Slashdot Mirror


Apple Seeks Patent On Operating System Advertising

patentpundit writes "On April 18, 2008, Apple Computer applied for a patent relating to an 'invention' that allows for showing advertisements within an operating system. The first named inventor on the patent application is none other than Steve Jobs. The patent application published and became available for public inspection on October 22, 2009. If implemented, the invention would make it possible for advertisements to be displayed on a variety of devices, including desktop computers, cell phones, PDAs, and more. In one alarming aspect, the device could be disabled while the advertisements run, thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use. In an even more invasive scenario, explained in the patent application, the user could be required to do something, such as click to continue, in order to verify that they are actively watching the advertisement and haven't simply walked away while the ad runs. Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown, but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising. It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty. I sure hope this is not the future of advertising."

342 comments

  1. I sure hope they get this patent by AtomicDevice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really hope they get the patent because then nobody else will be able to do it.

    In other news, I use linux?

    --
    Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
    1. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      not be able to use it ... without licensing.

    2. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, stupid microsoft! what were they thinking!?

      oh wait.. this is apple? Wow, this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    3. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Wow, this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win.

      What did Linux win, and how did it beat Windows 7?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by geekmansworld · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system? Not likely. Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips? There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs.

      I think the poster and the first commenter have it right: this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.

    5. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by camperslo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This reminds me of the "free computers" of 1990 or so, with some of the screen space taken up by extra ads. I think that was just when running the browser though.

      The same users that went for those "discounted" PCs with an AOL contract obligation might opt for other cheaper hardware with an ad hook-in subsidizing the purchase.

      27" iMacs turning into billboards... hmmmm...

    6. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The only thing that gives me confidence is the fact that even the almighty Apple would be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail if they tried to actually implement this.

      Of course, I don't really see the need for a patent to prevent other people from doing it. None of the major OS vendors would be so foolish as to think they could actually get away with attempting to implement OS support for invasive ads such as described in the patent.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by GerardAtJob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps too much faith in Apple? I can easily imagine somes ads popping up in your iPhone soons...

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
    8. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by k_187 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They might not put it in their desktop OSes, but sounds to me like this is made for the iPhone and an official ADs api for it.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    9. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?

      And marketing. Don't forget marketing. Maybe Apple wants to show their own ads?

    10. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I'm guessing you guys feel that domain name squatting is a good idea, considering that is essentially what Apple is trying to do (except with advertisements instead).

      Personally, I'd rather Apple NOT get a chunk of any money that comes out of this - it will just encourage them to try to pull this kind of bullshit for other mediums.

    11. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, stupid microsoft! what were they thinking!?

      oh wait.. this is apple? Wow, this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win against Apple's Mac OS X.

      Fixed that for you. It's still a long way off from competing with Windows, in terms of market share, regardless of how awesome it is.

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    12. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by mayko · · Score: 1

      not be able to use it ... without licensing.

      Which will hopefully reduce the incentive to include the advertising.

      Pissing your customers off + License fees >(hopefully) The advertising revenue.

    13. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?

      Uh, yeah. One reason why I think they would do this is because they got a patent to do this. Weird, I know. I'm sure they'll come up with a wonderfully-designed, aesthetically-pleasing, usable* interface for showing advertisements.

      It may shock you to realize this, but Apple is actually a for-profit corporation which, like other for-profit corporations, is focused on maximizing revenue.

      *Usable for the advertisers, of course.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    14. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?

      Yes, I think they would do it on iPods. I imagine in their talks with record labels they discussed many revenue streams. One could easily be free music downloads if you're willing to watch ads on your iPod.

      They could also offer two revenue models for iPhone app publishers: the current cash model or advertising. The OS could block use of the app until the ad is run.

      I don't imagine this coming to desktops, but it's definitely a possibility for their more specialized operating systems.

    15. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Or could this be a patent to block MS? Think about it, MS software is expensive, with Windows 7 they actually have an OS that doesn't totally suck, perhaps Apple is just blocking MS from making an ad-supported Windows 8?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    16. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      not be able to use it ... without licensing.

      On the US market.

      On other markets it will probably still be open for competition.

      But if such an ad appears I will surely be upset enough to go ballistic. As if the ads today aren't intrusive enough?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    17. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by calzones · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the whole point of the patent is so Apple can profit share should any apps choose to run ads on their devices. For example, if you install an app on your iphone that pops up ads and behaves in any modal way that makes the iphone inoperable, Apple might not like that. In addition to any TOU and contractual obligations imposed on app developers, this gives Apple a patent should an app designer manage to circumvent the TOU in any way.

      --
      Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
    18. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?

      Have you used iTunes lately? Ugh. Their design and usability practices are clearly not universal within the company...

    19. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      They won't block anything, Microsoft has plenty of money to use for royalties if they want to. So does Google, in fact. Regardless, Apple is just looking to cash in, probably by implementing their own advertising in addition to accepting royalties from anyone else who wants to do the same.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    20. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by timeOday · · Score: 1

      this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple.

      What does that protect against? Why would Apple care if somebody wanted to do something Apple truly believed was stupid?

      People might not like this idea, sure... but if the only way they can afford an iPhone is to sit through a 10-second ad before making a call, they'll probably still do it.

    21. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm a little confused by this and I'm pretty sure this isn't what patents are for. Years ago, could you have really filed a patent for "displaying advertising on a television during breaks in shows" and therefore nobody else could do it without your permission? I know you can patent a certain technical methodology for accomplishing this, but you surely can't patent the entire concept?

    22. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't see the problem. If they're just getting the patent in order to profit off of other companies who use these ideas, what's the problem? If someone really wants to insert advertisements into OSes or other mediums, these patents aren't going to stop them (as long as the fees aren't too high), but with the patents at least Apple and its shareholders get some extra cash. Sounds good to me.

      Personally, I'd love to see Microsoft put ads in their OS, and have to pay Apple for the privilege. It's not like I'm going to be using a MS OS at home anyway (or an Apple one for that matter).

    23. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see the problem. If they're just getting the patent in order to profit off of other companies who use these ideas, what's the problem?

      Ahhh! I see...! Patent trolling, usually nasty, evil and sleazy, is quite alright if it's Apple that is doing it...!

      Gotcha.

    24. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by osu-neko · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system? Not likely. Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips? There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs.

      I think the poster and the first commenter have it right: this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.

      To anyone who's at all familiar with Apple's product line, it's patently obvious which product this patent is for.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    25. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words they are patent trolls. Funny how folks are "patent trolls" when they are hoarding patents and suing folks we like, but they are on our side when they do the SAME THING but the patent is for something we don't like. In this case it is probably to get money out of Chrome OS.

    26. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right(sarcasm). So the Ad will block the whole phone from working while my boss calls and I can't answer it for the next30 seconds.

      The idea is stupid. I am actually shocked that IBM or MSFT donthave prior art.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    27. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      "In other news, I use linux?"

      What the hell is this question asking?

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    28. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's not "patent trolling". That term is usually associated with when a company gets a patent on an obvious "invention" which other companies basically need to implement in order to progress. A good example of this is the recent Ethernet patent troll, or Eolas's browser patents.

      While sticking ads in an OS could be considered an "obvious" invention, putting advertisements into an OS is NOT needed for progress. No one needs to do it; in fact, it's a big negative for the users.

      So if someone wants to profit off of other people abusing their customers, I have no problem with it.

      If Apple, however, got a patent on some fundamental web browser technology and wielded that against open-source browsers, I'd be pissed.

    29. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What did Linux win, and how did it beat Windows 7?

      By not showing up. ~

    30. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by k_187 · · Score: 1

      I'm kind of surprised too, but this could also be part of an ad-supported phone, pay for the phone get minutes by watching an ad every so often. I just don't see apple putting this into their desktop OS unless its for a special internet cafe edition.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    31. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by sh00z · · Score: 1

      And marketing. Don't forget marketing. Maybe Apple wants to show their own ads?

      [cluebat]Yeah, because the people who are already using Applehardware and software are so unlikely to consider Apple for their next purchase that intrusive advertising would be required.[/cluebat]

    32. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm a little confused by this and I'm pretty sure this isn't what patents are for. Years ago, could you have really filed a patent for "displaying advertising on a television during breaks in shows" and therefore nobody else could do it without your permission? I know you can patent a certain technical methodology for accomplishing this, but you surely can't patent the entire concept?

      Right. So you can't patent the concept, but you can patent the technical methodology. You could not have patented displaying advertising during breaks in a show, but you could have patented a method of engineering a television so that people can't change channels while the commercial is on. Apple has just patented a method of preventing commercial skipping on their television devices. Why does this strike you as non-patentable?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    33. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by noundi · · Score: 1

      not be able to use it ... without licensing.

      Which will hopefully reduce the incentive to include the advertising.

      Pissing your customers off + License fees >(hopefully) The advertising revenue.

      Or make it prone to even more advertising to cover up the licensing costs, just like licensing/patenting has always been. A punch in the face of the consumer.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    34. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      They would simply demand that they have final approval on any ads displayed.

    35. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by m.ducharme · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      (and it's not that awesome yet).

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    36. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by mayko · · Score: 1

      I should have capitalized "hopefully." Your scenario is more realistic.

    37. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      But if microsoft was the one submitting the patent all of slashdot (the EU and a lot of other people and companies) would be rushing to court to sue microsoft and block this patent.

      The submitter of the patent should not matter. This is a bad patent and should be turned down. Also there has been prior art for a long time now. One could argue that displaying the logo of your company/distribution, setting the homepage to be your company's/distribution's website, and having other features of your company/distribution pop up are advertising your company/distribution. So Jobs is trying to patent something that has been going on for at least 10 years if not longer.

    38. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by dissy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Patent trolling, usually nasty, evil and sleazy, is quite alright if it's Apple that is doing it...!

      Well, there is always the slim tiny chance they will use it to stop anyone from any advertising in an OS!

      (No I will not pay to replace your keyboard)

    39. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by mehemiah · · Score: 1

      Indeed, this would only fly on the iPhone

    40. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      But if microsoft was the one submitting the patent all of slashdot (the EU and a lot of other people and companies) would be rushing to court to sue microsoft and block this patent.

      Bullshit. Maybe some companies, and perhaps the EU might have a problem with it, but why on Earth would Slashdotters care? You think all the Linux fans want to put advertising into Linux?

      The submitter of the patent should not matter.

      It doesn't, much (other than I'd prefer that MS not get any money from anything, even a bad patent).

      This is a bad patent and should be turned down.

      On principle, perhaps, but honestly who cares if it's granted? It's not going to stop anyone from doing anything important. It might stop someone from putting advertising in their mobile device OS if they don't want to pay the license fee. What's the problem with that? Are you going to complain that you're not getting enough advertising?

      Seriously, this patent is for something about as useful as fifth wheel on a car.

      Also there has been prior art for a long time now. One could argue that displaying the logo of your company/distribution, setting the homepage to be your company's/distribution's website, and having other features of your company/distribution pop up are advertising your company/distribution. So Jobs is trying to patent something that has been going on for at least 10 years if not longer.

      Putting advertising on a website is not the same as tying ads into an operating system, making it so you can't even use your device without watching the ads. One is easy to get around (ABP, or just don't go to that website), the other is not. Your comparison is like saying a patent on ads that you must view before being allowed to start your car is invalidated by the existence of highway billboards. They're nothing alike. Now, why anyone would buy a car that makes them watch ads is beyond me, but so is the idea of buying a mobile device that makes you watch ads to make a phone call or whatever. Maybe Apple will patent in-car advertising next. So what, it doesn't bother me.

    41. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has, for some time, pushed the latest iLife version as an in-app pop up ad that you have to click "don't show this again" or it keeps popping up every time you launch iPhoto/iDVD.

      I found it quite annoying and I don't put it past them to patent this so they can sue other companies who do the same thing.

    42. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by zugarekd · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to see this implemented on medical devices. KFC ad on your heart monitor.

