Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Patents

Google Patents RSS Advertising 195

Posted by CowboyNeal from the thought-of-that dept.
IO ERROR writes "Google filed a patent application for targeted advertising in RSS feeds about a year and a half ago. The USPTO has now assigned it a number and placed it online. The patent application covers both targeting in RSS feeds and geotargeting by IP address. It gives some insight into how Google's ad servers work."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Patents RSS Advertising More

Google Patents RSS Advertising

Comments Filter:

  • Prior art right here on Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:21PM (#13202704)
    Slashdot has RSS feeds for a number of years, and during that time they've run many Slashvertisements.

  • Those evil bastards (Score:5, Funny)

    by tobybuk ( 633332 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:21PM (#13202705)
    ...Oh wait. Does not compute..... Brain is going to explode

  • It might be scary to say this... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rob_squared ( 821479 ) <rob@rob - s q u a red.com> on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:23PM (#13202712)
    ...But I like the way google advertises. Whether it be in Gmail, in search results, or on Froogle. RSS is just another medium to explore. If they continue to stay unobtrusive, I wish them the best of luck.

    • Re:It might be scary to say this... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:33PM (#13202774)
      And if it were MS advertising in the same manner, you'd be screaming your brains out about evil, monopolizing corporations.

      Take off your tin-foil hat plz kthx.

      So much for Google's "do no evil" eh? I wonder how the rest of the Slashbot population will pick up on this.
    • I'm with you. Commercials are not a bad thing, and ads are not a bad thing. They are a basic necessity to cover costs of operating! I much prefer ads that have something to do with the content of the page I'm looking at (therefore am more likely to be interested in) than to just randomly semi-targetted ads.

    • Re:It might be scary to say this... (Score:5, Informative)

      by drakaan ( 688386 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:46PM (#13202836) Homepage Journal
      Umm...this isn't about the way that Google advertises, this is about them patenting the process of serving up specific ads based on figuring out your location based on your IP address, etc.

      I'm all for Google making things easier and doing cool stuff, but I'm not with them on this.

      Of course, for those of us who have no desire to offer the same type of service for the next 20 years (or patents to cross-license, or deep pockets to pay licensing fees), it doesn't matter, I suppose.

      Yet another example of why software should be firmly in the realm of copyright protection. That way, you can't copy what they wrote (unless given permission), but you're still free to offer a service based in the same *idea*.

      Is Google finally turning evil?

      • Re:It might be scary to say this... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:52PM (#13202861) Homepage Journal
        No, no, no... You don't get it. See, if Amazon or Microsoft comes up with something like this, then they're evil for taking over basic mechanisms of the internet. If Google does something like this, it's an interesting "insight into how Google's ad servers work" and must be something that will be only good.

        Get with the times, man.
      • they're just patenting a METHOD to serve up specific ads based on figuring out your location based on your IP address.

        You can always come up with a DIFFERENT way to serve up specific ads based on figuring out your location based on your IP address and do it.
      • and is about as patentable as "pizza delivery technique using car and phone". But no matter since as a matter of course the USPTO will rubber stamp this as they do all applications for the right to steal the freedom of the human mind, errm I mean for "intellectual property" rights.

        After all, an economy encumbered by lawyers controlling our thoughts is what made capitalism and America great!!!
      • Yet another example of why software should be firmly in the realm of copyright protection. That way, you can't copy what they wrote (unless given permission), but you're still free to offer a service based in the same *idea*.

        Which is exactly why NO software company depends on copyrite law. Copyrite law grants a narrow range of protection for a very long time (Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted, and every few years Disney gets the coverage of copyrite law extended). Plus it is even harder to determine co

    • Re:It might be scary to say this... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by onion2k ( 203094 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:50PM (#13202850) Homepage
      I'm not sure this would work the same way though. There is some provision in the RSS standard for new things, but it's usually up to the reader software how to display it.

      Unless Google have been exceptionally clever and done something I can't even dream of, they must be either inserting adverts in a way that most readers will ignore, or else they're inserting adverts in the same format as news items.

      In which case, news and adverts will become "merged" with each other.

      That sounds pretty dodgy to me. I don't mind adverts I can easily ignore that are sectioned off from content, but if I have to skip adverts in the middle of my RSS news feeds I'll get annoyed. Equally, if I set my news feed to display 25 items, and I end up getting 22 items and 3 adverts, I'll be even more annoyed.

