Google Wins Patent For Location-Based Advertising

[engine]

Google Wins Patent For Location-Based Advertising [digital.venturebeat.com]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded the search giant a patent for using location in an advertising system last Tuesday, which is the emerging business model for most consumer-facing location startups today.

Filed six years ago, the patent is fairly broad. It covers using location for targeting, setting a minimum price bid for an ad, offering performance analytics, and modifying the content of an ad.

However, the location-based ad patent may give Google a nice big stick as it goes head-to-head with Apple in the world of mobile advertising. Both companies have acquired or agreed to acquire a mobile ad network in the last three months; Google agreed to buy Admob for $750 million in November, while Apple bought Quattro Wireless in January. Google actually bucked a patent Apple owns last month, when it added multi-touch functionality to its Android operating system. Perhaps this is the card the search giant had up its sleeve.

[Zacharias]

The Register announced today that Google have been granted a patent on location based advertising.

[theregister.co.uk ]

[edited by: tedster at 7:14 pm (utc) on Mar 2, 2010]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

[Webwork]

Can you imagine the US Patent Office granting a patent to a local newspaper for "inventing" a system of targeting geographically relevant ads . . to persons reading the X-County News??

What about a telemarketing company that applies for a patent for targeting higher priced goods and services based upon a database of swanky zip codes matched to their related area codes and exchanges? Would there be a patentable flash of creative genius in that?

To me, the hypothericals aren't far removed from the granting of rights of exclusivity to a company that "creates" a system for changing behavior (show ads) based upon IP->geolocation tracking.

Where's the invention . . in this invention? If you have an idea that my IP address is near Philly is delivering connected with Philly businesses "inventive"? Inventive so much so that "the discovery/invention" is worthy of the rights of exclusivity?

I know there's more to the patent but I cannot imagine a claim of exclusivity for any system based upon IP->geolocation mapping.

[UserFriendly]

Well I was modifying the ads I showed based on geolocation years ago, and it took about five minutes to think up the logic behind it. How that is worthy of patent protection is beyond me.

Software patents really need to be scrapped. Almost every patent relates to a simple mechanism or concept that a person with half a brain (such as myself) can come up with almost automatically when presented with a similar problem.

[KenB]

I totally agree with UserFriendly. Software patents need to be terminated.

In this case I think it would be good to bury the USPTO in prior art for geotargeting ads. This was a bad patent.

[DanceParty]

And Apple sues HTC over android based phones. Brilliant!

[willybfriendly]

Our local telephone co-op (Oregon) somehow IP maps to Colorado. I am regularly presented ads/maps/local results from Denver - just about 1000 miles as the crow flies. So much for geo-targeting...

[weeks]

Webwork, speaking of newspapers...
Isn't this going to toss a monkey wrench into the Yahoo deal with local newspapers?

[Zacharias]

its funny that the patent that has been sitting there sine 2005 suddently gets granted just as Google buy admob and advark. The timing of both Google and the patent office is impeccable!

[TheMadScientist]

From Claim 1:

and f) if it is determined that the ad has geolocation price information corresponding to the geolocation information accepted, then determining, by the computer system, a score using at least the geolocation price information, otherwise determining, by the computer system, the score using at least general price information of the ad

From Claim 5:

determining a score using at least the geolocation price information if it is determined that the ad has geolocation price information corresponding to the geolocation information accepted, and otherwise determining the score using at least general price information of the ad

[patft.uspto.gov...]

IMO It almost looks like Apple and others may have to come up with what seems to me to be a better deal for advertisers and not sell advertising in an auction type setting, but rather rotate through the ads for a geolocation based on a set price, which IMO would to eliminate the generating of a score for the ad based on the at least on the general price of the ad and therefore IMO allow them to show geolocated ads without infringing on Google's patent.

[subhankar ray]

I think software patents must be awarded with a required execution clause within a certain time-frame - kind of 'use it or lose it' directive.

[IanKelley]

This seems to be the week for stupid tech patents and related litigation.

If this continues it will get harder and harder for smaller companies and individuals to do anything in tech.

Software patents really need to be scrapped. Almost every patent relates to a simple mechanism or concept that a person with half a brain (such as myself) can come up with almost automatically when presented with a similar problem.

Indeed. Somehow here in 2010 people still see tech as something esoteric, and the US patent office is apparently no exception. When in truth even complex technologies, and especially software, tend to be simple and common sense if you take the time to look under the hood.

[JS_Harris]

So how is Google going to keep tabs on exactly where everyone is anyway?

[willybfriendly]

IanKelley, so true. What if someone had patented "A method for flipping switches on and off as a simulation of binary arithmetic and boolean algebra..."

I would agree that software patents have outlived any usefulness they may have had. Too many ways to get from point A to point B to allow such broad protection. While patents were granted for at least 10 truss designs used in covered bridges, I am not aware of any patent being granted for, "A method to span voids with a construct of wood beams and iron with an attached roof..."

[ppc_newbie]

willybfriendly:
I would agree that software patents have outlived any usefulness they may have had. Too many ways to get from point A to point B to allow such broad protection.

The problems with the USPTO started when the use of a "computer" as a machine was incorporated to justify a patent for business processes. Until that point business processes could not be patented. That, and they were so severely under funded that there was a lot of rubber stamping going on, rather than proper discovery for prior art.

These type of "patents" should be more properly covered under copyright which more closely matches the "getting from point A to point B.

Although I believe somebody did try to get a patent for a mystery novel with "It was a dark, and stormy night...", and ending with "The butler did it!"

KenB:
In this case I think it would be good to bury the USPTO in prior art for geotargeting ads. This was a bad patent.

Along with most, I've done that kind of stuff for companies for many years. And some of those companies are huge.

Personally I'm waiting for some patent trolls to try to push some things that I did 20-25 years ago, and then walk in and take them for millions because I have the prior art.

[Receptional]

Granting patents is one thing. Protecting them seems quite another. Remember BT patented the hyperlink. Xerox (I think) patented wysiwyg. IBM assumed they had a lock on the PC.

[StoutFiles]

Shouldn't software only get a patent if the code is actually viewable?

If the Wright Brothers, having built their plane, got a patent on "a craft that can fly through the air", then they'd be the only one's that could build and fly planes. Not a craft made of certain materials with certain parts and properties, just a general flying craft patent.

Say another person wanted to build their own flying craft completely different than the Wright Brothers...and they did because they only watched the plane fly, they weren't given the blueprints on how to build it. However, even though their flying craft was completely unique from the Wright Brothers they would be sued for attempting to build a flying craft because the Wright Brothers "thought" of it first.

Am I only the one seeing it this way? It's impossible to copy Google's (and Facebook's) "ideas" because their server-side code isn't visible. All attempts at something like what they have would be completely original. Somehow they've created a flying craft and forbid anyone else to make their own attempt at one, however different it may be.

[TheMadScientist]

Interesting point StoutFiles...

[IanKelley]

Am I only the one seeing it this way? It's impossible to copy Google's (and Facebook's) "ideas" because their server-side code isn't visible. All attempts at something like what they have would be completely original. Somehow they've created a flying craft and forbid anyone else to make their own attempt at one, however different it may be.

From what I gather that's how most of us are looking at it. Sadly now it's up to the courts.