    43. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Sl4shd0t0rg · · Score: 1

      I thought that a few years back there were computers along the quality lines of eMachines were almost "free", but you had to agree to watch pop up adds on the desktop. Wouldn't this count as prior art?

    44. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by ciej · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?

      Just means the ads will be pretty.

    45. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point, they could deny anyone else the use of the patent, refuse to use it themselves, and head this abomination off at the pass.

    46. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by AdamThor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would be a pretty bad move to block calls with ads, but making calls is hardly all the iphone does. I wouldn't be suprised at all to find ads tacked on to the front of apps. "You got this app from the apple app store! Here are some others you might like..." If the recomendation engine was good, the apple faithful might even recognize it as a feature. And wouldn't location/gps based ads work through a channel like this?

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    47. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only they could do it, but they will market it in such a way that people will want to have advertisement on their desktops before everyone else!

    48. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by MrMarket · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.

      Wow. I admire Steve Jobs, but not to the point of denial. Jobs cares about athletics... almost as much as he cares about making money. I could easily imagine Apple selling top billing in the ap store or iTunes store to the highest bidder -- or running an ad before you get into the stores.

    49. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this patent is for something about as useful as fifth wheel on a car.

      Location based advertisements on your GPS enabled device have been talked about for a while. Wouldn't they go through a channel like this?

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    50. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Just like the people who bought legit DVDs with movies would become pirates if there were no unskippable anti-piracy ads in the DVDs.

    51. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. But again, why would you want your mobile phone constantly interrupting you with ads for nearby businesses? If Apple wants to make money from this, more power to them. Anyone dumb enough to sign up for a phone that forces them to view ads every time they make a phone call deserves what they get.

    52. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      No one else will be able to do it the way specified in the patent. You can't patent the concept of putting advertising in an OS, just a method.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    53. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be ideal if I could get free music and play it on my linux or scandisk w/o advertisement.

    54. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Altus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that apple might implement a way for applications to show these kinds of ads, with the iphone software forcing the user to watch them. This would be a boon to app developers who want to distribute free versions of complicated applications. Of course it would be the users choice to use these apps or not. I suspect many would balk, but I could see putting up with an ad that came up every time I lunched some application that I didnt use very often if the alternative was to pay a large chunk of money for an ad free version of the same app.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    55. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability

      That's only what they want to be perceived as. Apple fanboys would probably even support this shit if it came to it.

    56. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure there is some prior art from the dot.com era when someone tried to introduce an ad supported free pc.

    57. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Kopachris · · Score: 0

      I agree. I doubt Apple would actually implement advertising in their OS because their customer loyalty is based on good service since their customers pay a premium. If Apple gets this patent and doesn't use it, then no one else would be able either (without Apple's permission).

    58. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nooo... patent trolling, usually nasty, evil and sleazy, is quite alright if the patent in question is a user-hostile feature that nobody wants.

      For example, I'm going to assume Microsoft has patented Clippy. Do you think you'll find Slashdotters complaining about Microsoft patent trolling another company that was trying to use Clippy?

      See? Apple and Microsoft, treated equally by Slashdotters, for once.

    59. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      >>Anyone dumb enough to sign up for a phone that forces them to view ads every time they make a phone call deserves what they get.

      Right on!! ALL of my iphone using friends will never have this problem. They just can't make a phone call any way. BUHAHAHA...

      On a more serious note, perhaps you should cut down on your fanboism. It is VERY obvious.

    60. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      But it's also in the consumer's best interests. :P

      Rare, but that makes it okay for most people - unless they abuse their patent.

    61. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by stuboogie · · Score: 2

      "Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, usability, and marketing would put ads in their operating system?"

      Fixed that for you.

      While this may truly be a defensive filing, I don't think it is that far fetched that a control-crazed company like Apple wouldn't use this in some fashion. As long as the ads are for Apple products and services, I'm sure Steve Jobs sees nothing wrong with it.

      iAds...coming soon to OS X 10.7 Frozen Kitten

    62. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      or tablet with newsprint like ads you can interact with.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    63. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by stuboogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because someone uses one Apple product or service does not mean they use ALL Apple products and services. There are quite a few people who own an iPod or iPhone that do not own a Mac.

      If they did, Apple would have a much larger share of PC sales. But they do not, so I guess they have room for improvement in that area. Consider how many Mac vs. PC ads you see on TV and tell me Steve doesn't want more avenues to push Mac ads.

    64. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by stuboogie · · Score: 1

      Have you considered that Steve may have conceived an application of this patent that you have not considered that WILL affect and bother you???

      Sorry, I personally don't like to assume that I have the ability to foresee every potential future use of a piece of technology.

    65. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Well aesthetics anyway...

    66. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by stuboogie · · Score: 1

      Very good. I had not even thought about AppleTV. Considering how the networks are trying to eliminate the skipping of ads in Tivo and other DVR setups, that sounds like a very plausible use.

    67. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I really can't think of how any patent regarding advertising would ever affect Free software, or much else that I do. Well, unless perhaps someone patented ad-blocking (like what ABP does), but I think it's pretty clear that this patent doesn't do that.

      It's really blowing my mind how many people are up in arms about this. This is like some company patenting telemarketing calls. I hate telemarketers, and I certainly don't want any more of them bothering me, but if some company somehow patented telemarketing, thus making it more expensive for anyone but themselves to practice it because of the license fees, I fail to see why I should be against this.

      Only on Slashdot will you find people angry that someone will make it more expensive for them to add advertising to their operating system.

    68. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      1) Get add supported phone
      2) Play adds while you sleep
      3) ???
      4) Profit! *

      * Free Minutes

    69. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      MSFT does, I believe they called it the "Microsoft Messenger Service" (net send * ).

    70. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by redwheels · · Score: 1

      Yup... right when you need to dial 911. We'll hear it on the news: Ad prevents user from dialing 911 and dies of heart attack.

    71. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit!

      Where are my +1 insightful mod points when I need them?

    72. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by antdah · · Score: 1

      You said it. The day ads start showing up in my Mac, I revert to Slackware.

    73. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by abbe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lets hope they get it, and start doing it on their devices....

      This will definitely lead to increase in usage of FOSS OSs unless people decide to surrender their choice for the convenience...:P

      --
      404 Not Found
    74. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I could imagine them using it in a very sensible place: the AppleTV. It could allow them to offer a Hulu-like service with free downloads of TV shows, provided you're willing to watch ads during normal commercial breaks. Of course, the media companies would only agree to such a deal if Apple could offer strong assurances that users would actually be forced to watch the ads and not bypass them somehow.

      And how would that really be different or worse than Hulu or cable TV?

    75. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips? There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs."

      Yes, but by the time Apple switched to Intel, there were no "Intel Inside" stickers on most computers. Do Apple computers still ship with Apple stickers in the box?

    76. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this really Unique? I thought that the Virus writers of yesterday used to do this. I remember one friend who had a virus on his laptop years ago - he had nothing but advertising popping up on his screen.

    77. Re:I sure hope they get this patent by Atryn · · Score: 1

      Combine this with the recent news of Apple and the NY Times working on the supposed Apple Slate and the logic here could be that they are planning for their tablet / news media option. Providing free or low cost access to subscription based news via advertising is certainly nothing new.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
  2. I dare them! by jhfry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So long as there is a Free (not $$$ free) alternative, all they will do is push users to it.

    --
    Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    1. Re:I dare them! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pretty much. I've got limited real estate on my screen. Even more so on a netbook. To top it off, I have limited bandwidth, occasionally use metered bandwidth, and often play online games where any interruption is deadly.

      I'll actually go one step further: as long as there is any alternative that does not display ads, I will use it. I will pay a significant amount of money (at least a few hundred dollars) and put up with other significant UI issues (including learning a brand new one) if I can get my hands on a OS that doesn't have ads.

      Yes, I know. This will most likely be similar to a Netzero play: free OS, free software, as long as you watch the ads. It could even be a price differentiator, like the various editions of Windows Vista. But even Netzero abandoned the business model of supporting free product with ads. And I also understand that filing for a patent does not constitute a product announcement. But it's never too early to start the bitching when it comes to ideas as braindead as this one.

      I know people have gotten used to having TV subsidized by ads, and I know that a lot of people use the computer as a glorified TV. But a significant portion of users have a computer because it is nothing like a TV. And those will abandon an ad-driven OS in droves.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:I dare them! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can imagine the Mac vs PC commercials reversing very quickly if they start doing things (like this) to annoy the user.

    3. Re:I dare them! by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      I've got limited real estate on my screen.

      You need to buy the new 27" iMac. :)

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:I dare them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Apple will integrate ads into OS X. It would seriously hurt Mac sales.

    5. Re:I dare them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and often play online games where any interruption is deadly.

      who the hell uses a mac to play games anyway! ;)

    6. Re:I dare them! by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can imagine the Mac vs PC commercials reversing very quickly if they start doing things (like this) to annoy the user.

      We already have pop up advertising like this on PCs that run Windows, they are called "viruses" and "trojans". If Apple did this, surely someone would come up with an "antivirus" product that will rid of the ads.

      Worse yet, someone would come up with an OS X virus that displayed pop up ads that promised to get rid of the Apple ads, and then you couldn't tell which ads were Apple, and which were virus. Of course, both would be equally irritating.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    7. Re:I dare them! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. This will most likely be similar to a Netzero play: free OS, free software, as long as you watch the ads.

      No, this will most likely be similar to a television with ads that can be marked as unskipable.

      News flash: Apple makes television devices. They've just patented a method of making the ads unskipable on an OS level. This is a fairly obvious idea, but that doesn't stop patents these days. What's not obvious is why people are blathering on about ads on their desktop and NetZero or FreePC or other things utterly unrelated to what Apple is obviously doing this for. When you see that Yamaha has patented a new motorcycle engine design, do you expect to see motorcycle engines attached to their next new music synth? Or are people still living in a world where they think Apple only makes computers?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    8. Re:I dare them! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      The only PC Pop ups I have are when Vista asks "Hey, you sure you want to do this? Let me make sure you're an admin and you're confirming this..." which one would argue are annoying - but when I read what it says, I haven't gotten a single Virus or Trojan since running Vista with Windows Firewall, Phishing filters enabled, And AVG Freely running.

      I check every week with Malware Bytes and its always clean because I don't install those Active X controls that are suspicious.

      And contrary to popular belief, there are viruses for Macs, and I've seen quite a few, mostly from Pron sites.

  3. Logos by ewoods · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't putting a logo or a brand name on a product constitute advertising? That's been done all over operating systems since the beginning of time - prior art?

    1. Re:Logos by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Informative

      Branding isn't the same as advertising. For one, advertising involves showing ads for products that don't necessarily have anything to do with the one you're using. The tag on the back of your shirt that says who made the shirt isn't an advertisement for that brand, it's just identifying who made the shirt. The design on the front of the shirt, however, is an ad.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Logos by Amnenth · · Score: 1

      I can hardly consider the logos or branding on any OS I've used so far to actually be intrusive or advertising. I mean, (in the case of non-free OSes) you've already bought the darn thing, right? Right now they're more just like a reminder about what OS you're using.

    3. Re:Logos by ewoods · · Score: 1

      By your logic, splash screens and boot screens displaying manufacturer and product are, in fact, advertising. They are not critical to functionality and only serve to advertise the product in question.

    4. Re:Logos by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      No, a boot screen is a boot screen. Not everything that has any sort of branding on it is necessarily an advertisement. A boot sequence is indeed critical to the functionality of the computer, and frankly it makes sense to show what is booting, however stylized they want to make it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Logos by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it's self-referential, it's branding. If it refers to other products, it's advertising.
       
      While it is possible for branding to be just as obnoxious as advertising (e.g. a logo on the shirt bigger than the wearer's head), they are different beasts.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:Logos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not patenting Advertising. They're patenting a particular way to advertise. A way invasive to an extent you've never dreamed of.

