can we block the patent? by Qzukk · 2003-03-21 03:53 · Score: 1

Is there a process for arguing against a pending patent? Can we demonstrate prior art (for instance googlewords, where ad placement is based on the amount paid) to keep the patent from ever being issued? Is there anything we can do short of expensive legal action?

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.

Notes on the patent by garyrob · 2003-03-21 03:57 · Score: 1

It appears to be about the situation where people bid for ad space. Emergent Music does that. A lot of sites do, it arguably includes the phenomenon of "text ads" such as are used on Kuro5hin. One thing that is important to keep in mind. This isn't a patent, but a published application. The patent has not been issued or approved by the PTO. However, once a patent is published, companies that would infringe if it were issued can be contacted, and if they continue to use the claimed matter, can be sued for damages retroactively when it is issued. The patent was applied for on October 8, 2002. It seems obvious that there was plenty of prior art. I don't know, though, whether the patent "takes priority" from some earlier application such as a provisional patent application. I'm not sure whether the online publication mechanism normally makes that information available. As I get more info I'll post it to my blog.

Re:Notes on the patent by garyrob · 2003-03-21 04:37 · Score: 1

A clarification, it appears that it would apply to text ads only if there was a limited amount of space on the page, so that bidding was used to determine which ads would appear.

First for advertisements? by malachid69 · 2003-03-21 04:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Very odd.... In 1993, after I switch from Gopher to a pre-release of Mosaic, I saw a few banner ads. In fact, I designed one for my ISP and put it on my main page and got free ISP access for 6 years. Don't remember seeing Amazon back then. When did they go online?

And yeah, even if it wasn't for people like Prodigy, Genie, and (there was a third, wasn't there?) -- didn't AOL have advertisements all along?

Malachi

--
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid

Re:First for advertisements? by canajin56 · 2003-03-21 04:58 · Score: 1

Ahh yes, but these are SPECIAL. The more you bid, the more EXPENSIVE the thing you see advertised. It's revolutionary!
</sarcasm>

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI

Ad patent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 04:01 · Score: 0

Amazon is onto something here...

You have to make money someway. Now and in the future if you own some intellectual property your company could profit with license fees.

Capitalism and or GNU GPL has clued these people into the fact that IP is a worthy effort to persue in the long run.

Why give it all away?

there should be a penalty by jat2 · 2003-03-21 04:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think there really should be a criminal penalty for attempting to patent something for which you know prior art exists. A common sense standard could be applied. People get convicted of criminal negligence because they did something (or failed to not do something) that was contrary to common sense and as a result hurt someone. Applying for a patent that you are pretty sure you will get (even though anyone with any common sense knows prior art exists) because the PTO is overwhelmed and you have lots of money should be criminal negligence. Put Bezos in jail (general lockup) for 3 days and see how many more bogus patents he applies for in the future. Use the fines he pays to help fund the PTO.

prior art everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 04:09 · Score: 0

It's nothing more than a pay per click banner. Search engines alone have been doing this since Altavista was still on the DEC domain.

When I'm bored, I surf porn http://tgp.iamlazy.com

Hmm by Adam9 · 2003-03-21 04:10 · Score: 1

If that were true, I don't think Slashdot would even be here for you to post that.

WIPO to change rules on electronic prior art by philkerr · 2003-03-21 04:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

WIPO are to change the status of electronic prior art in the next few months. From my understanding the rules at the moment for the USPTO are that prior art must be in printed form published in the US. This is to change to cover electronic disclosures on usenet and public email lists.

The Practice Guidelines under the SPLT are available at http://www.wipo.int/scp/en/documents/session_9/pdf /scp9_4.pdf. The relevant section is 76 d on pages 19/20.

This information is useful not only for defending against patent claims like this, but where OpenSource developers have been discussing concepts and ideas on mailing lists open to the public. The document above is also a good read (really!) on the subject of prior art.