      Until now Google's advertising has been nice and discrete. This sounds a lot less discrete. It sounds like a step in the wrong direction.

      Caveat: I reserve final judgement until I see how a Google ad-enabled feed looks in my reader.

    • It seems like this patent is Google's entree into the slimy practice of patenting anything it can get its hands on. Google will be able to share its presence with other notable offenders, like Amazon, Microsoft, and several other firms. Because this is a principle in which I believe strongly, Google's method of advertising, though arguably one of the better ones in practice, will take a back seat to other, more salient issues - like their willingness to patent methods that have prior art, and that aren't re
    • Can it be more unobtrusive and user-friendly than with Firefox and Customize Google script?

      http://www.googletutor.com/2005/05/15/greasemonkey -google-scripts/ [googletutor.com]

  • The USPTO has done it again, brilliant. (Score:5, Funny)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:23PM (#13202713) Journal
    I bet that the number of examiners at the USPTO that have a comprehensive understanding of the way RSS works is exactly zero. I'm can only imagine an examiner breathlessly intoning, "I don't know what the hell this patent is talking about, so it must be totally new, non-obvious, and useful, so here," (THUMP as the rubber stamp comes down) "patent granted."

    Of course, it could be a defensive patent. Heaven knows who out there thinks he's patented the whole RSS idea.

    Still, regarding this new patent, I'm looking forward to the usual Slashdot pick-apart, where every claim is shown to be something people have been doing for a decade, and enough prior art is unearthed in fifteen minutes to invalidate the patent ten times over.

    Heck, why doesn't the USPTO lay off half its examiners and just post patent applications to Slashdot?

  • Amazon (Score:5, Funny)

    by VeganBob ( 888165 ) <robertmbaldwin@@@gmail...com> on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:24PM (#13202723) Homepage
    Take THAT Amazon.

    Booyah

  • Evil Done, Dirt Cheap (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:26PM (#13202732) Homepage Journal
    This is bullshit. What is "advertising"? Isn't Slashdot's RSS feed advertising the stories linked to it? Hell, I've got prior art of actual clickable "banners" in RSS feeds I syndicate, that link to people paying me to insert their commercial messages.

    The PTO has become the "Monopoly Department" of the US Government. All day long they process applications for monopolies on businesses, responding "You go, girl!" to every one they possibly can. Now Google starts locking in all that "goodwill" they generated with inane faith-based nonsense like "do no evil". How long until they just patent "doing evil", on the premise that if they control it, they'll stop everyone else from doing it?
    • How long until they just patent "doing evil"

      Microsoft will sue. They have both an interest and prior art.
    • You know, every time one of these patent debates comes up, the same thing happens: People like you completely misunderstand the meaning of the patent, assume that the patent covers something absurdly broad, then complain about that.

      Read the patent. The patent doesn't cover advertising in RSS. The patent covers a specific method for producing RSS ads.

      The patent on MP3 compression did not cover compression of digital audio in general. It covered the techniques used in MP3 specifically.

      The patent on RSA en
      • What, "people like me" who read the patent application [uspto.gov]? Or people like you, eager to apologize for your favorite monopolist sucking up business models? Are you defending some Google IPO stock, or just hoping someday to be in on some other monopoly play?

        Sure, their patent doesn't cover "RSS adversising in general". It covers syndicated advertising in general, with RSS only one example. This patent doesn't protect an invention. It protects a way of doing business. Which includes all kinds of useful inventions

      • The patent covers a specific method for producing RSS ads.

        ...

        And this patent does not cover RSS advertising in general. It covers Google's technique for doing it.

        A standard PTO booster argument: "It's specific, therefore it's okay".

        Nonsense.

        Taking a specific example of a general principle in common use doesn't mystically make it original or inventive.

        The PTO's are using this argument as a means of growing their bureaucratic empires by vastly increasing the number of patents and thu

    • Moderation +2
          50% Insightful
          30% Underrated
          20% Troll

      TrollMods can't argue with the facts. They just attack from under the bridge.

  • Patent a medium? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by codesurfer ( 786910 )
    Can one really patent a medium? I'm not convinced that such a patent would stand up to what I'm sure would be numerous legal challenges. It is not as direct as attempting to patent advertising in other mediums (pick your poison), but it seems to be skirting the edge.

  • slashvertisements (Score:2, Informative)

    by threaded ( 89367 )
    What's the difference? Are not slashvertisements much older?
    • "What's the difference? Are not slashvertisements much older?"