    7. Re:Logos by mortonda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Come on, you missed a perfect time for a car analogy. The Chevy cross on the back of a car is just a logo and branding. The stuff painted on these cars is advertising.

  4. There are other OS's by xs650 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Without collusion that would drive buyers to other OSs.

    Not even MS would do something that doucebaggery on their own

    1. Re:There are other OS's by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

      Microsoft could get away with doing it. No one else could. Now if Microsoft wants to do it, Apple will be making double profit (1) switching users (2) royalties.

    2. Re:There are other OS's by Linnen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Apple could get away with doing it. No one else could. Now if Apple wants to do it, Microsoft will be making double profit (1) switching users (2) royalties.

      Fixed it for ya.

      If Microsoft would do anything of this nature, they will get called on it. The only defenders that I can think of would be Ballmer and the rest of the MS marketing team.
      Apple, OTOH, has the non-corporate defenders to get away with this. They could install this on every Mac, iPhone and iPod complete with 'you will brick your device if this is modded away' utilities, and Apple fans will still say combinations of "Jobs is brilliant!", "Apple needs this to compete." and "MS/LINUX Biter!"

    3. Re:There are other OS's by DevConcepts · · Score: 1
      Somewhere Balmer is throwing a chair

      Not even MS would do something that doucebaggery on their own

    4. Re:There are other OS's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is becoming even worse than Microsoft...

    5. Re:There are other OS's by jayspec462 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am an Apple fanboi, born and bred in the soft, comforting womb of the Reality Distortion Field. There is not a single computer or device in my house that was not Designed by Apple in California.

      If Apple were to do this on my Mac, or my iPhone, or my iWhateverTheHellElse, I would jump ship like Neo leaving the Matrix*. Apple fanbois are Apple fanbois because we prize elegance and design. Implementing this in OS X would shit on it.

      (* Just like in that ONE AND ONLY ONE movie, that had ABSOLUTELY NO sequels... See how good at distorting reality I am?)

      --
      $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
    6. Re:There are other OS's by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apple fanbois are Apple fanbois because we prize elegance and design.

      Yeah, but what if they are elegant, well designed ads?

    7. Re:There are other OS's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      And what about a Window 8 "Starter edition"?

      Stephane

    8. Re:There are other OS's by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Apple makes toasters, coffee machines, microwaves, ovens, radios, etc. I should get looking for the iCoffee, iTv*, iMicrowave, iOven, iRadio, etc.

      *iTv looks to be a service in the UK.

    9. Re:There are other OS's by Povno · · Score: 1

      And if he keeps throwing chairs, eventually he's gonna break Windows. ;)

      --
      sudo apt-get lost
    10. Re:There are other OS's by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      I doubt Apple would do this on an OS that people paid money for.

      Maybe they'll be releasing a free or cheaper version with the caveat that you will see ads once in a while. The NetZero business plan.

    11. Re:There are other OS's by Linnen · · Score: 1

      That is one part that puzzles me. This embedded ads patent does seems set to violate every rule of design, official and unofficial, for the UI.

      I can see it if Microsoft came up with this. They'd be roasted up one side and down the other. (The attitude that MS would not get roasted is my primary point of contention with the parent.) The flames would be especially intense if they were to implement this, adding another layer of FUBAR to the OS.

      But Jobs?

    12. Re:There are other OS's by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      On every Apple product:

      Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    13. Re:There are other OS's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not a single computer or device in my house that was not Designed by Apple in California.

      Wow, you have an "Apple" microwave oven? An "Apple" shaver? Heck, an "Apple" nose hair trimmer? That, or you really live in the reality distortion field...

  5. Good by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Confine advertising to OSX, sounds good to me.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    1. Re:Good by camperslo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Confine advertising to OSX, sounds good to me.

      It would be funny if the ads kicked in when OS X detected installation on non-Apple hardware.

  6. Troll protection by omarch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think the majority of the stupid patents from the big companies are just to protect them from the patent trolls in the future

    1. Re:Troll protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you don't intend to put ads in your OS, why would you need to protect yourself from someone else patenting it? No, this is a patent to preempt "free" advertising-supported commercial operating systems by competitors, namely Google.

    2. Re:Troll protection by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I think the majority of the stupid patents from the big companies are just to protect them from the patent trolls in the future

      Sounds like you're "thinking different".

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Troll protection by osu-neko · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If you don't intend to put ads in your OS, why would you need to protect yourself from someone else patenting it?

      Duh.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Troll protection by renimar · · Score: 1

      Apple could also use it as a tool to keep 3rd party software from advertising on their OS, too. So even if Apple didn't mean to use it themselves within OS X, they could use it to prevent others from doing so with other software on OS X.

      It's the 'I'm taking it so nobody else can have it, either" principle.

      --
      In other news, Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilties Act...
    5. Re:Troll protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess Google will have to charge everyone a penny for it's Android/Chrome OS now... :-P

    6. Re:Troll protection by maharb · · Score: 1

      So? If they A) Don't have prior art and B) Don't have a patent then Apple effectively "thought of it first" and thus they get the rights to it. If Google was planning on doing this, and had the technology, maybe they should have patented it.

      That is like asking why an inventor would invent anything and not personally bring it to market? Not every inventor plans to personally manufacture, distribute, market, etc. It is common practice to license or sell inventions [patents and related knowledge].

    7. Re:Troll protection by pmontra · · Score: 1

      >

      It's the 'I'm taking it so nobody else can have it, either" principle.

      <fun>So one could patent Being Evil to prevent everybody else from being evil. Sounds Good! Any prior art?</fun>

      Actually in the case of Apple they might negate a competitive advantage to other companies, but why are they patenting showing ads and not a million other things? It looks like they have some interests in advertising and don't want someone else to patent it before them.

    8. Re:Troll protection by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Will this patent stop TV shows from having ads? It is being displayed through the 'OS'.

    9. Re:Troll protection by zraith · · Score: 1

      I agree. I see this as an attempt from Apple to thwart free ad-based OSs that may come (I.E. Android). In all essence, this will be an obstacle for any OS developer (I.E. Microsoft) from ever providing a free ad-based OS. Thus, I see it as a personal advantage. It sort of ensures that there won't be ad-based OSs. I doubt Apple will implement this, they are just patent trolling to keep their market share from future competitive ad-based OSs. Anyway, I use Linux. ;)

    10. Re:Troll protection by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      How would it prevent Google from putting ads in an OS? The patent doesn't give them exclusive rights to the concept of putting advertising in an OS, it only protects their method for doing it.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  7. another fine example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    another fine example on how patents promote innovation... nasty stuff.

  8. Very impatiantly waiting... by windex82 · · Score: 5, Funny

    .... for an explanation from the apple fan boys why this is so awesome!

    1. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by xednieht · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Apple.... the new Microsoft

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    2. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Would it prevent google from putting links and ads in their OS, because Apple holds the patent? Could this be just a "preventive" measure?

    3. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      You windows users wouldn't understand,

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA:

      There simply will be no escaping this high-tech advertising assault! Of course, this is an excellent drafting technique and illustration of what really needs to be done when you write these types of patent applications.

      This is Apple dude.. you have NO IDEA if/what/when/where the implementation will be, especially from a well written patent description.

      So.. there is really nothing to explain that TFA hasn't already.

    5. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I hadn't even thought of that, but you're right. I can totally see Google trying to put ad support in the OS itself. I wonder if Apple is trying to keep them from doing this, or are they just trying to get their hand on the cookie jar so they can potentially license it and get royalties?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not, but since when is the world entirely black and white?

      Just look at Michael Jackson.

    7. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Honestly...this seems to fly in the face of all of their entire user experience driven design policy. It also stands as a tremendous insult and annoyance to most of their target demographic. I find it very difficult to believe that a company that uses 'style' and the whole 'smoothness' factor to sell its products would quite eat a bullet like this. Love or hate their products, they have been very savvy on the marketing front for the most part, this seems like a very backwards move for them to really implement the way it is being described in the article here.

      I almost wonder if this is a way to move against all the 'free' iPhone apps that do this kind of crap where it interrupts what you are doing to make you click on an ad to get back to your app. I suspect that may be wishful thinking, but not much else really makes a whole lot of sense.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    8. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't knock MJ ... He's proof positive that in America it is TRULY the land of opportunity. Where else can a poor little black boy grow up to be a rich white woman?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They could argue that it's a "defensive patent", giving them leverage against MS or any other company that tries it. If Apple can stop another company from doing it via a patent threat, then it's not a feature they'd feel pressured to compete with.

    10. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      .... for an explanation from the apple fan boys why this is so awesome!

      The ads are slick, shiny, and fashionable?

             

    11. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by getNewNickName · · Score: 1

      Ad support for iPhone apps?

    12. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously doubt it, I mean, it states in the patent that the ad 'blocks' functionality while it's popping in your face.
      To be very, very honest, google ads are anything but intrusive. They may show ads on the background, which I doubt this patent covers.

    13. Re:Very impatiantly waiting... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Hope you're right. Hope I'm right. Either way, better than the alternative...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  9. M$FT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, if Microsoft did this, everyone would be screaming bloody murder

    1. Re:M$FT by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Man, if Microsoft did this, everyone would be screaming bloody murder

      You mean, like this?

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  10. Prior Art? by Vandil+X · · Score: 4, Informative

    I recall reading about "free" PCs running Windows 98 that required the user to click and view ads every 30-60 minutes of computer use.

    There were also plenty of "free" dial-up ISPs that required you to click their advertising banner every so often for the connection to stay alive.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    1. Re:Prior Art? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That is software on top of the OS, not the OS itself.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Prior Art? by Trahloc · · Score: 5, Informative

      I use to work for them. FreePC, loved the job, no one bitched about getting a free computer. But you didn't have to click on ads, you just had your screen permanently filled with them on the bottom and right side. The remaining area was left for you. They eventually got bought out by emachines and then it became a horrible place to work.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    3. Re:Prior Art? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So where is this separation between OS and software on top of the OS? You could say Explorer.exe is just an application on top of the OS. How low does it need to be? Advertisment.dll? Advertisement.sys? Adverisement.Hypervisorkernel?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Prior Art? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Good question. I bet the antitrust lawsuit filed by Netscape covered a lot of stuff related to that question.

      Also, I don't like your sig.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:Prior Art? by maharb · · Score: 1

      good point, I was almost convinced.

    6. Re:Prior Art? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Granted, I don't think it's enough of a difference that a patent should be given. It has to be what, different, non-obvious, and useful? Or something to that effect.

      However, even though I don't think it's patentable I find myself hoping that a patent is issued just because it will guarantee that nobody tries this stupid idea.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the innovation that makes it patentable is that it comes bundled rather than as a 3rd party? Has the patent system gotten that bad that, Apple will just try to send this one through? Sounds like Microsoft should have just patented Anti-Virus built into the OS and taken Symantec down. I call bullshit on it either way.

    8. Re:Prior Art? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Just as long as they don't display those rotting toe-nail ads. Those ads grossed me out and they were everywhere. Goatse-lite.

    9. Re:Prior Art? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree with you.

      However, this does introduce some "new" features that might make it patent-worthy.

      Namely, if the OS is involved, it can block everything while the ad shows. You can't switch windows, minimize it, or run an ad-blocker to keep from seeing the ads. You can't even walk away if they loop the ad unless you click something at the end to confirm you watched it!

      Of course, you could just as easily patent the process if you wrote a third-party app which took over the OS to the same effect and held the user hostage while ads are displayed, but anyone trying to do that would be crucified... (1) it might be easier to avoid criticism by bundling it in with the larger concept of "ads within the OS" and (2) it's Apple, not some third-party vendor who actually might use this sort of idiotic patent in their software. I doubt that Apple would be foolish enough to try it; they'd be crucified as well.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  11. Scratching head over this one by Anonymusing · · Score: 1

    Maybe they're going to start giving away Mac OS X or iPhones for "free" -- if you allow advertising? It's the NetZero approach to OS distribution!