It appears that WIPO are taking a stand against Intellectual Piracy.

Phil

Bezo's A BOZO! by webzombie · 2003-03-21 04:14 · Score: 1

Come on think about just how fuckin' stupid this patent application is...

trying to patent a bidding process is like Kleenex trying to patent nose blowing.

Fuck these guys are getting to fucking stupid to be on the planet! PERIOD!

...Patent Pending...

I got ideas by rzbx · 2003-03-21 04:20 · Score: 1

I got an idea. It is something that will more than likely be used one day. Now for a patent. Few years later, bam, first victim. Some odd years later I'm a millionaire. Not possible. Well, actually there is one case where a man set up a small company (simply to cover his a$$ in court) got a bunch of lawyers and started patenting ideas that were going to be used in the future and even ones that already were being used. Then all the letters for royalty payments. Most gave in, due to high legal fees, and most who fought lost. There are other cases of people that did this. Amazon seems to be following them in their footsteps with all there crazy patents.

--
Question everything.

Please, better journalism ! by udippel · 2003-03-21 04:25 · Score: 0

This is - sorry - sensationalistic and thin journalism.
Sure, I still enjoy any day since I left the European Patent Office because the whole patent business is getting more monkey by the day.
Though: what Hemos writes is utmost thin and most importantly without proper background.
I just read the first claim, and find too many comments falling onto wrong ground. Be the patented system shitty or not, the inventive concept has essentially nothing to do with banner ads:
"A method in a computer system for allocating display space on a web page,"
- this is the banner ad
"the method comprising: receiving multiple bids indicating a bid amount"
- this is e-bay or alike
"and an advertisement;"
- it is not any banner but an advertisement
"receiving a request to provide the web page to a user;"
- this is superfluous patentwise
"selecting,"
- this is surely beyond banner ads
"based at least in part on review of bid amounts,"
- so you need an agent to roughly check $$$
"a received bid;"
- selects the received bid
"and adding the advertisement of the selected bid to the web page."
- adds not any, but a very specific advertisement to the webpage: that of an article bidded for.

If you compare this to the shoddy text of the news, that text *is* shoddy.

I *don't* say they deserve a patent. Actually, I was notorious for suggesting refusal. But let's stick to reality, otherwise we are attacked and fall too easily.

As I tried to explain, the proposed system is quite a refinement of banner ads, for bidding environment, when you add selectively an ad to an article for which a bid has been made in the proximity (at least web page) of that article. And this even controllable by the amount.

Actually, I still have to see this. *I* couldn't attack the novelty ... !

I haven't even bothered to look at the prior art cited. Luckily I am not in this business any more.
But in Slashdot we should try some good business !

I just applied... by muffen · 2003-03-21 04:28 · Score: 1

...for the one click banner advert patent!

I wonder... by DarkKnightRadick · 2003-03-21 04:31 · Score: 1

...if this will spell the end of online advertising.

Although I'm sure AOL, IBM, and even M$ can show prior art on this (not to mention the millions of perosnal web pages that have other people embedding banner ad's on web pages).

I think Jeff Bezo's is a bit patent happy. I wonder if the USPTO will finally get a clue and stop giving out patents like candy (especially to Amazon.com).

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing someone patent the process of applying for a patent.

That would be patently funny. ;)

--
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)

Re:Not much by Bastian · 2003-03-21 04:33 · Score: 1

I, for one, make frequent use of sites that are financially supported by banner ads. (Slashdot, for example)

These sites would have to find some other way to pay the bill to stay alive, I can't imagine that they would be able to find anything that isn't infinitely more annoying than (non popup) ads.

Good thing? by siskbc · 2003-03-21 04:34 · Score: 1

Embedded banner ads are a good thing? Hmmm...I'm usually not so pro-Amazon, but I'm almost inclined to let 'em have it.

Pre-emptive Disclaimer: Yes, I know this will put informative sites with low revenue out of business. It's a joke.

