Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.162.205.151

Forum Moderators: goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google sued by Digital Envoy over GeoTargeting misuse of technology.

     
2:15 pm on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 5, 2002
posts:1562
votes: 0


[reuters.com...]

Who will be next? Google is becoming a popular target...

[computerweekly.com...]
[crmassist.com...]

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 3:16 pm (utc) on Mar. 31, 2004]
[edit reason] added some more links to info [/edit]

2:54 pm on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 21, 2003
posts:2355
votes: 0


The Inquirer article claims Google offered to pay them 12k a month:

[theinquirer.net...]

5:16 pm on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 1, 2002
posts:1834
votes: 0


[news.com.com...]

WBF

5:26 pm on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member shak is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:June 28, 2002
posts:4154
votes: 0


so in plain English and from what I can tell, it means:

Google licensed geo targeting technology for adserving on Google sites, however that same technology is being used on partner sites, such as ASK n other partners.

Google has been paying $8,000 a mth, and offered to increase to $12,000 a mth.

thats what I make of it, based on the links above.

who knows what the truth is, and until an official statement is made, nobody will know.

so I say, lets keep our conspiracy theories to ourself for the moment :)

Shak

12:49 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 19, 2002
posts:2139
votes: 0


Not exactly a conspiracy theory, rather an actual lawsuit.
1:34 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 30, 2003
posts:1067
votes: 0


I have to agree with Shak on this or is there anyone around here smart and accessible (or corrupt) enough to predict what type language in what sequence and what exact context got misinterpreted or mispelled or mis...whattheheck by whomever?

It's the L guys who will go after any nifty detail now again that nobody knew ever plaid a role (including the gent's salery bandwidth).

The old boring game that eats up momentum and value, flexibility and creativity in any given market place...we're gonna have a result as soon as 2007 on this...

4:44 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 17, 2004
posts:597
votes: 0


It's acctually $8K a month:

[ajc.com...]

4:56 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member from US 

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 27, 2002
posts:410
votes: 0


I think a forum is about making comments or guesses; it is not a major network TV show here where we are liable for such a following.

My guess is this lawsuit actually sounds as if Google may loose, from a professional point of view just the sounds of it appear to point out that Google may end up paying up much more than they are currently.

I do think that paying them only a few K per month as apposed to the millions Google makes sounds a bit odd... does not sound good... it also appears this was fact as the way the report stated it all.

Some companies do loose, in actuality, most companies loose suits, no one is perfect, and Google sure is not.

Hollywood.

5:59 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 20, 2003
posts:268
votes: 0


<self snip> there is a lawyer under every rock. :)

[edited by: idoc at 7:08 pm (utc) on Mar. 31, 2004]

6:04 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 4, 2003
posts:79
votes: 0


8K, 12K per month sounds like coins to Google...
8:29 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 2, 2003
posts:61
votes: 0


And I thought the Internet was all about sharing largely unfounded conspiracy theories...?
3:50 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 18, 2003
posts:305
votes: 0


What I don't understand is why Google didn't offer to pay more. They're making millions every month, especially with the new Adsense additions...

Why risk a lawsuit and not increase the offer a bit more?

4:19 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 6, 2003
posts:2523
votes: 0


jeez - ya think they would have just bought the company instead of licensing the technology for a lousy 8K per month.
5:16 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 12, 2003
posts:772
votes: 0


In my mind this event serves to illustrate
once more that a corporate mindset rules at
google. Whether google cloaks themselves in
the geek startup aura is immaterial.

It seems on reading the linked articles that
the premise that the usage of geotargetting
goes beyond the terms of the original license
has been at least tacitly acknowledged in the
offer by google of an increase to the fees
payable.

As the technology is applied to make adsense
ads more valuable and thus more saleable,
given the worth of adsense, the incremental
amount seems rather niggardly.

In the matter of reasonable treatment of a
technology startup by another *startup*
it is sorely lacking.

+++

10:11 am on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 24, 2002
posts:1094
votes: 0


8K, 12K per month sounds like coins to Google...

I pay these guys with my adwords spend :)

8:14 pm on Apr 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 18, 2003
posts:305
votes: 0


Yeah no kidding..

anyone know what third parties they were allowing to use the geo-targetting technology?

2:54 am on Apr 6, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 12, 2003
posts:772
votes: 0



it seems that the terms limited the usage to pages
originating from se pages. thus, the display
of adsense ads on a third party site in conjunction
with geotargetting to determine *which* ad to
display would be a violation. thus, an adsense
ad embedded in a adsense publisher site would
be a violation. put in the reverse, if the page
did not come from the serps, it was in violation.