    To turn off the ads, you just have to sign up for MobileMe at $99/year. That's all! Small price to pay to bask unimpeded in the Shekinah Glory of Macintosh. (Shekinatosh?)

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    1. Re:Scratching head over this one by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh come on, it's patently obvious what product Apple intends to use this on. People blabbering on about ads on their desktop are just engaging in fear-mongering...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  12. Surefire way to make me not upgrade by Darth+Sdlavrot · · Score: 1

    Or buy anything new that requires the new OS.

    And let me throw in a gratuitous gripe for them not supporting PowerPC in SnowLeopard too while I'm at it.

  13. Silly. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    First, there's prior art for this of course. Second, it's just like the old con of putting "on the internet" on the back of any old idea and claiming it's new.

    Is Apple going to get one upped when some super-genius comes up with the amazing idea of Advertising on the OS...on a netbook! or Advertising on the OS...on a laptop! It's ridiculous. Advertising on _anything_ is inherently an obvious idea.

    1. Re:Silly. by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

      A refrigerator that inventories your food and advertises custom tailored ads based on what you like to eat?

    2. Re:Silly. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Is Apple going to get one upped

      when some super-genius comes up with the amazing idea

      of Advertising on the OS...on a netbook!

      or Advertising on the OS...on a laptop!

      It's ridiculous.

      Advertising on _anything_ is inherently an obvious idea.

      Burma Shave!

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  14. Clarification please by xednieht · · Score: 1

    Is an operating system not software?

    Seems to be a patent based on semantics really

    What distinguishes software named "operating system" from software named "web server" for example?

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  15. I Suppose This is Good by nmb3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As somebody who avoids Apple products I hope they are granted the patent and it is vigorously enforced. If a company wants to pursue such amazingly stupid advertising techniques like these, I'd be just fine with having them confined to the Apple product line. (What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the "inventor". Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers?)

    Even better is requiring other companies (who also wish to shoot themselves in the face) to pay to license the technology. Stupid company + expensive licensing fees + lost customers = failed stupid company == the system works.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
    1. Re:I Suppose This is Good by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Having a patent doesn't mean you are going to use it. However Apple could use it against other firms for doing something similar and possible threatening their business model of selling hardware. Now selling adds and giving away the hardware would be a threat to Apples model so if someone does this apple could sue them to death.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:I Suppose This is Good by jittles · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that Apple listed Steve Jobs as the first inventor on all patent applications they filed. Am I wrong?

    3. Re:I Suppose This is Good by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the "inventor". Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers?

      In all fairness, turtlenecks don't buy themselves.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:I Suppose This is Good by samkass · · Score: 1

      Since this patent pretty much describes Google's core business model, I assume Apple is simply doing it as a way of keeping Google at bay. Do you seriously think a company which is as minimalist with its design as Apple would scatter ads over the desktop? No, they're just adding an idea to a patent portfolio as a bargaining chip when/if Google tries to implement this idea.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    5. Re:I Suppose This is Good by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      so if someone does this apple could sue them to death

      So Apple is a patent troll? Patenting an idea (even a bad idea) just to keep other people from using it is not what the patent system was designed for. This is the kind of behavior Slashdot normally crucifies companies for, doubly so for trolling software patents.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
  16. I claim prior art. by brennanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step

    http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step-ii

    Apple, if you really want to go forward with this please have your lawyers shower me with cash.

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
    1. Re:I claim prior art. by sigmoid_balance · · Score: 1

      No, I think it just makes parts of the patent invalid because there is prior art. Which might mean it won't stand in court.

    2. Re:I claim prior art. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that doesn't even read on the independent claim, which requires that the OS disables some function first, displays an ad, and then enables the disabled function in response to the ad ending.

    3. Re:I claim prior art. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Banner ads? The single most important part?? Nah. PORN is the corner stone of the Internet. And of everything else too. What else?

      Space travel: no broad success. Why? No porn!
      TV: broad success. Why? Porn!
      What was the difference between music in the old days, and music today? Porn! (Hot chicks / boys in pop music mainly. It should be called "porn music".)

      The only thing that can compete, is food and drugs. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:I claim prior art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A comic strip is not prior art.

      Having the idea outlined in the preamble is not prior art.

      Having spent some time thinking about a system to achieve the claims is not prior art.

      Having developed what is taught in the specification, which achieves in fact the scope claimed, is prior art.

    5. Re:I claim prior art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to piss on your parade, but some poorly drawn cartoon with failed attempts at humor does not constitute prior art in the context of this patent application.

  17. Really stupid move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shooting themselves in the foot?....pooping over their own food?...committing ceremonial suicide?. doing that only will alienate customers to move to another OS.

    One reason more to stick with Linux....

  18. I for one by idontgno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    welcome our advertising-patenting overlords.

    Seriously. I hope Jobs all the best in this patent pursuit. If Apple succeeds, then I can avoid occurrences of this amazingly offensive idea by the simple expedient of avoiding Apple operating systems, a course of action I'm already pretty much committed to for ample reasons of Apple's corporate citizenship and customer relations.

    As far as I'm concerned, this patent will be the legal equivalent of encysting a noxious parasite for 20 years.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:I for one by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Seriously. I hope Jobs all the best in this patent pursuit. If Apple succeeds, then I can avoid occurrences of this amazingly offensive idea by the simple expedient of avoiding Apple operating systems, a course of action I'm already pretty much committed to for ample reasons of Apple's corporate citizenship and customer relations.

      Your theory is flawed because it is based upon two unsupported assumptions. First, that Apple plans to implement this patent in their own products. Second, that Apple won't license this patent to other companies.

    2. Re:I for one by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Let's just say I'm specifying a best-case scenario.

      Another pretty good one is the "Apple as White Knight" playbook. Apple patents this technological obscenity for the sole purpose of locking it away, never to be implemented by their own operating systems, never to be licensed to another operating system, for 20 years.

      I find this story less convincing to me, given my beliefs in Apple's corporate behavioral tendencies. But I concede that it is a plausible, if unlikely, alternate outcome.

      The other obvious ending for this story: Apple gets the patent, licenses it to everyone who can afford it, and the cackles insanely over the piles of money it's making over the misery of everyone who uses such an OS. In which case, my primary escape is Open Source, just like now. But it would suck to be, for instance, a Microsoft user.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:I for one by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      First, that Apple plans to implement this patent in their own products.

      The fact that Apple got a patent supports the assumption that they plan to implement it. Unless Apple is just a patent troll, which is another possibility. Both of those assumptions are supported. I find the former more likely.

      Second, that Apple won't license this patent to other companies.

      That doesn't imply that every operating system will have advertising.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:I for one by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      First, that Apple plans to implement this patent in their own products.

      The fact that Apple got a patent supports the assumption that they plan to implement it.

      Actually it does not. That's called a non sequitur. Just because they patent something does not imply they are going to implement it as evidenced by the many patents they file which never see implementation. It simply sparks speculation that they might implement it, which is not the same thing.

      That doesn't imply that every operating system will have advertising.

      True, but irrelevant, since the original assertion was they could avoid OS's with built in advertising by simply avoiding Apple products.

    5. Re:I for one by znu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that Apple got a patent supports the assumption that they plan to implement it. Unless Apple is just a patent troll, which is another possibility. Both of those assumptions are supported. I find the former more likely.

      Or plans to use the patent defensively in the periodic patent wars that large tech companies inevitably get into. Or sees the idea as having some commercial value, but not within the context of its current premium-product strategy.

      Apple has years-old patents on shape-shifting keyboards and color-changing computers. Seen either of those in Apple stores lately? The truth is, it's relatively obvious to anyone who actually understands the logic behind Apple's design decisions that ads on the OS X desktop -- unless Apple plans some sort of major change in its current (highly profitable) approach to the market -- are extremely unlikely.

      And it gets really tiring that somehow, despite having seen this dozens of times already, some people on Slashdot still apparently aren't aware of the phenomenon of technology companies patenting ideas they never use. Especially with Apple. Apple is highly secretive. Most of the user-level technologies they actually use, they ship first (unveiling to great fanfare) and then patent. Most of the stuff they patent without a working implementation already shipping, they never use.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    6. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, are you confused, or just a Microsoft employee? Apple's "customer relations" are consistently the best in the business. Have been for years.

    7. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Of all the tech companies, to think Apple would put out an ad-supported version of their software is just silly. They don't even care enough to make the iTunes store competent for people finding products (hence if your app isn't on the front page, it doesn't sell), stooping to putting ads in the OS is both beneath their taste and past their ambition.

    8. Re:I for one by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Just because they patent something does not imply they are going to implement it as evidenced by the many patents they file which never see implementation.

      Right. So, the theory that Apple is going to implement the patent is supported by the facts that 1) they got the patent and 2) they have patents that they've implemented. Also, the theory that they will not implement the patent is supported by the facts that 1) they got the patent and 2) they have patents that they have not implemented. Both assumptions are supported, although only one will be true.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:I for one by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Right. So, the theory that Apple is going to implement the patent is supported by the facts that 1) they got the patent and 2) they have patents that they've implemented.

      You're still committing a logical fallacy. By the same logic there is support for Apple implementing parental codes in Quicktime because that patent is number 4,930,158 and Apple has implemented other patents that start with "4". Just because one has correlated with the other in a past instance does not imply one will likely follow from the other. For that you need to show an overall correlation of factors and test for causation.

      Heck for that matter all things will either happen or they won't happen so by your logic that is support for the fact that monkeys will fly out of your butt within the next 25 minutes. In short, you're using the term "support" in a different way that is normal for logical or rhetorical conversation.

    10. Re:I for one by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      My point is that at this time either outcome is just as likely, neither outcome can be favored. Frankly, arguing about which of two events is going to happen is an exercise in futility anyway, either Apple will or will not implement this in their OS and it doesn't matter what either of us thinks about that. In fact, the decision has probably already been made and we just aren't aware.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  19. End-run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on a variety of devices, including desktop computers, cell phones, PDAs, and more.

    ...gaming devices. This is a reaction to all the similar crape being patented & implemented for games. Hardware lock-in is an Apple fixation, so this was just a natural, dare I say obvious, patent.

    Go Steve! Finish your life "selling sugared water to children".

  20. Oh please god no.... by gabereiser · · Score: 1

    I don't want my desktop invaded by ads. It's bad enough I have to sit through 30 seconds of ads when watching hulu videos or even sometimes youtube videos. Who ever came up with this idea needs a good 'ol shot in the face.

  21. Big Brother advertising... by INeededALogin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising

    The Big Brother metaphor has finally been dealt its final blow. Big Brother advertising is propaganda. I think a better term for this new patent would be "Jerk Advertising"

    1. Re:Big Brother advertising... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      "Jerk Advertising"

      I hear that's already being done by a lot of... adult websites.

  22. Let them do whatever they want by habib.moukalled · · Score: 1

    If such a pointless idea succeeds, more people will begin using FreeBSD and Linux ;) But seriously... I like apple 0 % (The hardware is over priced and the operating system is derived from a free OS). No matter what they may say, they are a company trying to make money. Thus, apple is not an innocent party, they are just watching out for their own skin.

  23. I say it's a good thing!! by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    I would be happy to have someone patent this pile of crap idea!!
    If other people would be forced to pay them money for adding annoying crap to my OS..then perhaps they are less likely to do it.

  24. Oh yeah. by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

    Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown, but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising. It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty. I sure hope this is not the future of advertising.

    Riiiiiight. Hey, anything is possible.

    My first thought was "I wonder if it is possible to apply for a patent with a spoofed name", you know, to make someone look bad. But in view of the money grubbing BS that can no more be removed from the Apple Experience than missing features and brushed aluminum, I have not trouble believing that Apple is interested in this kind of "monetizing".

    Call me a cynic. I got another word for anyone who believes that Apples is reserving this concept in order to protect users from someone else implementing it.