--

-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

Awesome! by glwtta · 2003-03-21 04:42 · Score: 1

Now all we need is for someone to patent spam (and actually have the money to enforce that patent)!

--
sic transit gloria mundi

Any real lawyers know... by jjn1056 · 2003-03-21 04:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just curious about peoples thoughts...

Why is it that this one clearly stupid slip of the tongue has become a major character flaw in what is clearly a man with above average inteligence (even if you think his ideas are wrong this must be admitted), while all the inane verbal blunders our current prez says seem to be classified as a quirky endearment?

Is this just a VP thing? Remember the Dan Quayle potato - potatoe thing!

Personally I couldn't care less about Gore (and even less about Qualye) but I am just concerned that our inability to let go of things like this will just cause our politians to become even more carefully coordinated and remote. If someone fears that any stupid, misspoken utterance is going to have such a price, then the result is that will be less candid, more rehersed and less available.

Why can't we just drop stupid things like this? I mean, I am sure Dan Qualye has the spell checker turned on when he writes, and I really doubt that even Gore thinks he really invented the internet.

Just a thought... Am I wrong? I'm sure you will tell me if I am!

--
Peace, or Not?

Re:Any real lawyers know... by zero_offset · 2003-03-23 23:26 · Score: 1

You mean like 640K should be enough for anybody, another old favorite on slashdot?
People repeat it because it's humorous. It isn't things like this which have created our carefully scripted politicians, it's the ubiquitous TV cameras, the population's nearly non-existent attention span, and the combination of those which produce damning out-of-context sound bites.

--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

'Tard by siskbc · 2003-03-21 04:44 · Score: 0, Troll

Please God, let this be a troll, or we really ARE fucked.

--

-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

Geniuses by siskbc · 2003-03-21 04:50 · Score: 1, Flamebait

I have read the abstract, and everyone who has their nipples in a twist should actually read the abstract. He's not patenting web advertising per se, but advertising relating to bids in auctions.

I love this shit. So far, we've had three types of posts:

1. They're patenting banner ads! Bastards! So much prior art!

2. You dipshit, read the article! They're not patenting banner ads, only ads relating to auctions. Sheesh, the morons on this site. But this is still prior-art-ed by ebay...

3. Jesus, everyone on here lacks reading comprehension skills. The auction is FOR the advertising. Now who should be reading the damned article, moron?

The truly sad thing is that there have been about 30 types of each post so far. People, please, READ the article...then, if it's complicated, READ IT AGAIN. Then, read the posts above yours to make sure you aren't saying the same goddamned thing as 25 other people.

Oh, and moderators? Stop modding WRONG SHIT up!

--

-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

re:Geniuses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 07:20 · Score: 0

Dude,

You expect a bit much from these posters.

Cut these folks a little slack.

Most of them ride in the back of that short yellow school bus, y 'know?

And the modders, well its all that overtime they are putting in down at Dairy Queen, it effects their coherency.

Good analysis though, on the mark.

Infringers must perform each step by cryofan2 · 2003-03-21 04:50 · Score: 1

In the context of whether the headline and summary of the original slashdot article is or is not correct (i.e., whether this is a patent on web advertsing), then what I said is correct: namely, that the infringer must being performing all of the steps of the method of claim 1, i.e., bidding, etc.

Therefore, this is not a patent trying to claim web advertising, as "advertised" by the Slashdot article.

I only read the first claim, nothing else. It may well be a method of selling advertising. But it is not a claim on web advertising.

--

Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?

Re:Infringers must perform each step by siskbc · 2003-03-21 05:02 · Score: 1

In the context of whether the headline and summary of the original slashdot article is or is not correct (i.e., whether this is a patent on web advertsing), then what I said is correct...I only read the first claim, nothing else. It may well be a method of selling advertising. But it is not a claim on web advertising.

