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."
Slashdot has RSS feeds for a number of years, and during that time they've run many Slashvertisements.
...Oh wait. Does not compute..... Brain is going to explode
...But I like the way google advertises. Whether it be in Gmail, in search results, or on Froogle. RSS is just another medium to explore. If they continue to stay unobtrusive, I wish them the best of luck.
I don't get it.
I bet that the number of examiners at the USPTO that have a comprehensive understanding of the way RSS works is exactly zero. I'm can only imagine an examiner breathlessly intoning, "I don't know what the hell this patent is talking about, so it must be totally new, non-obvious, and useful, so here," (THUMP as the rubber stamp comes down) "patent granted."
Of course, it could be a defensive patent. Heaven knows who out there thinks he's patented the whole RSS idea.
Still, regarding this new patent, I'm looking forward to the usual Slashdot pick-apart, where every claim is shown to be something people have been doing for a decade, and enough prior art is unearthed in fifteen minutes to invalidate the patent ten times over.
Heck, why doesn't the USPTO lay off half its examiners and just post patent applications to Slashdot?
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Take THAT Amazon.
Booyah
Being funny is my sig nature.
This is bullshit. What is "advertising"? Isn't Slashdot's RSS feed advertising the stories linked to it? Hell, I've got prior art of actual clickable "banners" in RSS feeds I syndicate, that link to people paying me to insert their commercial messages.
The PTO has become the "Monopoly Department" of the US Government. All day long they process applications for monopolies on businesses, responding "You go, girl!" to every one they possibly can. Now Google starts locking in all that "goodwill" they generated with inane faith-based nonsense like "do no evil". How long until they just patent "doing evil", on the premise that if they control it, they'll stop everyone else from doing it?
--
make install -not war
Can one really patent a medium? I'm not convinced that such a patent would stand up to what I'm sure would be numerous legal challenges. It is not as direct as attempting to patent advertising in other mediums (pick your poison), but it seems to be skirting the edge.
What's the difference? Are not slashvertisements much older?
threadeds blog
Google on the whole seem to remain a force for good. The cynic in me does wonder how long that can last after going public, but on balance I'm a long way from consigning Google to the Bad Guy List
However, software patents remain evil, even if it's Google that holds them. I just thought that bore repeating.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Too late, your parents already have a monopoly.
I don't get it.
The patent covers targeted advertising, not advertising in RSS,Targeted meaning IP address location. However, targeted advertising could cover any search engine that displays sponsored results next to search results by keywords. However, this patent only covers RSS, so it may not prove to be too useful.
The patent system will collapse in a few years since patents are now being handed out to just about anyone willing to file for one. There is no more requirement for the patent to be non-obvious. The problem seems to be the examiners don't understand the fields for the patent applications they are responsible for. As an example, tying certain kinds of knots would be non-obvious to someone who doesn't use rope a lot, but that doesn't mean I should be able to patent the Monkey's Fist.
The end result of this is that, eventually, all patents will become meaningless. There will be large-scale infringement because so many patents will cover things that are so obvious that everyone will need to or want to do them. How many years from now will we enter this new era of ignoring the broken system? Frivolous patents are hastening the end of all patents.
Microsoft just announced that they've changed their minds and won't be including RSS in IE7
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
You can't patent virginity, too much prior art localized to Slashdot.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
The USPTO does not have the ability to determine the official "patentability" of any non-simple invention (and even simple ones). Patent officers are overworked and undertrained. The theory is that the validity of patents will be hashed out in the courts. Wasted resources? Of course. Stifled innovation? Obviously. How many letters have any of you written to your representatives recently?
Now this is the type of patent I'd like to see more of!
If only I had patented the blink tag and pop-ups. Either I might have prevented those nightmares; or I could have extracted royalties for infringment. Win-win!
I'd be just as angry if Microsoft did this. In fact, I'm probably more angry because I hold you to a higher standard. Even if this is a defensive patent, I want to hear you speaking out against the system, donating to the EFF or something. How about instead of "Do No Evil", you start doing good?
The more you know, the less you understand.
