Slashdot Log In
CNET Patents Banner Advertising Networks
Posted by
michael
on Wed Jun 07, 2000 12:19 PM
from the how-many-does-it-take-to-get-patent-reform dept.
from the how-many-does-it-take-to-get-patent-reform dept.
brer_rabbit writes "CNET was just today handed USPTO patent #6,073,241 titled Apparatus and method for tracking world wide web browser requests across distinct domains using persistent client-side state. The patent implies that CNET is able to track a browser across multiple domains for "advertisers to tailor their content to users."" We here at slashdot conducted our usual thorough legal review of the patent ("Hey guys, does this say what I think it says?") and we're agreed: the entire business method of DoubleClick, Matchlogic, 24/7 and other banner advertising networks has been patented. CNet now has a legal monopoly, issued and enforced by the U.S. of A., on banner advertising networks. CNet filed the patent on August 29, 1996; DoubleClick started operations in early 1996.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
CNET Patents Banner Advertising Networks
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 189 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
To preempt all the "I'm going to patent air" talk (Score:4)
Re:There are other evil things... (Score:3)
What is wrong with this? If no one is interested in a topic then they shouldn't waste time writing about it. One way to gauge interest is by breaking up the article and seeing how far people get. I see nothing wrong with this - it a non envasive way to get feedback. Articles shouldn't be written in a vacum, and I don't think we need to have Nelson telling us everything.
You are getting content for free so why worry about it? I personally think banner ads are useless once you turn off animated gifs. Advertising networks also shoot themselves in the foot with all this tracking "technology." Occasionally I'll see an ad I have half a mind to click on - but when I see the URL points to some tracking cgi I say forget it. I want to know where I'm going to be sent before I click on something - and doubleclick is not a place I want to visit!
Mirror (Score:4)
Re:Not true! (Score:5)
See this [slashdot.org] overview of patent law I wrote for Slashdot a while back.
Hope it helps.
Steve
hmm... (Score:3)
"So, what's wrong with business method patents?"
"Well, uh, take Doubleclick.net, for example. They were driven out of business last year by C|Net's exhorbitatnt licensing fees[1]. EVEN THOUGH Doubleclick predates C|Net's patent application. Even if it wasn't obvious, C|Net got a patent on something they didn't even invent. Does that sound fair to you?"
"Ohhh... so that's why all those banner ads dissapeared. Cool! Bastards had it coming!"
* sigh *
* something mumbled about all your favorite sites becoming paid-subscription-only[2] *
---
[1] in reality, C|Net is more likely to charge just as much as they can get away with; completely destroying your licencees financially is not a good way to keep up your revenue stream
[2] I think in the long run, relying on banner ads alone for revenue will eventually fail. I'd just not have the issue forced yet, as the immediate and obvious alternative right now is paid subscription stuff.
It's going to be a while yet before alternative models become feasible or popular.
Re:Windows hosts (Score:3)
Yes.
But IIRC, the wildcards don't work in the Windows version of HOSTS, though. So you can't just add "127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net" - you have to have an entry for each offending host. (Any Windoze folks who know otherwise, please enclue me - I don't think wildcards work on Windoze HOSTS files, but can't remember whether I tried it or not.)
On Windows, try the Ultimate HOSTS file [deja.com].
While proxies are generally a Very Good Idea (and more elegant, since they can strip out the ad altogether or render it as a single-pixel GIF), I'm a fan of the philosophy of using as much stuff that's already built into your system as possible. Every application you add is another potential thing that can break. Using HOSTS on Windoze lets me fix it (and remove the fix) with a single command (and of course, the ever-present reboot). Nothing to "install" or "uninstall".
Which is the lesser of two evils? (Score:3)
CNet also owns every freaking domain name known. (Score:4)
It shouldn't be this easy to do this. Every registrar service now, during a default availability search, lets you check boxes while registering to snag wahtever.com,
Regulation? Anyone? Anyone alive at ICANN?
Haiku... *sigh* (Score:5)
Overused, stale, and cliched.
Please try something else.
Conflict of Interest (Score:3)
Hmm. The USPTO is bad, right? Slashdot doesn't like patents applied to technology processes, right? That's funny. You guys seem to be happy.
Just cause a corporation you don't like (DoubleClick [doubleclick.net]) got screwed doesn't make this a Good Thing. C|Net [cnet.com] is being just as bad as DoubleClick. In all likelihood, C|Net will just license the patent out and make loads and loads of money. Nothing will change by this.