Sure as hell hope you are a little more thorough on the job, but even from the first claim you were wrong. Oh, and trusting slashdot headlines...not a good idea. Given your user ID, you've been here long enough to know *that* for sure.

--
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

War against Bezos by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 05:06 · Score: 0

Bezos is a terrorist who is undermining the economy. He must be stopped before it is too late.

I would think /. would be a "coalition of the willing."

anti-patent rant >:o by eliza_turing · 2003-03-21 05:28 · Score: 1

i am so sick of the concept of filing a patent for a process to bake a cake! that is all these damn patents seem to be lately. this patent is no exception. "i want to patent this sequence of steps. i claim that noone has created this sequence of steps before and that no one would normally think to do so." bah! the miriad of patents are going to make it impossible for anyone to do anything without inadvertently infringing at least one of them. and could someone please tell me how this patent in particular advances the useful arts and sciences? bidding for advertizing space? come on! don't they do that for highway billboards?

it's stupid patents like this that keep the uspto swamped. perhaps the patent office should adopt the policy that if they are busy or don't understand the meaning of any of the claims, they just stamp 'denied' on the patent application and move on.

--
END OF LINE

Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 05:29 · Score: 1, Informative

As many have stated before, this patent is not for banner advertisements but the way that they are sold. (Auction Style) Google has a similiar patent but it only covers text ads not banner ads. A DoubleClick spinoff company, Conducive, is already doing this with banner ads though.

Difference between agent and examiner by ProfBooty · 2003-03-21 05:39 · Score: 1

PAtent agents and attorneys are the ones who prepare the applications and respond to the office actions which the examiners write.

Patent agents are not patent examiners, that is they do not prosecute and search an application and are not employed by the USPTO, but instead work for an inventor or law firm.

--
Bring back the old version of slashdot.

This is not a patent, it is an application by ProfBooty · 2003-03-21 05:41 · Score: 1

This is not a patent, this is a published application as a patent, as such it means it has yet to become a patent and is unenforceable.

It can actually be used as prior art against another application with a later filing date.

--
Bring back the old version of slashdot.

Obviously not non-obvious! by Kz · 2003-03-21 05:45 · Score: 1

That's exactly the point!

I'm sure there has to be prior art on web advertising; almost as sure that some of those are as complicated as the one described on the patent.

But it really doesn't matter; since it's the obvious way to do it! Newspapers, magazines, tv stations, everbody who makes a living from advertising does this kind of 'bidding for ad space' one way or another. Just give an overview of the traditional method to ANY half-competent web developer and he'll come up with this 'patented' method in less than 10 minutes.

Why has the USPTO forgotten about the 'non obvious' part of their requirements? Maybe it's non-obvious to a patent clerck, but he/she should consult with somebody 'competent on the art' isn't that in the guidelines for a patent?

--
-Kz-

Pick Your Poison by KalvinB · 2003-03-21 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

The more people who refuse to help cover the costs of web-sites passivly by viewing ads, the more sites that are going to force people to pay actively with subscriptions or whatnot.

Speaking from experience, subscriptions work really well, even for a not so major web-site like IcarusIndie.com

Currently I just use banner ads for intersite advertising (my site is huge), to allow other game development sites to get some free exposure and to plug web-sites I'm a fan of. I still have a number of text ads you'd never notice unless you clicked on them to get statistics on how well they work (at least for exposure). I've yet to make a dime on them.

As a result of using subscriptions I have a lot more bandwidth available to offer more free stuff.

Like this Survey on who people think the US should attack and tons of material including video on the war

So, block all you want. It's a very simple thing to go to a subscription model. For sites that are struggling with bandwidth usage and costs, I highly recommend it.