Contrasting this patent with the likes of Amazon's common sense-patents which were approved (Web Services Patent, Reminding Customers, and User Viewing Histories), I'll acknowledge Google's patent has some credibility. Even though I've always been against patents related to or involving software, this is a much better patent than we've seen in the news recently, and considerably more deserving of approval.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
For our next worship service, I'd like to break out an old favorite of mine. Please turn to page 17 in your hymnals.
Shameless, shameless we adore thee
God of the web, lord of search
Personal Info we all give thee
Leaving our data in the lurch
We don't care, we just hate Bill Gates
We know you don't do evil
Will you change? We don't think about it
We just want e-mail retrieval
All thy web projects surround me
Your share valuation reflect thy rays
Sheep and fanbois all surround thee
Center of all endless praise
Blog and mail, you never fail
Inventing stuff we've seen before
But like sheep we will still praise thee
And keep clamoring for more
Googleujah, Googleujah, Googleujah, rejoice
All must join the mighty chorus
Which us l33t stars began
Google's love is reignning o'er us
Our fawning love is part o'the plan
Always singing, never thinking
What they'll do when THEY are king
We just enjoy your hyperlinking
And wondering what new toy you will bring
Our privacy is shrinking
Personal privacy - wishful thinking
"Pastor Google" serving free thinkers since never.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
If Google is working on a new way of doing RSS advertising, wouldn't it be fiscally irresponsible to NOT try to patent it? What if they unveil a masterful system they've been working on for a year, only to find out Yahoo patented one of the methods 3 months ago, and were forced to shelve it as the legal battle ensued?
Advertising is most (if not all) of their revenue. They'd be silly not to try to protect it. How would you feel if your google stock dropped 20% because they were trying to be nice and got screwed by a competitor?
Guns are bad, but you still shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight.
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?
The trouble with advertising is that it distorts the normal self-organizing tendency of people to value the best product and depreciate the worst. Do you honestly think the Bronze Age ended because the iron sword manufactures ran a worldwide advertising campaign boosting the advantages of iron?
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
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.
Since I do not seem to be getting my point across, I will ask again:
How is it credible? Putting ads in RSS is just as bad as "one click" (from Amazon). Its not noteworthy, its not an invention, and its absurd.
The end result is that the USPTO evaluates itself and its employees on throughput of patents. The USPTO is a very profitable agency and Congress likes the extra funds it sees coming from there so the chances of meaningful reform to reduce patent grants isn't looking so good. If they would shift some of the cost of the application process up to the begining of the process that might make them more likely to reject more patents since it won't hurt the revenue stream too much and it would also make people think twice about filing absurd patents. Of course the downside to that would be that it would make patenting a lot harder for the little guy who might not be able to risk the pattent application being rejeted.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
and is about as patentable as "pizza delivery technique using car and phone". But no matter since as a matter of course the USPTO will rubber stamp this as they do all applications for the right to steal the freedom of the human mind, errm I mean for "intellectual property" rights.
After all, an economy encumbered by lawyers controlling our thoughts is what made capitalism and America great!!!
An important claim of Google's patent application is targeting -- directing only certain ads at certain types of customers. I don't think /. did that, did they?
in this whole darn thread!
and to be on topic:
IMHO, the reason so many people like google (disclosure:I am one of them) is because their adverts detract the least from the browsing experience.
------ no thanks... I've quit
While it appears inevitable that people are going to flame Google for doing this, if I were running a business I would do the exact same thing.
The current state of technology patents is dreadful. To us technology people, many of the patents just appear to be common sense? Patents are being granted left and right for things that just seem normal and easy to us. Unfortunately, that is the way things are...for now. If you are operating a business, it is in your best interest to try and patent everything you do. If you don't, someone else will and then sue you for infringing on their patents. Trust me, the cost of trying to file patents is nothing compared to the cost of being sued for patent infringement.
So don't blame Google or Microsoft or Amazon. For lack of a better euphemism, don't hate the player, hate the game.
If Microsoft did this the article summary would be critical, instead of a subtle compliment.
You're all whores.