If, as a community, we're going to be against tech patents, we'd best actually be against tech patents. It's not a selective thing; if the geek community doesn't think that patents should apply to technology processes (Actual technology hardware patents are often times good, but patenting a technology process is silly; prior art is difficult to find but almost always existant, and re-innovation with no interaction with the patented art is common. In today's fast-moving world of technology, patents on processes are silly and frivolous.), then it should stand up against every single one. Just cause DoubleClick got shafted doesn't mean the day has been saved. This is just another process that was patented, and with each process the idea of patenting technology processes is reinforced.
Mike Greenberg
Re:There are other evil things... (Score:5)
I have nothing against the site splitting the article and tracking users. If wired.com is supplying me with content, I'm happy to tell wired.com, through my mouse clicks, which wired.com stories I read all the way through. It's already in their server logs. So why do they need Doublefsck?
The only use of the LAYER tag on Wired is to send that information to third parties. Doublefsck isn't telling Wired what I'm reading - Wired's server already knows what I'm reading.
Doublefsck is trying to accumulate a profile that tells them what I read on every site that has doublefsck.com links in LAYER tags. Wired is the one I mention because it's so blatant - I see five or six LAYER tags being loaded in my browser's status bar with every mouse click. Sheesh. But how many other sites do I visit that are using the same technology, but only send one transaction and I've therefore missed? Salon? NY Times? The political parties and special interest groups? nakednatalies.com?
What I read off a site belongs between me and the content provider. Wired can tell I'm interested in MP3s, free speech, and cool hardware. mp3.com knows what kind of music I listen to. Nakednatalies.com knows I'm into hot grit pr0n. The political sites know what kind of a jackass, elephant, or neither I'm likely to vote for in October.
But if all four of those sites use tracking technology, then doublefsck knows all about my hobbies, my sexual tastes, and my politics.
I have a major problem with that.
Why should doublefsck know that I'm the type of guy who likes to watch elephants and jackasses mating on TV while pouring hot grits down Natalie Portman's pants while the Cocky Sticks [cockysticks.net] play "I'm a Catholic Girl, of course I swallow!" in the background?
> when I see the URL points to some tracking cgi I say forget it. I want to know where I'm going to be sent before I click on something - and doubleclick is not a place I want to visit!
I think we're in complete agreement here. It's just that Doublefsck is sneaking a slimy tentacle into more than just banner ads through use of the LAYER tags and other invasive technologies.
Jumping to conclusions (Score:5)
Wile the USPTO may be out of control, we're not helping any by ranting and raving here If CNET won't agree not to use the patent offensively unless otherwise provoked, THEN we can start worrying/complaining/DDoSing =)
On a side note, recall that Microsoft has a patent on the scrollbar, and IBM has a patent on pressing a "more" button - while M$ may be an "evil" company, you don't see them threatening gnome (yet). Most likely CNET will hold this patent defensively, since, judging by the USPTO's recent actions, if CNET wasn't awarded with it, someone else likely would be - and it's a good thing that's not doubleclick.
On the other hand, a web without any ads would be interesting - and I wonder what would happen to journalistic integrety without those monetary incentives. Unfortunately, that would also stifle innovativion and make many truly good sites - like slashdot - unfeasible to maintain.
Here's an idea (Score:3)
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
There are other evil things... (Score:5)
For instance, I can surf with images off if I don't have a proxy handy, and avoid the animated
But there are other ways to track you that don't require banner ads. Look at all the layer tags:
<LAYER SRC="http://ln.doubleclick.net"></LAYER>
...in stories on http://www.wired.com lately.
Worse yet - because many news sites break up their stories into two or three "pages", the Doublecross.coms of the world don't just know *what* you read, but how *fast* you read it, and whether you read just the first page and throw it away as "uninteresting" or the followup pages of the article.
*THAT*'s the value of breaking news articles up into dozens of 2-paragraph pieces, by the way. The extra banner impressions aren't worth it, but the tracking information you get as to which users read which stories all the way through is worth its weight in gold.
What we need is a HOWto on route. One per platform, covering all the idiosyncrasies. Don't write it for sysadmins, write it for everyone, like the guy who just installed DeadRat and has a root prompt.
We need to make this:
# route add -host ln.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 -blackhole
...a part of our setups, and we need it to scale up to all the tracking sites. (I'd guess at least 1000, maybe 2000 hosts at present.)
We need to tell our users what to put in what files, and how to extend it to the rest of their network, and how to make it *stick* no matter how many times DNS tries to bring it back from the dead. (Fscking Slowaris fscking fsck fsck fsck! I should *NOT* have to run that route command more than once per bootup!)