Ben

--
Work Safe Porn

Re:Pick Your Poison by ansaari · 2003-03-21 06:24 · Score: 1

I was checking out the survey link on your web site, and got to this message:

You must be using a really crappy browser considering it couldn't manage to send the map location you clicked on. Use a different one and try again, please

FYI, my "crappy browser" is

Mozilla Debian Package 1.2.1-9

running on the Knoppix distro 3.1 on a Toshiba Satellite Pro 4200.
Re:Pick Your Poison by Baloo+Ursidae · 2003-03-21 22:55 · Score: 1

So why is it we should care if some website attempting to make money has a broken business model, dependant on the user paying for the bandwidth to recieve the ad? When was the last time recipient-pays advertising successful? Yup, that's right, never.

--
Help us build a better map!

Has nothing to do with banner advertising by tassii · 2003-03-21 06:01 · Score: 1

Reading the patent, this has nothing to do with banner advertising. It has to do with web-based auctions. eBay, lookout!

--
"I drank what?" - Socrates

Now wouldn't that be an idea? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 06:17 · Score: 0

With all these pre-grant publications of patent applications now, for the US system, all the armchair examiners of the world can submit prior art to the examiner of record for the case.

Re:Wired? -- not this type of advertisement by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 06:44 · Score: 1, Informative

IANAL, but I don't think this is too big of a deal. Or anything to get worked up over. Compared to their 1-click patent, this is small potatoes.

According to the USPTO link (have you read it?) I believe this covers Amazon's system of selling web page space to book sellers. This had some press when it came out that Amazon was selling space inside their webpage, making it nonobvious that the book you see as a recommendation is really an advertising.

This is similar to walking into Barnes and Noble and seeing certain books in prominent shelf space. That space is bought for by the publishing house to promote their book.

Amazon's patent covers doing that but in their virtual book store.

This isn't about putting ads on web pages... by tuxlove · 2003-03-21 07:09 · Score: 4, Informative

It's about determining *which* ad to put on a web page based on bidders for that space. If a web page doesn't use a bidding system like Amazon's, they won't be infringing on this patent simply by placing ads on a web page. I really love /. articles about patents - they're always so content-free, or at least factual-content-free.

I've got prior art by BrianH · 2003-03-21 07:19 · Score: 1

Hrm, well, I've personally got prior art on #27. I helped to write a targeted ad inclusion system for a (now defunct) early ecommerce site in 1994. It was a horrible PERL/Delphi Frankenstein application, but it did track ads by type, and serve them up to the user based on their responses to ads of the same type (using weighted averages). As far as I remember, Amazon didn't even EXIST at the time I wrote that, so I'm sure my software predated theirs!

Which brings up two interesting questions. 1) Who do I contact to show prior art? I'm not interested in getting a patent myself, but I'd like to help shoot this one down. 2) What kind of evidence do you need to prove prior art on business processes? The concept was originally mine, but it was developed while working for a company that doesn't exist anymore. So who owns the idea? Can I offer the work as prior art? What kind of evidence is really needed to prove that I wrote the code in 1994, and not yesterday?

--

There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.

I am a moderator by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 07:25 · Score: 0

I enjoy doing nasty things to my pets anus. I am a moderator. Blargh, that was a pro Microsoft post, mod down 2 points, because those who like microsoft are trolls. Knee...that post said he likes linux, mod up 5 points and call him funny, buy is he funny, he said microsoft sucks. Damn he pointed out that slashdot fucks up all the time, mod him down and log in as other name and write mean things. nar...

I hope the get the patent by dkone · 2003-03-21 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Look at the pure logic of it. No other site would use the ads, so it would only be amazon. Then no customers would go to Amazon because they were too commercialized because of all the adds they have.

Go Amazon.

Don't boycott Amazon because they're assholes... by stephanruby · 2003-03-21 07:42 · Score: 1

...boycott them because it will save you money.
http://www.bestbookbuys.com/ (Book Price Comparaison Bot)

I guess if you have the cash by ellem · 2003-03-21 08:09 · Score: 1

You simply throw patents against the wall and see what sticks

--
This .sig is fake but accurate.