    1. Re:Oh yeah. by DesertBlade · · Score: 1

      Agree, Apple has been really ramping up 'alternative' revenue streams the last few years. The say it is for your convenience but they don't really give you options. Ipods (iphones) need Itunes. MobileMe is another example. There are no other real options.

      --
      Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
    2. Re:Oh yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ipods (iphones) need Itunes.

      No, they don't

    3. Re:Oh yeah. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      ipods do not need itunes.

      Jesus christ does anybody pay attention to Winamp any longer? It's had ipod support for YEARS.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  25. Prior Art: by iYk6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    There is prior art from 2002: http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/10/bsod_ads.html

    1. Re:Prior Art: by turtle+graphics · · Score: 1

      More prior art: The television set. The program will not continue until the ads have played.

    2. Re:Prior Art: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't all "Adware" prior art? View ads to use? Why would an operating system be anything else?

      I don't have time to search but I thought even Microsoft (!) toyed around with that idea for certain "developing markets"?

  26. I can see where this could be heading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see a future OS (note, I'm not stating OS X explicitly, but perhaps an OS from someone who licenses this patent from Apple) ending up with multiple versions:

    A version licensed at no cost (I'm not saying free because it is not free as in beer, nor as in speech) that has modal ads pop up and take control of the machine for 30-60 seconds at a time, perhaps demanding a click or two or they start back at the beginning.

    A version licensed at some charge, but none of this "ad enhanced user experience" stuff.

    Of course, there could be infinite gradients, the more someone pays for the license, the fewer ads blocking them from using the machine.

    Now my concerns if someone actually put this into practice:

    1: Security. A lot of reputable sites have been bitten by third party services putting up ads from blackhats, causing infections and other mayhem. If ads are pushed to the computer, with various code, it could be possible to just take over the computer, perhaps encrypting the user's files and then demanding a ransom.

    2: Privacy. Usually with ad sites come infinitely persistent flash shared objects, scads of infinite life cookies, Java shared objects, and many other attempts to store stuff on a browser to identify that PC again.

    3: Interfering with what a user is doing. Picture someone having to dial a number due to an emergency, and having to wait (and perhaps repeatedly acknowledge) some noisy ad spot about manhood supplements while a house is on fire, or there is a robbery in progress and the person is hiding under something. I'm sure virtually everyone has had to dial 911 due to something at least sometime in the past 10 years. Even if the number is not a 911 number, people do not have time to wait for an ad to dance on the screen before a call is connected.

    4: Call me cynical, but I'm sure that if this ad "functionality" ends up in operating systems, there will be zero reduction in costs to the consumer. Such as how some ISP customers ended up with ads due to a transparent proxy, but their bill remained the same. Maybe this will make some cookie cutter MBA happy for adding another revenue stream, but in reality, it will just ensure that the OS platform gets abandoned by anyone who is able to, and the remaining customers are going to be very unhappy people and not willing to buy much, if anything, from that company again.

  27. Blocking Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are pre-empting Google by patenting this, that's all. It's coming anyway - they might as well get royalties.

  28. I bet Google is pretty ticked off ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After all, they are the advertising kings and now they may have to pay royalties to Apple for the right to embed ads in their own Android OS. How embarrassing for them.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:I bet Google is pretty ticked off ... by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      ... if it gets approved, which really should not happen.

  29. Re:Surefire way to make me not upgrade by Amnenth · · Score: 1

    That's like them not supporting 68k chips past OS 8.1. Technology moves on, and after a while it won't make sense to support the oldest models anymore.

  30. Smart move by Apple by hotcorrado169 · · Score: 1

    I think this is a great move by Apple, I don't believe they would use these sort of tactics on Apple products. It looks to me like they want block or cash in on other companies like M$ or Google using such advertising in products such as Android. This really helps people like myself who have Android phones.

    --
    --Jason--
    1. Re:Smart move by Apple by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't that anti-slashdot-zeitgeist though? Patenting something simply so someone else can't do it? IMO, that sounds like a "patent troll," just not in the typical usage of the phrase.

      And I have a hard time putting so much faith in Apple, which has done plenty to not deserve said faith, that they would not advertise - if nothing else, their own products. Apple is looking for money. Just like Microsoft and Google.

    2. Re:Smart move by Apple by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I like how you spell "M$" while defending Apple for patenting a method of advertising. Well done.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Smart move by Apple by hotcorrado169 · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending Apple. I'm saying it may work in my favor in a way. The big difference is that Apple doesn't sell advertising. M$ and Google make their money from advertising, especially giving away free products that include ads. Bashing them for having and patenting an idea first does not make them a patent troll. If I have an idea first, and patent it with the intent of getting paid for it by other companies that want to use it- I am not a patent troll. Patent trolls look for violations of a patent and try to make them pay after the violation. I used the M$ cause it's easier to type.

      --
      --Jason--
    4. Re:Smart move by Apple by Again · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't that anti-slashdot-zeitgeist though? Patenting something simply so someone else can't do it? IMO, that sounds like a "patent troll," just not in the typical usage of the phrase.

      Yes, but in this case it is altruistic patent trolling.

      And I have a hard time putting so much faith in Apple, which has done plenty to not deserve said faith, that they would not advertise - if nothing else, their own products. Apple is looking for money. Just like Microsoft and Google.

      In my opinion, this seems out of character for Apple. When I bought my HP netbook, it came with all kinds of crap including links on the desktop to websites like eBay. So far, this type of Apple has avoided this type of behaviour.

      I agree that Apple is here to make money and ever since my iMac G5 died I have held a grudge against them but I will admit that their products are very nice, clean packages. Their current customers are in general people who can afford to pay extra money for an operating system and a hundred bucks off of a $2000 computer isn't significant.

    5. Re:Smart move by Apple by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending Apple.

      But..

      I think this is a great move by Apple

      The big difference is that Apple doesn't sell advertising.

      Not yet. They sure do a lot of advertising on their own though.

      M$ and Google make their money from advertising

      No, Microsoft makes its money primarily from selling Windows and Office. They are a software company, not an advertising company.

      If I have an idea first, and patent it with the intent of getting paid for it by other companies that want to use it- I am not a patent troll.

      If you patent an idea with no intent to implement it, I think you're a patent troll. Simply having an idea and patenting it does not contribute anything to society, it's parasitic. Which is exactly what patent trolls are. Implementing the patent does contribute, even if you're not the patent holder.

      I used the M$ cause it's easier to type.

      M$ is no easier to type than MS, you just want to show your anti-Microsoft agenda.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:Smart move by Apple by hotcorrado169 · · Score: 1

      I meant M$ as opposed to Microsoft. I am not Anti-Microsoft, I believe MS has made a lot of great things. They do however generate a lot of money from marketing, bing is an example. Look at cubestat.com and do a search for bing or any other MS site and see just how much. Advertising and selling ads are two totally separate things.

      --
      --Jason--
  31. um.. by kev4573 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't this the definition of adware ?

  32. Can't See this Happening on Any Apple Product by strick1226 · · Score: 1

    Given Mr. Jobs' preference for minimalistic case and interface design, I really can't see this being implemented on *any* Apple-branded product. It's so contrary to his "vision" if you will. As others have pointed out... perhaps it was just to ensure Apple had called "shotgun" on any use of this technology by someone else.

    1. Re:Can't See this Happening on Any Apple Product by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Jobs' "vision" for Apple is a full bank account. This helps him achieve that vision.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Can't See this Happening on Any Apple Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jobs' "vision" for Apple is a full bank account. This helps him achieve that vision.

      So one day the bank will call Jobs to say "I'm sorry Mr Jobs but we can't deposit your last cheque today." "What? Why not?" "Well sir, our bank... its full. We'll try again tomorrow."

  33. Screw you apple by Turzyx · · Score: 1

    And screw all the pretentious Mac/iPhone/iPod/iFoTM users that got them where they are today.

  34. Google not MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is to prevent someone else from doing it, I would guess that's it's directed at Google's Android Desktop and not Windows.

  35. Been There Done That...10 years ago by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    There was a company ( here is a link to a story Cringley did on it at the time) that gave away a desktop system with a program that loaded a "frame" around the Windows desktop that streamed advertising. You basically filled out a questionnaire about your interests and if you fit their profile you got a PC. A coworker checked everything ( I ridiculously actually put the things I was interested in) and got one of the first PC's. I think that venture lasted about six months.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  36. Oh HELL NO! by kheldan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called "malware" and the authors of such are prosecuted, but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design!? What sort of Bizzarro universe did I wake up into this morning anyway? No fucking way, not even if the OS is free would I put up with that shit!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Oh HELL NO! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called "malware" and the authors of such are prosecuted...

      It's only called malware and prosecuted if it is deceptively marketed. If you offer a software package designed to show people ads and are upfront about that and it is what users want or it offers a benefit in addition to the ads which users feel outweighs the cost of seeing ads then it is not malware at all. For example, lots of Web apps are partly or completely subsidized by advertising and are not malware.

      ...but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design!?

      Maybe, but if someone does then you are free to buy it or not and so long as they are not deceptively marketing it, it is certainly not illegal. A lot of people would probably be willing to go for a free copy of Windows 7 that came with ads built in, especially in poorer areas of the world.

      No fucking way, not even if the OS is free would I put up with that shit!

      Yeah, you and a huge chunk of the consumer market is uninterested in such an offering. I know I'm not. I plan on not buying/acquiring it and letting other people do whatever they want.

    2. Re:Oh HELL NO! by thickdiick · · Score: 1

      You are not the center of the world. I am convinced there are people out there who would love to have the chance to have a computer if it meant dealing with some pesky advertising. Not everyone has the opportunities you may have to own a computer and get ahead in life. Think of the children!
      Many of you speak like you are powerless lemmings. Apple won't implement something that its paying users don't want. The dollar has the ultimate voting power, and the corporations listen when you vote with your dollar. If you don't approve — don't buy it.

    3. Re:Oh HELL NO! by ^_^x · · Score: 1

      If this ever happens in an OS I paid for (well... I suppose not counting the XBox 360 - maybe) then I will crusade against it to the very end.
      If they're just tying up the patent to keep it from happening, good for them! One more reason to support them!
      If they're doing it just so you have to pay royalties to them when advertising in normal programs... it's unethical, but I'd laugh anyway...

    4. Re:Oh HELL NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People already proved they would put up with it. A lot of folks will do a lot of things if you just use the word "free". (as in beer)

    5. Re:Oh HELL NO! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out, I'm free to buy it or not buy it. I'm also free to call anyone who does buy it a CHUMP and laugh uproariously at them.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    6. Re:Oh HELL NO! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Many people are also idiots with IQs below 100. They get what they deserve. To be fair, the idiots who would buy such trash would also complain about the ads and probably sue over them.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Oh HELL NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iDioten
      Kaufen
      Eben
      Alles

  37. Late 90's by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    There were a lot of companies doing or trying to offer advertising in free computers or free Internet access. If someone has copies of The Computer Paper from Canada from the late 90's and early 2000 there should be ads in there for those kinds of offers.
    http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/business/275213.stm

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  38. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Informative

    and makes it nearly impossible to install the OS (or first boot) a mac without buying .mac.

    I have to experience with the former statements, but this is utter crap. I have installed 2 different releases on my Macbook, and never once did I see more than an ad for .Mac during the install. I was never prompted to create an account. It certainly never hindered my ability to book my machine.

  39. COOL! I have another idea for a patent, then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will file for a patent that allows me to record my computer usage before I use it so that I can replay it later and fast forward through the commercials! I will call it....

    PiVO!

  40. In other words... by Experiment+626 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty.

    So, best case scenario, Apple is a patent troll?

    1. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty.

      So, best case scenario, Apple is a patent troll?

      At least this would be trolling against something very stupid that no consumer would want. They'd be cashing in because someone else was being a troll (albeit not a patent troll).

  41. Malware? by colin_faber · · Score: 0

    So is this possibly an attempt to establish a legal avenue to go after some of these malware venders? Interestingly also, could malware be consider prior art?