      I'd answer that if I had ever actually recieved an RSS Slashvertisement without getting banned for 72 hours by looking at it funny.

  • Not getting it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Coopjust ( 872796 )
    The patent covers targeted advertising, not advertising in RSS,Targeted meaning IP address location. However, targeted advertising could cover any search engine that displays sponsored results next to search results by keywords. However, this patent only covers RSS, so it may not prove to be too useful.
    • IANAL, but from the patent application linked, it seems Google's covered just about every form of advertisement possible through XML, RSS, and Atom syndication delivery standards. The patent says the ads are automatically generated and incorporated into the feed based on the content of the feed, but the alternative is to hand-pick them somehow.

    • Re:Not getting it (Score:3, Informative)

      by shawb ( 16347 )
      From TFP (the friendly patent) [uspto.gov]

      Incorporating targeted ads into information in a syndicated, e.g., RSS, presentation format in an automated manner is described. Syndicated material e.g., corresponding to a news feed, search results or web logs, are combined with the output of an automated ad server.

      SO, RSS is just one of the mediums described. And it actually does appear to be a pretty specific method.

    • The patent covers targeted advertising, not advertising in RSS,Targeted meaning IP address location.

      I'm impressed you could tell this much from it. I found it pretty thick reading and hard to tell what it was getting at. (I suspect that's intentional, to reduce the number of eyes on the document.)

      The primary weakness I see in the patent is the reference everywhere to a URL where they would have been smarter to use URIs. I suspect someone can "trivially" get around the patent with an appropriate shi

  • The patent system will collapse in a few years since patents are now being handed out to just about anyone willing to file for one. There is no more requirement for the patent to be non-obvious. The problem seems to be the examiners don't understand the fields for the patent applications they are responsible for. As an example, tying certain kinds of knots would be non-obvious to someone who doesn't use rope a lot, but that doesn't mean I should be able to patent the Monkey's Fist [wikipedia.org].

    The end result of this is that, eventually, all patents will become meaningless. There will be large-scale infringement because so many patents will cover things that are so obvious that everyone will need to or want to do them. How many years from now will we enter this new era of ignoring the broken system? Frivolous patents are hastening the end of all patents.

    • On a system or mechanism to cycle gas into a confined volume....

      Now, I have patented breathing..

      Every breath you take,
      Every move you make,
      I'll be charging you.
  • Microsoft just announced that they've changed their minds and won't be including RSS in IE7

  • Not Shocking. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by defile39 ( 592628 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:40PM (#13202812)
    The USPTO does not have the ability to determine the official "patentability" of any non-simple invention (and even simple ones). Patent officers are overworked and undertrained. The theory is that the validity of patents will be hashed out in the courts. Wasted resources? Of course. Stifled innovation? Obviously. How many letters have any of you written to your representatives recently?

    • USPTO Mission (Score:5, Informative)

      by dereference ( 875531 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @01:16PM (#13202970)
      The theory is that the validity of patents will be hashed out in the courts.

      I have no mod points to give, but this point needs to be emphasized. This is the fundamental principle under which the USPTO has operated since its inception. You may not like it, but that's their charter. They are obligated by law to grant any patent that they believe in good faith has the potential to be enforcable and upheld by the courts. There is no "burden of proof" criteria involved; the USPTO must defer that decision to the courts.

      Ever time something about USPTO comes up here, everybody gets tons of mod points here for blasting these "idiots" and "dolts" for not doing their jobs. I have no vested interest, but for crying out loud, at least these folks are indeed doing their jobs!

      No matter what we may think of the concept, this is the way the USPTO works by law. If you don't like it, don't complain about the examiners, complain about the law that chartered them, and complain to somebody that can do something about it.

      How many letters have any of you written to your representatives recently?

      • the USPTO must defer that decision to the courts.

        The problem is that the courts seldom make those decisions. The threat of expensive legal action is used by these patent holders to basically extort money from companies. Out of fear the companies settle with the patent holder, and they are free again to swing away with their questionable patent simply because they have the financial clout to do so.

      • If there is no "burden of proof" then why is the title of the person doing the rubber stamping a "patent examiner"?

        There is burden of proof imply with the process so it should be there and the USPTO does not work by what the poorly written law implies.

  • Patents on advertising? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:49PM (#13202848)
    Now this is the type of patent I'd like to see more of!

