Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
The relevance of advertisements to a user's interests is improved. In one implementation, the content of a web page is analyzed to determine a list of one or more topics associated with that web page. An advertisement is considered to be relevant to that web page if it is associated with keywords belonging to the list of one or more topics. One or more of these relevant advertisements may be provided for rendering in conjunction with the web page or related web pages.
Methods and apparatus for serving relevant advertisements [appft1.uspto.gov]
Advertisers are permitted to put targeted ads on e-mails. The present invention may do so by (i) obtaining information of an e-mail that includes available spots for ads, (ii) determining one or more ads relevant to the e-mail information, and/or (iii) providing the one or more ads for rendering in association with the e-mail.
Serving advertisements using information associated with e-mail [appft1.uspto.gov]
I think they could patent there indexing technologies to no end, but patenting a process of targeting advertising is a bit "amazony 1 clickish" and i hope it doesn't go through
As for email, I hope they don't get any further on Ads for Email. I don't need any more people to have another reason to email me. As for "news letters" their content advertising should cover the costs not additional ads.(imo)
Patents on technology are a beatifull thing. Patents on fundamental business processes are a disgrace. Targeted internet advertising shouldn't be granted monopolistic practices and i'm kind of peed off to see google pulling something like this.
My guess is that once the patents are all filed they will go public and generate revenue off licensing the patents.
The patent holder has a very big club for shutting down and out any competitors that may come along to provide folks a better or cheaper offering.
I could accept that with a physical invention for a few years to reward the innovator -- but not with ideas, business methods, software logic, concepts, etc. that are only a part of what stills need to be turned into actual products and services for a consumer to choose.
Imagine you are "you.com inc.", you do something which google (or any company -- not picking on google here) claims is covered by their patent (if granted). Google sends you a cease and desist letter, you find prior art, but then find out that just to appear in court to fight a patent lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees -- if not a couple of million. Plus, it will likely take years, and you have to post a bond in case you lose in court to compensate them if you want to continue to do what they claim they have a patent on.
Most folks "fold". Thus stops innovation and improved offerings at better prices for everyone else.
This type of stuff will be one of THE major negative impacts on innovation and the improving standard of living for all of us for a long time. No telling how many better products and services at better prices patents on non-inventions prevent...that we all will never know we would have had, thanks to congress and others in control of this world wide not fixing this patent mess.
IMO, ideas, concepts, business methods, program logic, etc. need to be declared as un-patenable. Heck, some folks don't even own all their own DNA anymore, since some company that "discovers" a gene patents it -- which they did not "invent", of course -- and thus has ownership of what you can do with you.
This intellectual property stuff is a royal mess for our times.
FWIW, other opinions are welcome, accepted and respected, but arguments are not (at least by me).