  42. The device will rule. by bodland · · Score: 1

    Traditional media advertising and our consumer based economy are joined at the hip. Content creators are looking for other ways to generate content and the way it looks is that the infrastructure that delivers the media will be the new "publishers" of content. Think of it like the display computers inside TV's, digital television services and telesmartphones will drive content creation rather than the networks and publishers. Because...that is who will have the money and that is where the point of contact is. Content creators will battle and be paid directly by apple to provide exclusive content. For advertisers it will be way cheaper to buy ads that display on a TV that displays hundreds of channels. Than buying ad space for hundreds of channels.

    When the device trumps the content for advertising delivery you can kiss goodbye traditional media like network TV and print. Device makers with proprietary operating systems will own the white space. They will buy the content. They will discount the device in lieu of more advertising.

    Content will be on-demand and/or subscription based. This I think will be a boon for creativity as the stranglehold mainstream media has on culture and content will finally be relinquished when they no longer have any advertisers to help create quality programming and content.

  43. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this be a pre-emptive blow against any Google OS? I wouldn't put it past Google to include targeted advertisements in some form in whatever desktop OS they're working on.

  44. Fails the novelty test and prior art by shking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How is this not obvious? There are already devices that lock you out until you watch some advertising. DVD players, for example. This is just a case of grafting something like "in a computer operating system" onto the description of something that's already common. BTW - It could be argued that DVD players have a "primative" operating system

    --
    -- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
    1. Re:Fails the novelty test and prior art by beefnog · · Score: 1

      ... BTW - It could be argued that DVD players have a "primative" operating system

      Primitive indeed :)

    2. Re:Fails the novelty test and prior art by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

      If you go to site such as IGN or other gaming site whenever you play a clip you have to watch a 15-30 sec ad clip before your vid is played

    3. Re:Fails the novelty test and prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a monkey could use it or because a monkey could have written it?

    4. Re:Fails the novelty test and prior art by tsj5j · · Score: 1

      The most brilliant of innovations are seemingly obvious. The iPhone is (in essence) touch screen + phone, a combination of two commonly used components. However, is it not innovative?

    5. Re:Fails the novelty test and prior art by shking · · Score: 1

      In this case it's already being done on other devices, such as a DVD player. This is just moving a common function to a new device/new medium.

      --
      -- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
  45. excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally a compelling reason to dust off my old abacus.

  46. Awww... by brennanw · · Score: 1

    ... go ahead and spoil my payday!

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
    1. Re:Awww... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      your payday is not lost if you pre-emptively sue them NOW.

      Or contact their lawyers and go "Hey, I've got prior art, if you don't want your patent invalidated you'd better pay X$$$$"

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Awww... by N7DR · · Score: 1

      your payday is not lost if you pre-emptively sue them NOW.

      Or contact their lawyers and go "Hey, I've got prior art, if you don't want your patent invalidated you'd better pay X$$$$"

      Why would they pay? Either there is prior art or there is not. Paying off one person -- even the person who "invented" the prior art -- doesn't in the slightest change that. Their patent would still be invalid.

    3. Re:Awww... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      It's like blackmail, you pay me to keep my mouth shut.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  47. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not to mention the utter lack of any shovelware on a Mac install. No McAfee adds, Quicken shortcuts on your desktop, Printer supplies, etc, etc. There is none of that on any Mac. You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.

    I just don't see Apple pushing any of this into any of it's products, but it can certainly prevent others from doing it as well.

  48. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would like to see the Retarded tag used more often.

  49. No ads, no IP by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I will pay a significant amount of money (at least a few hundred dollars)

    Per month? Because eventually, a home Internet connection that's compatible with an operating system that doesn't display ads will cost that much. Consider Trusted Network Connect, which allows a DHCP server to quarantine traffic until the the ISP can verify that your computer is running specific proprietary software. No ads, no IP address outside 169.254.0.0/16.

    1. Re:No ads, no IP by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fortunately it is pretty unlikely that any ISP will ever implement a system like that. There are simply too many obstacles.

      Any ISP that starts forcing extra ads on it's customers is going to get a pretty bad reputation, just like low budget cable TV channels. Depending on how it's done it could also be in violation of copyright if it adds anything extra to web sites.

      ISPs already have enough trouble with virus infected machines that are part of some huge botnet causing people to call them because their internet is really slow. Typical response is "run anti-virus software", after which they are left with no internet access due to broken LSPs in the TCP/IP stack.

      The last thing they want to do is generate even more support headaches. Can you imagine how bad it would be if someone found a vulnerability in the ad delivery software and was able to 0wn an entire ISPs network?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:No ads, no IP by tepples · · Score: 1

      Any ISP that starts forcing extra ads on it's customers is going to get a pretty bad reputation

      Once both the local cable company and the local phone company in a given town "get a pretty bad reputation", do the residents go back to dial-up?

      Typical response is "run anti-virus software"

      Trusted Network Connect would make sure that the user is running ISP-approved antivirus software on an ISP-approved operating system before the IP address is marked routable.

  50. Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In one alarming aspect, the device could be disabled while the advertisements run, thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use.

    The scene from minority report where you see the overhead view of the building. There's a black couple fighting, but they stop briefly while they are probed by the spiders!

  51. For the iPhone, Perhaps? by jayspec462 · · Score: 1

    Given the proliferation of ad supported free apps on the iPhone, perhaps Apple is building an ad-display framework for developers to hook into, rather than have them continually re-invent the wheel for each app. And since it would technically be "part of the OS," perhaps this is a defensive mechanism to prevent patent trolls from pouncing once they implement it.

    --
    $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
  52. Another case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of Steve Jobs being Steve Jobs.

    He was an asshole back when he decided to lock everyone out the Apple (except "paying" vendors...i.e. kickbacks) resulting in IBM/compatibles and M$ kicking his ass. He is still an asshole.

  53. First embedded OSX ad: by Snufu · · Score: 1

    Laptop hunter!

  54. Re:Surefire way to make me not upgrade by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Technology moves on, and after a while it won't make sense to support the oldest models anymore."

    Tell that to Linux. Tell that to any embedded OS maker. Get laughed at.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  55. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    If by "nearly impossible" you mean checking the radio button that says "no thanks, I don't want to try .mac now" then I'm amazed you could even find the power button to boot the Mac up in the first place.

  56. Google's Chrome OS by FunkyELF · · Score: 1

    I would bet a lot of money on the fact that advertising giant Google's Chrome OS would have this built in.
    If I understand patents correctly, they don't need to patent it to be protected as long as they have been working on it for a while and can prove it.

  57. Is this that new? by MattBD · · Score: 1

    Weren't Microsoft talking about doing this years ago? It may have been in respect of Office instead of Windows, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of prior talk about it. I wouldn't mind a free copy of Office or Visual Studio if it was ad-supported, but I draw the line at operating systems. I would not be prepared to use an OS that bombarded me with ads - that would be enough to make me switch to Ubuntu exclusively.

  58. Re:Surefire way to make me not upgrade by Darth+Sdlavrot · · Score: 1

    Wow, you are a genius. Why didn't I see it like that? Oh, wait a minute.

    I'm not talking about oldest models, I'm talking about 2,3,4 year old G4s and G5s. Hardly what I'd call "oldest models."

    Snow Leopard is/was widely advertised as being tweaks and tuning of Leopard to reduce size and improve speed, plus some new ideas in the UI.

    I'm am an Apple fan to be sure, but even I'm starting to get fed up.

  59. Thank you for using the iPhone AD-OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Thank you for using iPhone AD-OS. Before connecting your call to caller 'Nine One One', let's hear a word from our sponsor. You can bypass the ad by pressing 1#. Standard ad-bypass rates will apply. Your call will connect momentarily."

  60. SJobs wouldn't bother by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Note the patent belongs to Steve Jobs, not some Joe Nobody intern guy or some lawyer.

    If SJobs gets patent himself, it is unlikely an preemptive patent.

    You are right though, a lot of patents are taken just to stop those trolls.

  61. From the title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they were trying to patent the "I'm a Mac" ads.

  62. not in the box, it's in the band by camperslo · · Score: 0

    OS X, where a robust set of frameworks and APIs can insure that even malware will have the level of quality and uniformity that Mac users expect.

    Start your photocopiers Redmond!

  63. It's fairly obvious what this patent is for... by osu-neko · · Score: 1
    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  64. Oh, no! by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now we will see soon a beowulf cluster of advertisements...

  65. I want to patent my idea! by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    My idea is to create an adblocker for advertising in operating systems.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  66. VERY original! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS already does this on Zune HD (when launching games). I don't know anything about patent law, but I consider the Zune HD an "operating system".

  67. Enzite, Slap Chop and Sham Wow on Windows 8... by bodland · · Score: 1

    BMW, Victoria's Secret and Guitar Hero on OSXI.

  68. They gotta get rid of Google fascist box first by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean the same people who paid to software (OS) and hardware combination and didn't ask Apple what the heck that "impossible to change" Google search in OS Default browser will cause a riot against some ads?

    What made me more than angry was the first release and later releases of Safari on fscking Windows had Yahoo search option. iPhone/iPod too. Believe or not, Apple is after couple of cents from Google and that is why they include Google by default. Apple, the 1.6 billion profit making company... I understand Mozilla, Opera but NOT Apple. Even MS is decent enough to show you choices in first IE screen.

    1. Re:They gotta get rid of Google fascist box first by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Take a look at a new install of IE8, and the choices for their default "search" engine. Page one .... NO GOOGLE ... WTF???? You have to click page 2 before you see it.

      Yes folks, MS gives you a choice, but hides the most obvious one people will look for. Nothing has changed.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:They gotta get rid of Google fascist box first by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I am not saying MS is an angel, I bet it has something to do with monopoly decision too. I say "At least" MS gives a choice.

      BTW; see my comment modded funny by a Mac fan mod while I question why we are locked to Google search? That is the Mac community for you.

  69. New Ad based business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a great idea! TV was supported by Ads in the early day why not the same with your phone? Watch 3 ads get 30 secs of air time. Muhahahahah!

  70. Vista! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course there is prior art. Microsoft "invented" that mandatory user interaction concept a while ago when introducing Vista UAC... Apple merely adds merely commercial value to it.

  71. Simple Answer by gpronger · · Score: 1

    I believe that's what the off button is for. Or pulling the battery.

    And if it would come to fruition, then it would be time for a new unit without this bunch of bull.

  72. Mac needs advertising in its OS by noidentity · · Score: 1

    I think the Mac is in need of advertising inside the OS. I mean, how else is Apple going to make up for its low price, especially the low-priced hardware? Mac users need to pay for this luxury in some way.

  73. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just don't see Apple pushing any of this into any of it's products, but it can certainly prevent others from doing it as well.

    It's fairly easy to see Apple putting this into one of their products. It's also fairly obvious that that's exactly what this patent is for.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  74. Free Apple Computers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may not be the future of advertising, but it may be the future of free Apple products...

  75. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

    I know the first OSX Mac I ever had (can't remember the OS version 10.3 probably), but it was an original Mac Mini - I had a really hard time trying to skip the ad/signup sheet for .Mac - I really didn't understand how to skip past this step, and it wasn't even necessary. As I recall after a while I figured out you could quit the app that launched the Ad/signup form, but it wasn't even remotely intuitive.

    Mac's are like this though - when its working its a really nice environment and very pleasant, but when they mess up that experience they really kick you in the nuts hard and take your lunch money.

    So yes, you can skip the .Mac thing, but if your a new user and naive like me - it really doesn't seem like you can, and its not at all intuitive (they may have changed this...) to skip.

    And you know what Apple? If it was free I probably would have signed up.

  76. Re:Surefire way to make me not upgrade by bakawolf · · Score: 0

    2, or even 3 year old G4 and G5 machines? Somone must've sat on some boxes for a while.

  77. I approve! by jsac · · Score: 1

    I definitely approve of companies patenting technology I never want to see anywhere.