    If only I had patented the blink tag and pop-ups. Either I might have prevented those nightmares; or I could have extracted royalties for infringment. Win-win!

  • Shame on you Google (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maelstrom ( 638 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:50PM (#13202851) Homepage Journal
    I'd be just as angry if Microsoft did this. In fact, I'm probably more angry because I hold you to a higher standard. Even if this is a defensive patent, I want to hear you speaking out against the system, donating to the EFF or something. How about instead of "Do No Evil", you start doing good?

  • Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cca93014 ( 466820 )
    "Do no evil" eh? Wankers.

  • Contrasting... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AutopsyReport ( 856852 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @12:53PM (#13202866)
    Contrasting this patent with the likes of Amazon's common sense-patents which were approved (Web Services Patent [uspto.gov], Reminding Customers [uspto.gov], and User Viewing Histories [uspto.gov]), I'll acknowledge Google's patent has some credibility. Even though I've always been against patents related to or involving software, this is a much better patent than we've seen in the news recently, and considerably more deserving of approval.
    • ...and considerably more deserving of approval.

      Which still leaves considerable scope for it to be vile, unfair, anti-competetive and counter-productive.

      Software patents are a bad thing. Even the slightly-less-bad-than-the-others ones.

    • OK, I missed the part where you contrasted the google patent to the Amazon patents. Why was any one better than the others?
    • It is still an obvious solution that any one "skilled in the art" could come up with in a week. It isn't anything but a common sense application of known techniques - as MOST software patents are

      The USTPO is BROKEN. I firmly believe that NO software patents should be granted. If its software then it's math and algorithms which should not be patented.

  • Pastor Google (Score:3, Funny)

    by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @01:01PM (#13202894) Journal
    For our next worship service, I'd like to break out an old favorite of mine. Please turn to page 17 in your hymnals.

    Shameless, shameless we adore thee
    God of the web, lord of search
    Personal Info we all give thee
    Leaving our data in the lurch
    We don't care, we just hate Bill Gates
    We know you don't do evil
    Will you change? We don't think about it
    We just want e-mail retrieval

    All thy web projects surround me
    Your share valuation reflect thy rays
    Sheep and fanbois all surround thee
    Center of all endless praise
    Blog and mail, you never fail
    Inventing stuff we've seen before
    But like sheep we will still praise thee
    And keep clamoring for more

    Googleujah, Googleujah, Googleujah, rejoice

    All must join the mighty chorus
    Which us l33t stars began
    Google's love is reignning o'er us
    Our fawning love is part o'the plan
    Always singing, never thinking
    What they'll do when THEY are king
    We just enjoy your hyperlinking
    And wondering what new toy you will bring
    Our privacy is shrinking
    Personal privacy - wishful thinking

    "Pastor Google" serving free thinkers since never.

  • Don't hate the player, hate the game (Score:4, Insightful)

    by voidstin ( 51561 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @01:11PM (#13202943)
    If Google is working on a new way of doing RSS advertising, wouldn't it be fiscally irresponsible to NOT try to patent it? What if they unveil a masterful system they've been working on for a year, only to find out Yahoo patented one of the methods 3 months ago, and were forced to shelve it as the legal battle ensued?

    Advertising is most (if not all) of their revenue. They'd be silly not to try to protect it. How would you feel if your google stock dropped 20% because they were trying to be nice and got screwed by a competitor?

    Guns are bad, but you still shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight.
    • If Google is working on a new way of doing RSS advertising, wouldn't it be fiscally irresponsible to NOT try to patent it? What if they unveil a masterful system they've been working on for a year, only to find out Yahoo patented one of the methods 3 months ago, and were forced to shelve it as the legal battle ensued?

      Giving it 5 seconds of thought, they could modify their development cycle so that they release technical ideas as they come up, providing the world with prior art and short-circuiting other peo

      • Giving it 5 seconds of thought, they could modify their development cycle so that they release technical ideas as they come up, providing the world with prior art and short-circuiting other peoples' ability to patent those concepts.

        That doesn't work either - then you're advertising to your competitors what you're going to be launching in a year.

        What would work is getting a patent accepted, launching your product, then making the patent public domain (as in, no-one ever has to pay a license for it, how

    • If Google is working on a new way of doing RSS advertising, wouldn't it be fiscally irresponsible to NOT try to patent it?

