Google Wireless Patents Published 186
Ian wrote to mention a ZDNet article about several patents on wireless technology held by Google employees. From the article: "The patent applications, filed by Google employees Wesley Chan, Shioupyn Shen and former Google product management director Georges Harik, propose lowering the cost of wireless access by offsetting the costs via advertisements on the service. Google, which receives the bulk of its revenue from advertisers, is seeking to expand its potential advertising base by moving further into the wireless market."
Master of the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would take free wifi in exchange for looking at some ads-
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:2)
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:2)
-nB
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:2)
For an internet connection it gets weirder, since we're already inundated with ads anyway, but I'd rather be able to use my connection without ads, unless they were for stuff like cars, processors and graphics cards (eg, stuff that I'd actually consider buying).
For something like a city-wide WiMAX connection, I could put up with
So obvious that it was already done w/dialup. (Score:3, Insightful)
They seem to have all failed.
Why was this patented?
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:2)
How about only allowing access through an HTTP proxy which inserts ads? Seems to me like that would work. :)
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:2)
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:2)
Their advertisers don't leave right now because of that, though. I mean, so long as the ads are relatively unobtrusive, only expert users will remove them, and I'm sure the theory is that they're the minority of the target audience (especially since that group of people is bound to be less likely to click ads anyway).
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:2)
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:2)
Web mail, or a specific exception. Most users have access to a web interface for their mail. As for SSL, I doubt that ads have to be on every page, particularly when in such small doses as the average user's use of SSL.
The fact that Google have gotten patents implies (or you'd hope it'd imply) that they've got something marginally more sophisticated up their sleeves though. Mine was a simple example.
Free Wi-Fi = More Ads Seen (Score:2)
Re:Master of the obvious... (Score:2)
You're right. A mere $50 per month would not cover all those production costs. However, that $50 million per month multiplied by however many millions of cable subscribers there are in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere should more than cover it.
Wasn't one of the original appeals of cable television the ability to view programmin
Re:Master of the obvious...You seem to have missed (Score:2)
It's not like they have any way to actually monitor my viewing or lack of viewing habits and sending t
Re:Master of the obvious...You seem to have missed (Score:2)
GooglEvil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
I'll draw an analogy from the world of sports. Many athletes take steroids just because "everyone else is doing it" and they think that this will just level the playing field.
So in the business world, if you don't patent your ideas, someone else might. And then you're boned. You gotta stay ahead of the competition. So, obviously we need to fix the patent system and stop these patents in the first place.
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
If you're publishing your "ideas", it's prior art, a further patent would held no value (and the patent shouldn't be granted in the first place)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of patenting a business practice, Google could document their use of it as prior art, protecting themselves from a later patent.
"Everybody's doing it" is bad logic that most successful people outgrow when we become adults. That maturity might take longer for jocks, nerds and lawyers, but it's available to practically everyone.
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Try to Read The Friendly Article before presuming so much in public.
Re:GooglEvil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
So you agree that doing so is evil? Google never said "We'll be less evil than those other guys", they said they wouldn't be evil AT ALL. Any amount of evil greater than 'none' is, by definition, evil.
Don't get upset with me because they set the bar so high for themselves, then failed to meet it.
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
>Don't get upset with me because they set the bar so high for themselves, then failed to meet it.
if their bar is to do no evil as seen by Slashdot posters, then thats would indeed be a impossible bar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil [wikipedia.org]
Evil is a term describing that which is regarded as morally bad, intrinsically corrupt, wantonly destructive, inhumane, or wicked. In most cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which are thought to (either dir
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
If prior art really is cheaper, then why didn't RIM use that against NTP? The problem is that once this thing gets to court, the courts automatically assume the patent is valid. It appears that you cannot present evidence in an infringement case to nullify the patent, you have to get the USPTO to do that, and we've all seen how long that can take (even longer than a court trial).
I wo
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
RIM used everything it could. But NTP actually had the patent prior to RIM publishing any art. A better question might be "why didn't NTP use prior art?", since NTP registered first. You'll have to ask the lawyers: the case was pretty complex, expensive, and decided more on politics (like the US government's begging to hand it to RIM) than on any protection of an inventor's investment in inventing the Blackberry.
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
It's the bogu
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Unenforced (and occasionally enforced) patents are the business equivalent of land mines from old wars.
but sometimes companies have to take out patents just to protect themselves. It seems the trend is if you don't patent every possible idea in the world, some bullshit company will and then they will sue you.
It's perfectly possible for the company with a "protective patent" to become one of these parasites. e.g. if their primary business fails i
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
The alternative, documenting one's prior art in conducting such processes, prevents a patent from stopping one's use of the idea, and is not evil.