Windoze users have the ability of creating a huge HOSTS file in their system directory. It's a one-step thing. Trivial.
A quickie HOWTO on how to do the same thing, for all the various Unices, would be a welcome addition. (It's kinda an ugly fix to do this in
Wrong! (Score:5)
The next processing step shown in FIG. 2 is to set a cookie corresponding to the unique identification value and return a page of the requested information (step 82). In general, the setting of a cookie (persistent client-side state information) is a known process. However, in accordance with the invention, the returned page includes instructions to convey the unique identification information to additional server computers that are observing the same protocol.
The purpose of this patent is to work around the necessity of hosting banner ads on a central server and then passing those banners out to member servers. Instead, you host the banner on your own site, and then using this method people who browse the ads are forced to report themselves back to the central server.
Advantages:
1) ad company doesn't have to host banner GIFs - less expense for them
2) faster response times for the user due to fewer connections
3) works around junkbuster-type filters that forbid ads from certain domains or that do not render images from off-site
This is clearly not the double-click method at all. I wish that the slashdot editors would actually read the patent before posting it, let alone trashing it publicly to tens of thousands of people who hang on their every word.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
To hell with all of them (Score:3)
Not meaning this as a flame, but on most websites, the only thing you ever see moving is the stupid banner. This wouldn't be so bad if they weren't flashing, acting like user interfaces, or simply wasting bandwidth. I don't click on them, I don't know anyone who does, and I wonder who in this Ponzi scheme makes out? Obviously it's the banner companies, not the advertisers. When advertisers could go for more proven broadband media such as radio or tv, I wonder why anybody would bother with banners.Generally:
Since I run Junkbuster proxy on most of the systems I use, I have no problem avoiding them. Currently, /.'s banner says "click here for 3000+ mg of caffeine!" which tells me nothing. I know what the ad is for only by clicking it. Just like I wouldn't a link that goes to "file:///nul" at work, I wouldn't click on an ad that leaves me hanging.
Patents! (Score:3)
If it is still relevant, then chances are damn good that the patent is invalid, or the patented "technology" is already in such widespread use that the patent is practically unenforceable. What is C|Net going to do? Sue every single web site that has banner ads?
Advertisements vs. Tracking (Score:3)
I don't know about everyone else but I have never really had any problem with advertising, per se. I do, however, have a problem with a company that I know nothing about tracking/logging all (or even many) of my page-loads, browses, surfs, downloads, clicks, double-clicks, responses, emails, keystrokes, likes, dislikes, pets' names, beverage choices, et cetera, et cetera. . .
Advertisements will be a part of our society as long as it is based on a market economy and statistics say that people buy things they see on TV. As long as they're relatively unobtrusive and easily ignored by those of us who're not interested in the wares they hawk, they're acceptable. I don't believe, though, that anyone should keep track of any little thing I do so they can "customize content" for me. I want to be the one who decides what I want and what I see. That is, IMHO, the power and promise of the internet: that the individual has the power to control the information they recieve, not the Big Corporation.
When I find out that the DoubleClicks have been tracking 1/2 or 2/3'rds of the web pages I choose to go to (and not having knowledge about the rest, creating a possibly very inaccurate picture of my tastes), without my knowledge, much less consent, I feel violated. Things I did that I assumed to be (at least relatively) private are now found out to be logged in some huge database and used to filter what information is streamed to me. My choice has been taken away.
I suppose that's what I feel it's about, really. The individual's choice. *shrug* I know it's an out-of-date, out-of-style thing but I miss it. (Or maybe it was always just an illusion created by the Big Co's to placate us dissidents. Who knows.)
</RANT>
Breaking Tech patents (Score:3)
All the "Evil Patent" articles ignore the point. The USPTO grants all kind of stupid patents because it's not fundamentally their job to determine if the patent is valid. All they do is run down a procedural checklist and grant the thing. If they find a glaring example of prior art, they might reject it, but usually not.
Where prior art comes in to play is in the enforcement part.
Example:
CNET makes the patent.
I ignore it and violate it right and left.
CNET sues to stop me.
Now, my defense will be my examples of prior art. And in the case of almos all these tech patents, it would be a very sucessfull defense.
The moral: This patent is so weak I (having watched the trials, but without training) could break it with 90%+ confidence. A real lawyer could do it 98%+
Eureka! (Score:5)
b&
This won't change anything (Score:3)
licensing fees from companies like DoubleClick.
CNET would would have a financial incentive for
the banner-ad companies to remain viable.
bad slash (Score:3)
Bad slash, take adfu down right now and wipe that smile off your face.