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.
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?
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.
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?