      If Google was really interested in long-term not-being-evil and eliminating the badwill of taking out shoddy patents as well as the enormous expense of patent litigation then they would simply start... buyi... bribin... lobbying their congresscritters to eliminate patent protections on such things entirely. There is not a doubt in my mind that if the money spent on fighting/defending

    • Yeah, you should, instead, bring the cops with you. Google certainly has the cash to file for this patent, and probably hundreds of others, why can't they help us lobby for patent reform and put an end to this 'gun fight' ????
    • Google likely has patents on things like their search algorithms, which are patents on products of research. Automated incorporation of advertising into RSS (and like) feeds is patenting a business model. The former is arguably on an order of magnitude less evil than the latter.

      Like the sibling post says, if Google's intent was defensive, they could have widely implemented this into something like Google News or Groups before everyone else so that anyone who attempts to patent the process would be faced wit

  • AdSense for feeds beta (Score:2, Informative)

    by vivekg ( 795441 )
    AdSense for feeds beta was almost out 2-3 weeks back. See url https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer. py?answer=20012&ctx=en:search&query=RSS&topic=0&ty pe=f [google.com] and you can apply for it @ http://services.google.com/ads_inquiry/aff [google.com]. It also includes nice set of best practices http://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer.p y?answer=20134 [google.com]
  • The more patents there are in the advertising space, the more likely it will be that anyone operating in that space will get sued for violating some patent. If Google wants to patent every form of advertising known to man, more power to them.

    • The more patents there are in the advertising space, the more likely it will be that anyone operating in that space will get sued for violating some patent.

      If you think that will lead to a lot of bankrupt companies, you're probably wrong. I believe what this is known to lead to is fewer low-end market entrants, since the low-end cannot afford the lawsuits. But at the upper end, large companies that own a lot of patents just write contracts agreeing to mutually not sue each other, and so they lock in

  • So I'm in Sanjose... listening/watching a SanJose based radio/tv channel/station... and I get advertisements for LOCAL auto dealers, stores, contractors...

    I don't get ads for anything in Boston/NewYork or even LA... even SanFrancisco does not show up on my TV/radio station....

  • While I despise software patents like this it is likely just a defensive patent. Given the current patent system someone was inevitably going to patent this, given that google hasn't yet abused their patents I'd rather it be them than someone like amazon. Until the patent system is fixed the good guys need to get patents like this so they can fight back against other companies who are somewhat evil.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Now if only they don't license it, and enforce it vigorously!

    Normally I'm totally against software patents, but this is an area of software development that could use some stifling.

  • I hope this is one patent they keep, holds up. And they DON'T license. Maybe they don't want to actually advertise via RSS, and they have the patent to keep anybody else from advertising via RSS either.

  • I think this is just another proof that Google is not that much different from Microsoft. They are playing a similar game, and they have to, because how else can they survive? Remember Google's claims they're a search company? Yeah, they said that. Now they have email, Usenet, news, shopping, a personalized page that smells like a mini-portal, etc.

  • While it appears (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gexen ( 123248 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @04:31PM (#13204077)
    While it appears inevitable that people are going to flame Google for doing this, if I were running a business I would do the exact same thing.

    The current state of technology patents is dreadful. To us technology people, many of the patents just appear to be common sense? Patents are being granted left and right for things that just seem normal and easy to us. Unfortunately, that is the way things are...for now. If you are operating a business, it is in your best interest to try and patent everything you do. If you don't, someone else will and then sue you for infringing on their patents. Trust me, the cost of trying to file patents is nothing compared to the cost of being sued for patent infringement.

    So don't blame Google or Microsoft or Amazon. For lack of a better euphemism, don't hate the player, hate the game.

    • While it appears inevitable that people are going to flame Google for doing this, if I were running a business I would do the exact same thing.

      Google, whose philosophy was once "do no evil" falls off the wagon, and you say "good for them!" and you want to do the exact same thing? Where are your principles?

      The current state of technology patents is dreadful. ... Unfortunately, that is the way things are...for now.

      Just give up the fight? Accept that things are wrong and need fixing?

      If you are o

  • Google "don't be evil" is just PR (Score:3, Insightful)

    by defile ( 1059 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @04:40PM (#13204117) Homepage Journal

    If Microsoft did this the article summary would be critical, instead of a subtle compliment.

    You're all whores.

  • This story about Google patenting RSS advertisements came to me from the Slashdot RSS feed, which had an advertisement on exactly this story.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

Close