Slashdot Mirror
Google Patents RSS Advertising
IO ERROR writes "Google filed a patent application for targeted advertising in RSS feeds about a year and a half ago. The USPTO has now assigned it a number and placed it online. The patent application covers both targeting in RSS feeds and geotargeting by IP address. It gives some insight into how Google's ad servers work."
What's the difference? Are not slashvertisements much older?
threadeds blog
From TFP (the friendly patent)
Incorporating targeted ads into information in a syndicated, e.g., RSS, presentation format in an automated manner is described. Syndicated material e.g., corresponding to a news feed, search results or web logs, are combined with the output of an automated ad server.
SO, RSS is just one of the mediums described. And it actually does appear to be a pretty specific method.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I'm all for Google making things easier and doing cool stuff, but I'm not with them on this.
Of course, for those of us who have no desire to offer the same type of service for the next 20 years (or patents to cross-license, or deep pockets to pay licensing fees), it doesn't matter, I suppose.
Yet another example of why software should be firmly in the realm of copyright protection. That way, you can't copy what they wrote (unless given permission), but you're still free to offer a service based in the same *idea*.
Is Google finally turning evil?
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
I have no mod points to give, but this point needs to be emphasized. This is the fundamental principle under which the USPTO has operated since its inception. You may not like it, but that's their charter. They are obligated by law to grant any patent that they believe in good faith has the potential to be enforcable and upheld by the courts. There is no "burden of proof" criteria involved; the USPTO must defer that decision to the courts.
Ever time something about USPTO comes up here, everybody gets tons of mod points here for blasting these "idiots" and "dolts" for not doing their jobs. I have no vested interest, but for crying out loud, at least these folks are indeed doing their jobs!
No matter what we may think of the concept, this is the way the USPTO works by law. If you don't like it, don't complain about the examiners, complain about the law that chartered them, and complain to somebody that can do something about it.
How many letters have any of you written to your representatives recently?
You know, every time one of these patent debates comes up, the same thing happens: People like you completely misunderstand the meaning of the patent, assume that the patent covers something absurdly broad, then complain about that.
Read the patent. The patent doesn't cover advertising in RSS. The patent covers a specific method for producing RSS ads.
The patent on MP3 compression did not cover compression of digital audio in general. It covered the techniques used in MP3 specifically.
The patent on RSA encryption did not cover the concept of public-key encryption in general. It covered only RSA's specific algorithm.
And this patent does not cover RSS advertising in general. It covers Google's technique for doing it.
(Oblig: IANAL, I haven't read the patent in full detail, and these are my own personal opinions.)
AdSense for feeds beta was almost out 2-3 weeks back. See url https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer. py?answer=20012&ctx=en:search&query=RSS&topic=0&ty pe=f and you can apply for it @ http://services.google.com/ads_inquiry/aff. It also includes nice set of best practices http://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer.p y?answer=20134
The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
Yet another example of why software should be firmly in the realm of copyright protection. That way, you can't copy what they wrote (unless given permission), but you're still free to offer a service based in the same *idea*.
Which is exactly why NO software company depends on copyrite law. Copyrite law grants a narrow range of protection for a very long time (Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted, and every few years Disney gets the coverage of copyrite law extended). Plus it is even harder to determine copyright violation in code (think Perl's wonderful way to do the exact same thing 15 apparently diffent ways).