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
The ideas are not what's protected by patents. Patents protect from competition the commercialization of a device. Because without a temporary monopoly on commerc
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
But most importantly, because society is not served with enough "progress in science and the useful arts" by unique business practices to justify violating competitors' liberty with even a temporary monopoly. In fact, society is served by competitors quickly adopting others' business practices
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
If this turns out to be that type of abusive patent, Google will loose a lot in my estimation.
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
You can do the math on Google's patents.
Re:GooglEvil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
-nB
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
They're responsible for certain things, such as losing the shareholders money due to neglect or illegal activities, but there's nothing that says they have to make as much money as possible doing anything humanly possible, moving into any markets that might just take them. This whole "corps can be sued for not being responsible to their shareholders" thing gets taken so out of context
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
-nB
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Re:Stuffing is Evil. (Score:2)
Re:GooglEvil (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OK, guys... (Score:2)
It's a lousy state of affairs, but that's the way things are.
If the big G would PD their defensive patents that would prove to me that they are defensive only
-nB
Re:OK, guys... (Score:2)
And I don't think patents are even the right way to do that. To be compensated for his invention, a patent holder must stop inventing and start running a business. But business is not his specialization, invention is.
A better way to compensate patent holders may be to allow EVERYONE to use a patent, but they must always pay some percentage of revenue on sales of the
Re:OK, guys... (Score:2)
Of course. That's why companies hire some people to create technology, and other people to commercialize technology.
A better way to compensate patent holders may be to allow EVERYONE to use a patent, but they must always pay some percentage of revenue on sales of the invention the patent holder.
"Must?" Who polices the market? The adventures of
Re:OK, guys... (Score:2)
The question is, how will the ads be done? (Score:2)
And I don't think they'll have users install a bar that shows ads at the top of their screens at all times. Remember services like NetZero? They didn't work, so how would Google manage working this?
Re:The question is, how will the ads be done? (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:The question is, how will the ads be done? (Score:2)
Re:The question is, how will the ads be done? (Score:2)
Sigh... More clueless slashbots who think they know everything...
Re:The question is, how will the ads be done? (Score:2)
Re:The question is, how will the ads be done? (Score:2)
It worked fine for Opera (before they went completely free). The free version of the browser had a text box that showed relavent Google text ads based on the page you were browsing. Say, wasn't there a rumor a while ago about Google buying Opera? Combine that with wifi's ability to determine your location and
Stop the madness (Score:4, Insightful)
Defensive patenting or not, this kind of crap has really got to stop.
Re:Stop the madness (Score:2)
Defensive patenting or not, this kind of crap has really got to stop.
I completely agree - but what makes this odious is not the patenting, but the fact that any business wants to implement this.
My tolerance of pointless branding has been exhausted. I take the logos off of my clothes, and I pour my Starbucks coffee into a plain mug. I tore the Intel and Microsoft Win
Linksys (Score:5, Funny)
I don't like monopolies, but linksys is free, ad-free, and conveniently ubiquitous. I sometimes have to deliberately tell my PC to connect to my own secured wireless AP so I can get to my files. It's almost annoying.
BTW how *does* linksys make their money, anyway?
Not Linksys but Fackovf (Score:2)
Re:Linksys (Score:2, Funny)
Volume.
One JavaScript Line Away ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Many corporate enviroments already filter out ads through content blocking on their networks and that's a huge consumer market that aren't being reached (heck, I do all my "work" from work). How long until Cisco, Dell, etc. turn on this content filtering as their default policy?
Do these actions (blocking competitor content at either the network or OS level) constitute anti-trust activities?
I have a man crush on Google, no doubt, but I really wonder how they plan on succeeding with their current business model 10 years down the line. Or maybe, by then, everyone will be vested and no one from there will really care.
Dear Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Drop the motto or start practicing what you preach.
Sincerely,
The-Not-Easily-Fooled
You got the motto wrong (Score:2)
I think there is significant merit in the fact that this patent focuses on wireless access where previous incarnations were wired. The USPTO seems to agree. Read the Background [uspto.gov] section on application. This is most definitely about wireless access. Indeed, it seems to me that the entire raison d'etre for this one partic
Re:You got the motto wrong (Score:2)
The USPTO also agreed that patenting the double-click was a good idea. Not to mention "One click storing of consumer information" that was awarded to Amazon. Or perhaps the patents that were awarded for hyperlinking.
Point being that there is all kinds of silly use of patents that have been awarded and enforced by the USPTO. As it has been argued
Re:Dear Google (Score:2)
Re:Dear Google (Score:2)
"Technical merit" has never been the standard of patentability - not throughout the entire history of the patent system (the U.S.'s or anyone else's.) In fact, recent court decisions have disavowed that ideas even need to be "technical" in order to qualify for patents. Even better, "technical" inventions without a business aspect are rejected: they are merely scientific concepts.
