Unique device ID doesn't violate privacy whatsoever since there is no link to your name, address, etc..

It DOES however provide a great way of ensuring "trial" or "lite" apps handled by a server and doing what you intended in say limiting results or whatever.. it also is good for internal logs since you can refine your app by looking at how the app is used, both overall as well as individual patterns.

You don't need GPS, personal or any other information at all to provide LOTS of benefits and an IMPROVED app once you have a access to a unique ID that doesn't involve registering username or whatever as annoying websites do.

I think a credible business would disclose in an open way what server transactions are involved on a per-app basis and with our new server suite being rolled out I know we will provide a web page per app detailing this so it's all open and above board and the benefits given.

Well yes it appears to be just a "teachers" version of facebook really.. way too close for facebook itself to ignore..

They're just (unnecessarily) buying themselves a whole bunch of aggravation by trading off the similarity in name recognition by hovering in the same domain.

Others with WAY different applications such as www.redbook.com and www.bluebook.com would be well out of facebook's aim however.

.."not yet" being operative word.

So I implemented first mobile POI & friend-to-friend app on WAP handsets in 2000.. and now in 2010 on re-entry to market with GPS enabled iPhone if I want to host ads on top based on location (duh, obvious) I am open to legal threat by Google for even touching this entire concept?

Regardless of intent/preventative aspects its still just a granted land-grab, here I claim all this land west of the river thing..

I can't count the number of times this whole "get ads while you walk down the streets" was pushed and done in various forms in 99/00 dotcom era and while I hated the idea done that way Google shouldn't now be granted in 2010 patent on "location based ads".. shut down the entire world and hand it to them on platter?

Legal wrangling & threats get won by those with biggest pockets.. simple.. de-facto monopoly granting right there in one.. thanks USPTO

Very obvious thought as well as implementation.

Been done time and time again over the years in just about every technical platform.

Go away Google, this is plain patent abuse by the rich.

Then they're probably vector then, see above.

Poster was talking Google remember.. compare appls to apples as they say.

No more concern than what Google is doing then.. they repeat the same give away method everywhere they turn and decimate business models of any already there making it VERY skewed.

With quarterly profit just announced US$1 Billion + they can afford to do this at competitors detriment who rely on "real" income in the normal way and who dont have benefit of large enough sise for ad support.

Good on someone with capacity to stick something back to Google for a change if thats what its going to do.

Google technology is image tile based and generated on demand - so out of luck having such a thing stored on any phone any decade soon now.

With vector you might stand a chance but still huge but least current capacities exist for it but download would be PC sync only as data costs otherwise nightmare.

You don't get the convenience of having so much in one small package at your fingertips whenever you want it? .. wow

Also.. what if your your mother persevered but your father couldn't be bothered (at the time, due to other pursuits, distractions, circumstances).. take it all into account before comparison of recognised qualification as total measure of "intelligence"

Well sort of.. Google has some *really* bizarre ommissions and inexplicable truncations even for a major street of a major CBD such as Melbourne.. go take a look!