MOD PARENT DOWN!!! -1, Not Funny by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 08:10 · Score: 0

Yeah well... by c0dedude · 2003-03-21 08:12 · Score: 1

Personally, I think Bezos should apply for a patent on patenting things on the web :-)

--
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?

How much more proof... by dh003i · 2003-03-21 08:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

How much more proof do we need, before we realize that the entire patent system is corrupted beyond repair and needs to be rebuild from the ground up?

Firstly, business models or other general "methods" -- like this auction method -- should never be patentable. Patents should cover inventions. You've found a good business model -- fine. Doesn't mean that just because you're the first one to utilize that business model or method, that no one else should be able to.

Patents should, at the very least, consider independent discovery. Furthermore, simply coming up with the idea a few days before someone else hardly means that you're entitled to sole ownership.

Another thing -- life should not be patentable. Living organisms should not be patentable. It is absurd to treat living organisms as if they are "property". This poses innate problems, because living organisms tend to spread. See the Canada case where a greedy multinational corporation decided to bankrupt a farmer for growing what was in his own yard.

Finally, corporations should not be allowed to patent inventions that they did not actually develop. A disgusting category in this case is biopiracy, where corporations are given the rights to profit off of an invention which they in no way invented, but simply extracted from indigenous peoples. Anyone who pursues these kind of patents is an immoral crook.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Re:Wired? -- not this type of advertisement by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 09:16 · Score: 0

So basically, the patent covers the "people who bought book foo also bought..." ads?

I have my own patent pending... by Eric+Jaakkola · 2003-03-21 09:18 · Score: 1

I have submited my patent for puting words and pictures onto the screen via the web. I expect to hear back any time now. I was going to patent putting numbers and symbols on the web, but feared anti-trust lawsuits.

Send Prior Art In by C-1352 · 2003-03-21 09:42 · Score: 2, Informative

As numerous people have pointed out, this is an *application* only. Which means there is a huge chance that the claims, as issued, will look nothing like the original submitted claims. Not only that, if the slashdot readers all know of prior art out there that anticipates or renders obvious the claims in the current form, they should just send those prior art references into the patent office! The whole point of the process of publishing patent applications before issuance is so that the public can contribute to the prosecution process by submitting relevant prior art. Instead of sitting on your collective butts complaining, why not take positive action and do something? Just remember that the references submitted must be in a clean form, i.e., no notation, highlighting, comments written on margins, etc. The patent office will remove all extraneous comments, and if there are too many extraneous comments, the PTO will definitely chuck out the reference. Of course, we don't want that to happen now, do we.

Mozilla Pre 1.3 won't work by KalvinB · 2003-03-21 11:14 · Score: 1

This may come as a shock but it is indeed that case that your browser is crappy. Internet Explorer has supported sending X and Y coordinates from clicking on an image map for years now. It's pretty pathetic that Mozilla is just now getting around to it with version 1.3

I don't know about Opera or Netscape. But this is just another reason I don't use Mozilla.

Ben

--
Work Safe Porn

No Wonder... by stephanruby · 2003-03-21 11:17 · Score: 1

"I work as a patent agent. "

It's 9:15 AM, don't you have work to do and patents to weed out instead of posting on Slashdot?

overture by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 11:42 · Score: 0

Overture seems to be doing this, I don't know how long they have been around though.

I had Banner Ad's on my BBS 1987-1998RIP by wwbbs · 2003-03-21 13:19 · Score: 1

Can't rememeber when I first put them up but I had them there I was using Maximus BBS and OS/2 Warp for the board. Wackos and Wierdos BBS I claim prior art.

Application for a pateny... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-21 21:26 · Score: 0

On direct consumer advertising.

Spam guy: I just recived 100k cease and desist letters from some lawyer who claims to represent a jeff somebody.

Opera Works (N/T) by LPetrazickis · 2003-03-22 15:56 · Score: 1

Opera uber alles.:)

--
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.

Slashdot Mirror

Amazon's Bezos Wants Web Advertising Patent

264 comments