Patents are about novel business concepts - alwa
Re:Dear Google (Score:2)
Re:Dear Google (Score:2)
I completely agree. But there are already so many misconceptions about patents amongst Slashdotters that I felt compelled to clarify this one point.
- David Stein
Re:Dear Google (Score:2)
Re:Dear Google (Score:2)
Re:Dear Google (Score:2)
So, one can do evil and not BE evil? That opens up a can of philosophical worms....
How many patents do they have? (Score:3, Informative)
We know how many patents Microsoft has [msversus.org] and that they apply for an average of 10 per week (at last count). So I'm curious how Google compares.
Re:How many patents do they have? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How many patents do they have? (Score:2)
Re:How many patents do they have? (Score:2)
Another set of garbage patents. (Score:5, Interesting)
Then 20060059044 [uspto.gov] in there words "the appearance of a screen presented on the client device is modified to reflect the bran associated with a provider of the access point. " This is what was seen in free dial-up services a long time ago, only difference now it is wireless.
Finally 20060059043 [uspto.gov] is one to provide free access by displaying ads. Again this was done at various times through dial-up and cable organizations.
It should not rate a patent to get something that was done under dial-up and cable and change it to wireless.
Re:Another set of garbage patents. (Score:2)
These are just Patent applications (Score:2, Interesting)
Screenshots of Google new GeoAds (Score:2)
Remember this story [slashgeo.org] about location-aware AdSense? Google is still working on various ways to geolocate ads. All Points Blog shares [allpointsblog.com] their patent application for Wi-Fi location ad delivery [clickz.com] and Google Local ads [searchenginejournal.com]. Shimon Sandler explains the link between Google Base and those GeoAds [shimonsandler.com] and adds: "Wanna see it? Go to Google Local and type in the search box, booksellers nyc. You should see a little coffee cup in addit
Ad-Supported Access (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody seems to be mentioning the most obvious use (Score:2, Insightful)
The way I see it, they had no choice (Score:2)
how hard is that? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Modify DNS so that every request gets 'wifi.google.com' appended to it (so 'slashdot.org' becomes 'slashdot.org.wifi.google.com'). Make sure DHCP is pushing your DNS servers. Correllary to this, block access to port 53 off your network.
2) Have every request get rewritten with the same IP address, or group of IP addresses.
3) Have a proxy server on that/those IP(s) serving up pages. The proxy discards the 'wifi.google.com' bit and gets the actual page from the real site, then rewrites the HTML, putting the original content in a frame beneath a smaller frame serving Google ads based on the content of the original page.
There's some fleshing out to be done there, especially regarding cookies and https, but nothing that couldn't be hammered out with a whiteboard, two markers, and a six pack of Diet Berries & Cream Dr. Pepper (yumm, tastes like happy!).
Considering pretty much every broadband provider I'm acquainted with is doing something similar (at least they're doing points #1 and #2), how much of a stretch is it to do #3? (Normally, the only do it for the first request, requiring you to accept their TOS. Hotels usually require it on every initial connect.)
Now, I don't know for certain that this is what the Google engineers have come up with. Maybe they're much more clever than I (nah, couldn't be). But whatever it is, it's going to look very similar to this. And if I can come up with this solution two minutes after reading the words "show ads on a browser to pay for wifi", how in the world could they think it qualifies for a patent???
Google is evil (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art: (Score:2)
The game is to get your site into the top couple of links of actual results, and then display ads on your content pages upon which random users will inevitably click.
I'm not sure why I haven't gotten involved in this myself (to pay the rent), except that it smells s
Re:Prior Art: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't this just like any other 'broadcast' serv (Score:2)
Funny, most people with those logos on paid a hefty premium on their clothing to be able to wear them.
Re:Isn't this just like any other 'broadcast' serv (Score:2)
they are patenting advertising support? (Score:2)
and then start enforcing those patents on some of these airhead MBAs....
Re:they are patenting advertising support? (Score:2)
That's brilliant! Why didn't I think of that!
Re:patents are great (Score:2)
Re:patents are great (Score:2)
Minor correction: These are published patent applications. Patents have numbers like "6,123,456." Patent applications have numbers like "20060000001."
In fact, given the current length of pendency of software-related patent applications (nifty chart here [djstein.com]), it's unlikely that the patent examiner for these patent applications has even read them yet, let alone responded with a rejection. The USP
Re:Ads?! (Score:2)
Interesting comment. Let's consider each:
Re:Ads?! (Score:2)