IBM Has Patent on Web Ads

[rogerd]

A week ago, there was a news story, IBM Sues Amazon [webmasterworld.com], which said IBM claimed violation of several of its patents.

One of those patents is an apparently broad claim on Web ads: Patent 7,072,849 [patft.uspto.gov].

Here's the abstract:

A method for presenting advertising in an interactive service provided on a computer network, the service featuring applications which include pre-created, interactive text/graphic sessions is described. The method features steps for presenting advertising concurrently with service applications at the user terminal configured as a reception system. In accordance with the method, the advertising is structured in a manner comparable to the service applications enabling the applications to be presented at a first portion of a display associated with the reception system and the advertising presented at a second portion. Further, steps are provided for storing and managing advertising at the user reception system so that advertising can be pre-fetched from the network and staged in anticipation of being called for presentation. This minimizes the potential for communication line interference between application and advertising traffic and makes the advertising available at the reception system so as not to delay presentation of the service applications. Yet further the method features steps for individualizing the advertising supplied to enhance potential user interest by providing advertising based on a characterization of the user as defined by the users interaction with the service, user demographics and geographical location. Yet additionally, advertising is provided with transactional facilities so that users can interact with it.

To a non-patent lawyer like me, that sounds like it could cover quite a bit of Web advertising - clickable ads presented next to content... or perhaps not. Thoughts?

[Webwork]

Thoughts? How about "Process" (procedural logic) patents suck.

Now, compare my succinct statement to the convoluted, impenetrable, meandering, vaporous, overreaching, groping for dollars, run of the mill business/other process patent and tell me which sucks more.

I rest my case.

Process patents need to be put out to pasture or reigned in before economic efficiency suffers irreparable harm.

[edited by: Webwork at 7:14 pm (utc) on Oct. 31, 2006]

[hunderdown]

Another thought. If this is a problem it's not our problem. It's a problem for the company paying for the ads.

[plumsauce]

If a "service application" includes "search engine", you can guess the rest. Adsense?

I'll take bets on IBM's legal team thank you very much.