    --
    "The urge to fly from modern systems, instead of moving through them to even greater, fairer things is, I think, an indi
  78. prior art: nvidia X driver by sofar · · Score: 1

    I'd think that the nvidia logo displayed by Xorg at startup might qualify as prior art. as part of Xorg, it is arguably part of the OS, and stops the progress of the OS while it is displayed on screen. it certainly is advertising.

  79. Here's a though by Alanbly · · Score: 1

    I would personally be happy to view an add every hour or so if they gave me a free top-of the line laptop to do it on

    --
    -- Adam McCormick
  80. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I'm amazed you could even find the power button to boot the Mac up in the first place.

    Well, we are talking about a Mac user. If they had been technically savvy to start with, they probably would have bought a real computer.

  81. So why did it take 2 minutes to call 911 by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Well officer as soon as I came across my wife with my 5 Iron implanted in her head I tried to call 911 but you see I had my phone switched off and I had to wait for all the commercials to run through before I could actually make the call. If only my phone was on the para-medics could have been here at least 2 minutes earlier and she might be alive today.

  82. Advertisements.... by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    Because making something shitty and marketing the hell out of it is more profitable than making something worthwhile.

  83. Officer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I tried to slow down, but my breaks wouldn't work until the advertising was done playing.

    Oh, you too?

    In your squad car?!?

    While you were chasing down a speeder?

    The license plate said STVJBS?

    So maybe that was the plan all along.

  84. How is this concept different than... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... what the movie distributors do to us when we load a DVD into our player and we're forced -- by disabling all the remote control buttons -- to watch advertisements and/or previews for other DVDs? We recently rented a DVD that disallowed us from using the player's Pause button giving us the option of letting dinner get cold or resuming our viewing by searching for where we left off. (That disc didn't even have a scene menu; we had to fast forward -- oddly, that button still worked -- through the entire first half of the movie to resume watching it.)

    So Apple thinks it's a good idea to be able to force you to watch ads while a cellphone is booting before it becomes functional? Let's say you're out on the street late one night and something horrible happens. Imagine the publicity -- and the inevitable close-the-doors-and-sell-all-the-furniture-you-are-now-bankrupt lawsuit -- when someone is robbed and killed or they die from a heart attack and it comes out that they were forced to wait for their cellphone to finish displaying an ad before they could dial 911. We can only hope that Apple only decided to patent this is because they plan on demanding licensing fees that are so outrageous that nobody on the panet would ever even consider developing such a function into their devices.

    (When are those OSS-based cellphones coming out? November? I can hardly wait.)

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  85. Re:Surefire way to make me not upgrade by Alanbly · · Score: 1

    The G5 hasn't been sold for 3 years. The G4 is closer to 6. Lifecycle of a new computer maxes at 4 years, then the "users" become "hobbyists." Most of the reason they can make thos "tweaks" to "reduce size and improve speed" come from not having to account for the older chipset and concentrating on making the code better

    --
    -- Adam McCormick
  86. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by klubar · · Score: 1

    I think it changed recently, but the QT light that is installed by default/required pretty closely qualifies as shovelware on the mac. Everytime you used it, a really annoying "would you like to upgrade" window came up. Haven't used a mac in awhile, but I believe omni outliner trial was installed by default.

    On the PC, QT definitely qualifies as shovelware (and is close to malware). -- Why does it need to start at boot/log in and sit in the system tray? It's almost impossilble to turn off or make behave.

  87. Here's your prior art by pvera · · Score: 1

    Back in the dot com days there was a company that was probably called Freepc.com or something really similar. There was no gimmick: you filled a really long marketing questionnaire, and if you fit certain profiles you were sent a free PC. It was yours to keep as long as you surfed the net X hours per month (it was very low, probably 10 hrs) and you kept whatever made Windows 95/98 or whatever it had to display the ads.

    I signed up for it and yup, they sent me one at zero cost to me. It was a cheap Compaq with a 15 or 15 inch monitor. But what the hell, it was free!

    The screen was setup so about 800x600 was usable, with the rest of the 1024x768 full of ads. I set it up for my wife and it worked pretty good for as long as we had it. The ads were displayed based on your marketing profile. Most of the time the ads were very relevant.

    Eventually that company died, and they gave us the computers because it was too expensive to have them shipped back and disposed through a liquidator. As soon as they went belly up, it became my testbed for SuSe, which it ran really damn nice for a long time. It wasn't fast, but it was very usable.

    --
    Pedro
    ----
    The Insomniac Coder
  88. Ads displayed in OS.. by coyoles · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs is probably looking at giving away a version of the OS (or software) for free in the future that will pay for itself via ads...

  89. No complaints here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you all really complaining that Apple wants to add a barrier to advertising on your hardware?

  90. Calm and rational? No thanks. by Twyst3d · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Mob after work at my place to kill Steve Jobs. Who's in?

    --
    And this has been another installament of Captain Obvious! /whoosh
  91. Already beaten to the punch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft had this idea with the Channel Bar back in 1997 starting with Internet Explorer 4. Not only that, but the Channel Screen saver which displayed commercial sites. Who'd want to "save" a screen with commercialism?

  92. public computers by forceofyoda · · Score: 1

    If I was going to put a free-to-use computer in, say, a mall, then I might do something like this. Could this be what Apple is planning to do? I mean, what better way to advertise your own hardware than to put one in every shop for people to use? People get more used to seeing them everywhere, so they buy one for their home. Plus, the bonus money from advertisers is nice, too.

  93. Isn't this why... by koan · · Score: 1

    Isn't this kind of thing the exact reason windows was so insecure? Perhaps a misunderstanding but I thought the "openess" of windows for marketing was a major factor in it's insecure nature.

    Is anyone else tired of the constant squeezing of the consumer via advertising?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Isn't this why... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yep... I've begun to wonder how much fantasy money is floating around the economy, which didn't actually buy anything tangible, but rather was used to buy our eyeballs to sell to advertisers. What with all our manufacturing having gone overseas, what else do we have to market, besides... uh, marketing??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  94. using OS as TV front end by steverar · · Score: 1

    It "sort of" makes sense if the whole OS is a front end to TV. Although a minimalist browser piping ads is probably just as good. That said, a process/thread/whatever running and piping ads to a windows is patentable ? Jeez, if it's configurable I'd configure it to /dev/null.

  95. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

    And you know what Apple? If it was free I probably would have signed up.

    Why should it be free. It's not in Apple's business model to offer a free online service with remote storage. Google can afford to offer free web applications because that is their business model, to make as many people use their advertisement supported services. I really don't get everyone's expectation that things should be free just because they are unwilling to pay for it.

    --
    "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
  96. Re:Surefire way to make me not upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's like them not supporting 68k chips past OS 8.1. Technology moves on, and after a while it won't make sense to support the oldest models anymore.

    *sniff* You're... you're not a Mac user. You just wouldn't understand. *sniff*

    My precious 68k... WHY?!? WHY, STEVE?!? WHAT SIN DID IT COMMIT IN THY EYES?!?

  97. Apple patents a lot of things by Sandbags · · Score: 1

    And a number of them are simply so noone else can use the idea. Hopefully, this is one such patent that Apple plans to never use, and will enfore so that noone else does either.

    Using a patent to regulate the behavior of your competitors for the better of all... :)

    --
    There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    1. Re:Apple patents a lot of things by microcars · · Score: 1

      I agree, once you have RECEIVED a patent on something you are not REQUIRED to actually implement it.

      I have no clue what they actually intend to do with this patent if and when it is granted, but it is entirely possible that the main goal of the patent is to prevent anyone else from implementing ads on their OS and if they do, Apple gets to sue them. It could simply be leverage for future use, I don't know.

      A rather famous example of a pre-emptive patent is "Device for Perfusing An Animal Head" which, according to the "inventor" was designed to give him legal ground to slow or stop the process of this type of research unless it was done to a certain standard.

      I don't know how successful it was but patents primarily give you legal grounds to sue. That is really all they are.

      --
      I like microcars
  98. WOW the fanboi faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in apple never ceases to amaze me. At what point will people realize apple is a corporation just like any other, greedy, venal and reliable in only one manner, they will do what is MOST profitable for apple, generally in the short term view, sadly.
    As for advertising intel inside, that would have been an admission of failure, like saying we ARE just like every other peice of hardware out there, only more expensive...

  99. My prediction: by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    Hulu (or similar service) tells your OS that it is running an ad for a show you are streaming. Your OS locks you out as your computer turns into a television while the ad runs. Once the ad finishes, your show starts up again, and you have access to your computer again.

    I'm not saying I like that AT ALL, but that is what I think this ad is for. To prevent people from muting their computers, or ignoring ads.

    I do my part and write a letter to any company that blocks the mute button or even worse, includes 'interactive' advertisements. I let them know that I will avoid their product and encourage all of my friends and family to do the same.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  100. Apple=MS=Google=SCO=EVIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    topic says it all; film at 11

  101. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Waiting for the new Mac/PC ads.
    -----
    Mac: Hi PC, has your new operating system crashed yet?

    PC: Well, actually, with Windows 7 new state save feature..

    Mac: Hold on a minute PC, I have to watch this ad from Coca-Cola. ... ... ...
    Mac: Wow, truly wonderful beverage. What we're you saying PC?
    ------

  102. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lucky you. I get junk mail from apple all the time no matter that click unsubscribe and get a confirmation webpage after every mail apple sends. Every other week or so a new message pops in through apple's direct marketing. It appears to be work except for the fact that my requests are completely ignored.

  103. Prior Art... by Yuan-Lung · · Score: 1

    That reminds me of the good old Windows messenger service pop-up ads.... Microsoft is probably is a good position to contest this pattern.

  104. This is why the patent system should stay by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Some people say the patent system should be abolished.

    This patent is the exact reason why the patent system should stay; companies patenting stupid ideas make it harder for competitors to implement whatever stupid idea was patented.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  105. 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the same company that had the famous "1984 won't be like 1984" ad?

    Invasion of privacy FTW.

  106. What a fucker by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

    I hope his liver rejects and he dies a slow lingering painful death.

    1. Re:What a fucker by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You are the fucker.

      You have no idea how or if Apple will use this. I'm glad they got it becasue either:
      a) Use it in their normal product and then stop when people stop buy their maching thus showing the industry it's a big do no go there sign

      b) Use it to sell a really Inexpensive version of their machines while leaving other people the option of not having it on their more expensive apple machines. Of course it will be crack in about 30 seconds and a patch will be available so everyone will get a inexpoensive Mac and the plan will fail.

      Now if MS did this I would be worried because business might force their users to use the ad version, and they have so many business users by the time people started realizing the real cost of managing them they would be embedded into everyday life. Plus PC hardware can be had for so cheap there isn't much to cut in order to be subsidized.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:What a fucker by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

      He's a patent troll. He invented nothing.
      His business is largely ripped off from Alan Kay's work and built by the sweat of the Woz.
      The guy started out swiping long distance service and then has the audacity to complain when people try to get access and use of their own music files from his shit headed iTunes app.
      He's fucking people over left right and centre on the iPhone app store. No one should have any right to stifle innovation or expression like he has.
      I hope it hurts lots when he dies.
      The world will be better with one less asshole.

  107. I totally misconstrued what this patent was for... by Sviergn · · Score: 1

    I erroneously assumed this was a patent concerning advertising ABOUT operating systems. Meaning that Microsoft could be restrained from referencing Apple's patented "I'm an X"--"And I'm a Y" ad pattern in their own ads. This might work out better for Microsoft because in saying that their users "are PC's" (having them exclaim "I'm a PC" in their commercials) they are dehumanizing their own user base, reducing them to the status of objects rather than people. Clue time: Justin Long and John Hodgman aren't supposed to be USERS of Macs and PCs, they are human representations of a Mac and a PC, anthropomorphized metaphors. When Microsoft makes their users shout "I'm a PC" they objectify their customers and imply that they are mechanistic devices rather than people. I use a Mac--that doesn't mean I *am* a Mac. But apparently according to Microsoft using a PC makes you become one. Meaning that... you get "stuck" when trying to accomplish more than one task, "crash" regularly, and are subject to rabid infection from a wide variety of easy-to-avoid ailments. Anyone proud to say "I'm a PC" is an idiot--who would want to represent themselves as a mere machine? (Apparently users of Windows... according to the very company which makes that product.) It just shows the lack of imagination in the minds of people who work at Microsoft in thinking that users should think of themselves AS the machines they use. Do they also scream "I'm a Buick!" or "I'm a Maytag!"???

  108. Subsidized OS / Device? by Fatal67 · · Score: 1

    Guess I am not seeing the issue here.

    If a company wanted to offer an 'advertising subsidized' device or OS and wanted to ensure that you watched the ads you agreed to when you agreed to the free / discounted device terms, this would be the way to do it.

    This patent sounds like it would be used in such a device and not randomly inserted in to your normal OS installs.

    If you could get an Apple product at a greatly reduced rate by watching a 30 second ad each time you boot it, would you agree to such a thing? Even if you wouldn't use it, would you be against others having that option? If you think having a subsidized device would be a good option for anyone, why would you be against Apple being to enfore the terms that were agreed upon?

  109. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by IKnwThePiecesFt · · Score: 1

    At least since 10.4, the .mac screen has had 4 options:
    1) Put in your existing .mac credentials
    2) Purchase .mac
    3) Sign up for a .mac trial
    4) No thanks, I don't want .mac

    Pretty straight forward to me.

  110. Futurama by mordejai · · Score: 0

    Leela: Didn't you have ad's in the 20th century?
    Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines. And movies. And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No siree!

  111. The only reason Apple exists... by Simonetta · · Score: 0, Troll

    The only reason Apple exists is to transfer money from the bank accounts of overpaid yuppies dazzled by babbles to the bank account of Steven Jobs. This company doesn't do anything that isn't done cheaper and better by many others.

        This has been obvious for a long time to anyone with half a brain.

        Steven Jobs is God's way of telling us that we have too many stupid yuppies running around.

  112. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

    Well like I said - it was an original mac mini - so this probably was 10.3.x, and no it wasn't straight forward.

    Glad to hear they fixed it though.

  113. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

    They are clearly very interested in signing you up for the service though.

    Not even Microsoft pushes .net, windows live or msn during install.

  114. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

    If you have products that are out of date, you see a prompt asking if you want to upgrade, with a checkbox to never show it again.

    The 'shovelware' you are referring to is part of the product, just as the Java updater is, and the Adobe Reader product. It takes up a few Kb and no CPU cycles. The background task is used to launch iTunes when you plug in an iPod or iPhone.

    To add or remove iTunes from the system tray in Windows XP or Windows 2000 or Windows Vista, on the Edit menu, click Preferences, and then click the Advanced tab. Then select or deselect the “Show iTunes icon in system tray” checkbox.

  115. when will the appleites ever FOAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ye gads this gets worse day by day will someone please crush apple before they get and more frikin air assed ideas and people think M$ Corp are bad thems pussy cats when put next to apple wake up people else you will all be dacnicing to some jerkoff's ideas unable to use equipment YOU paid for with YOUR HARD earned CASH because some ouik somewhere has bunged jobsie and his bed mates a few bucks to fuck with your gear

    Think people then do something about it .

  116. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by dangitman · · Score: 3, Informative

    You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.

    Not strictly true. There have been third-party apps, such as a version of Omnigraffle and various games that have shipped with Macs and MacOS. However, it's generally not crap, doesn't draw attention to itself through advertising or require removal, it just sits there dormant unless you decide to use it. Apple also puts trial versions of iWork on Macs, and if memory serves correctly, has also pre-installed trial versions of MS Office in the past (but I might be wrong about that one) and definitely shipped with Internet Explorer at one time.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  117. It's a free country by straponego · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're welcome to implement any feature they want. It's just business, nothing personal.

    But if Apple *does* implement that particular feature, I will join Al Queda. Just sayin'.

  118. I DOUBLE DOG DARE THEM! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    To top it off, I have limited bandwidth, occasionally use metered bandwidth,

    Who cares if they do this on desktops. Since you will typically connect through the same router, it would be trivial to configure the router to block all remote content from whatever servers they employ. You cannot realistically write the OS to stop functioning when an ad server cannot be contacted, as short outages or spotty connectivity would destroy any value of said OS. Just turn on all the 'stream me adds, I am a coporate whore' options on the box' to enable features and block it at the port.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  119. It's for sabotage by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

    Apple's never going to implement this.

    It's part of a sneaky, long-term strategy. Apple will enter some sort of intellectual property quarrel with Microsoft, which will be resolved through cross-licensing and the transfer of some patents... including transferring this one to MS. With something this evil placed right in their hands, can MS actually abstain from using it?

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
  120. Does a Google OS Count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google? Hmm. That raises the interesting question of whether the patent would apply to Google's attempts to build an "operating system" that's browser-based and runs atop Windows/MacOS/Linux/&c.

  121. Ad quality concern by dUN82 · · Score: 1

    Well, it really depend on the quality of the ad you push through to my face, I don't watch US TV simply because I want to escape from intellectually insulting ad bombardment. Something is deeply rotted with the US TV operation model ! I prefer to watch the BBC via its iPlayer. Further, I think they have been 'testing' the technique quite some time now on the display mac in Apple Stores, don't they?

  122. Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to concisely DEFINE an OS first, I suspect that will be the greatest difficulty. Anyone can add advertising to an OS, what determines that it's "within" it?

  123. maybe, just maybe by qzulla · · Score: 1

    Apple wants the patent so they can kill it by not licensing it. That would be bad on the iPhone.

    qz

  124. ehh don't think so by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

    Just like MSFT's patents they are not the first to do it (and once again being software its based on math which has already been ruled can't be patented). In this case Windows OS's have had this ability since evil Active-x was created, we see it happen on spyware/adware affected pc's and even in running chat programs like Yahoo chat and MSN chat. Therefore because 1) Math isn't patantable, therefore software can't be patented and 2) Apple is not the first to do this I don't believe this "patent" should be allowed.

  125. Their next move by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    They should get a patent on getting patents for just about anything.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  126. Reason 4,284,361 to hate Apple from an iPhone user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their strangle and choke business model is approaching the limit and they face imminent failure so have decided to follow the path of profit by litigation since the reception of so many of their other control freak ideas are so well received such as the iPhone fiasco. After all, this business model has worked so well for so many that only the Fortune 50 companies do this instead of actually providing worthwhile products and listening to what customers want before they end up doing it themselves anyway. *cough*SCO*cough*Caldera*cough* I mean how many people really go and jailbreak/unlock their phones to get and do what they want? (pay no attention to the overwhelming number of ads on Craigslist and eBay etc toting jailbroken & unlocked phones just like the geniuses at Apple do. Ignore that little dung beetle named Jobs lurking behind the curtain while you are at it. This is no litmus of what the public wants and will accept.)

    On the bright side this will all but ensure everybody jailbreaks and hopefully unlocks their iPhone and places a custom firmware image on it which will free many more from the many burdens of making the mistake of dealing with the rotten Apple.

    Each firmware release on the iPhone is supposed to be untouchable yet it always get added to the list of jailbreak/unlock/hacktivate compliant versions. iDon't care what they think they will accomplish with this latest shift to shit all over their users including the silver spoon fan bois. iDon't mind continually using the tools that inevitably show up to counter these nanny nuisances. iDon't mind watching Apple waste millions of dollars on this only to have a clever developer and lawyer figure out a loophole and keep things the way they are for Microsoft and Google. iDon't mind having more and more people realize just what a runny splatter of diarrhea Apple has always been on the face of computing. iDon't mind getting a superior Android phone either as soon as my bullshit contract is up. iDon't intend to ever make the mistake of dealing with the rotten Apple ever again. Worm filled decaying useless fucktards.

    Fuck you Apple, go eat a dick.

  127. MOD PARENT UP by XLR8DST8 · · Score: 0

    seriously, i think they're doing it to cut google off at the pass. apple doesn't need to have ads in an OS. jobs would never have that. their computers don't come with crapware. everything is clean & elegant. or tries to be at least. putting ads in the OS would go against everything Apple's design principles are founded on. since apple sells the hardware, they want the OS to work and have no incentive to make their own ad-based OS. it makes no sense whatsoever. they probably got the hint from M$'s announcement of an ad-based office & went for it to prevent an ad-based OS from seeing light of day.

  128. No thanks by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    No ads please. If a vendor starts forcing ads on me I won't buy their product. I've got real work to do. Anything that distracts me from my work is expensive and not appreciated. If Apple does this they'll lose me, and a lot of other people who are doing real work.

  129. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    They improved the situation with Leopard. With Tiger before you had to enter details like your name and address before you can access the OS for the first time. It was a problem for us at work because we had to enter the customer's details in order to boot and update the Mac for them. It was also pretty pushy about registering for .mac.

    In Leopard you can skip most of that stuff.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  130. Laguna Beach woman Jeans,DG Handbags,Air Yeezy Fem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specializing in retro Jordans, Nike SB, Nike Air Force 1.Check out our line at You can check out our FULL line at Sole on Ice 475 W. San Carlos Street in Downtown San Jose, Ca. 95113 Sole on Ice is a Consignment center specializing in bringing you the elite lines through out the past two decades.All shoes are 100% authentic. We do not sell, accept, or deal with fakes or factory variants.If interested in selling through consignment please contact us

      OUR WEBSITE:
                                                            YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn

                                                                    MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com

                                                                            Http://www.tntshoes.com

  131. At times like this ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... it is truly unfortunate that Linux doesn't really have a field sales force.

  132. PTO should deny as obvious by dwheeler · · Score: 1

    The PTO *should* will deny this application as obvious. This tries to patent disabling computer functionality when an ad runs. Lots of web sites already do this... you often can't see the "real" content without sitting through an ad. DVD players have been doing this too. Of course, for the last number of years the PTO has decided that its job is to grant the maximum number of patents to patent requestors, and NOT to protect the public from invalid patents, so expecting the PTO to follow common sense may be asking for too much. Sigh. I actually think patents have a place, but if we must continue to have nonsense like software patents and business method patents, it may be better to eliminate the patent system entirely; unless the Supreme Court can scale them back, they patent system is causing more harm than good.

    --
    - David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
  133. Connected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that there is a connection between Steve Jobs' abusiveness and his getting cancer.

  134. Progress Bar ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carbon Copy Cloner does advertising in a brilliant and non-intrusive manner, running the ads under a progress bar most people are waiting to complete anyway.
    I hate banner-ads and popups with a passion, but I have to admit I actually take notice of the CCC ads while cloning.

    Its the one and only ad-driven application I use, being an extremely useful tool.

  135. Right... by dwightk · · Score: 1

    ...because reading Apple's patents is a 100% guaranteed way to see what they will do in the future.

    --
    Like anyone can even know that
  136. Mandy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just clicked on a random wikipedia article, and thought maybe they are trying to compete with mircosoft in the advertising department.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScreenTonic

    Basically microsoft bought a company involved in sending ads to people's mobile phones.

    -Mandy

  137. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is partially why you pay a 200% markup for hardware no different than some of the cheapest PCs. If this wasn't true, Pystar wouldn't be in litigation nor would Mac OS X work on standard PCs (with a little modifying of course).

    If you think about it, this could be a way to subsidize Macs to make them cheaper in the future. iPhones are unlikely because of 911, but iPod touches and/or tablet like devices seem like a more likely candidate.

  138. Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow..can you show me a link to any manufacturer that has hardware 200% cheaper?

    Enlighten us? You won't find it. The price for comparable hardware from any MANUFACTURER is the same for every major vendor (HP, Dell, Lenovo, Sony, etc).

    Why don't you try comparing Apples to Apples and sell troll somewhere else?