Apple Tries To Patent Annoying People With Intrusive Advertising That Requires Attention

from the only-good-if-it-stops-everyone-else-from-using-such-a-thing dept

Mon, Nov 16th 2009 5:35am — Mike Masnick

The NY Times is discussing a patent application by Apple (20090265214) for putting really intrusive advertising into products that would require users to respond to prove that they're paying attention to the advertising. First, there's a fair amount of prior art on very similar ideas. Not all of the prior attempts were quite so draconian -- but that's not because they needed some special new invention or "spark of genius." Instead, the reason why this hasn't been implemented fully is because most people realize it's stupid and would only serve to piss off customers. But it's hardly a new, unique or non-obvious idea. Hell, I remember discussing a nearly identical scheme around 1995 as a joke because it was so ridiculously stupid. Hopefully, the Patent Office realizes that this is an obvious concept and doesn't grant the patent.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: advertising, annoyance, intrusiveness, patents, prior art
Companies: apple

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

bassmadrigal (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 4:43am

Opt-In Only
The only way I can see this actually be semi-sensible would be as an opt-in service in certain ad-based models. Such as movie watching on the likes of Hulu. You make sure you are paying attention to this ad, then you can watch the whole movie ad free. Although their current model of watching a longer ad, to see the movie uninterrupted is great.

I'm not saying I would prefer this over hulu's current model, but this would be the only way I could see it be feasible without a massive backlash from the community.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 5:37am

Well, I don't mind Apple having this patent because it will only stifle this sort of advertising and hinder its advancement and I don't care much for advertising and I don't want to be bothered to respond to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sinsi (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 5:46am

"would require users to respond to prove that they're paying attention to the advertising."
Hey, SPAM was there first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Call me Al, 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:12am

Re:
I'm all for Apple getting this patent so that other people can't do the same thing without infringing. I dislike obtrusive ads in most circumstances.

However I can see bassmadrigal's point and there are circumstances where I wouldn't have a problem with this. There isn't a hope in hell that this kind of advertising wouldn't be abused though to the detriment of my internet surfing pleasure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:25am

Not just prior art
There isn't just prior art on this, there are prior patent applications. One simple reform of the patent system: Make it a criminal offense (fraud) if you submit a patent application without revealing prior art. The way overly-broad patents have been issued in the past 10 years, this would effectively shut down the patent system until all current patents expire, because there is virtually guaranteed to be some overly-broad patent that covers darn near everything anyone would want to submit a patent on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:32am

Re: Opt-In Only
And how long before some 13 year old kid that will end up at MIT figures out a way to circumvent such "required viewing" attempts? Some script that makes it think you've paid attention when you haven't?

Trying to force customers to do what you want just doesn't work anymore. It's why advertising is changing too. You're seeing more ads for product release rather than product worth, because marketers are finally starting to realize that we all know about Coke and Pepsi already, and the new ads really aren't going to make us switch from one to the other...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
taoareyou, 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:34am

It will not last
Even if this type of advertising starts to be commonplace, we can rest assured that someone will circumvent it almost immediately by either blocking it or simulating the interaction via an app or browser plugin.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
senshikaze (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:39am

"Hopefully, the Patent Office realizes that this is an obvious concept and doesn't grant the patent."
Based solely on past performance, i doubt this will be stopped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:45am

They will be rolling in such fat advertiser cash they would not dream of locking this up.

When every kid in america has an 5 ad-supported ipods because they came with the value meal and wanted every color. Plus they offer the added bonus of training a new generation that actively participating in advertising is the proper way to be rewarded with content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kryptonianjorel (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:45am

Re:
When I see consumer friendly companies patent very anti-consumer type technology, I like to believe that they patent this technology with the intention of not using it, and preventing others from using it as well. I guess thats just wishful thinking tho
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeWhiteGuy, 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:49am

Been Done
Didn't some computer companies in the 90's do this? You got a free PC, but so much of your desktop was ad space. Something to that nature.

Not a new idea at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 6:58am

I'm glad theyre trying to lock down this patent. Sometimes i'll see an apple add online or on tv and forget to pay attention to it. Now i'll never have to worry about missing one again!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 7:14am

Re: Been Done
Actually, the idea is unique in one very specific way:

The device(s) would be built in a manner that the advertising system is the boss, and can interrupt basic functions of the device. The idea of confirming viewing is that without the confirmation, the device would not operate, and the operating system / cmos that actually runs the system would come in second place behind the ad system.

It's a very unique concept, in that it is to entirely corrupt the device rather than just a software package thrown on top. The devices would be built from the ground up to support exactly this type of operation, so it wouldn't be easy for some kids to write a few lines of code to bypass it.

So while you may see some similarities in some prior software setups, this would be the first hardware controlling system I have seen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peet McKimmie (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 7:15am

Re: Been Done
Yup. In 1999 I got a free dial-up internet connection that only worked if you gave up the bottom 20% of your screen to advertising.

I connected to dial-up with an old laptop that didn't have a screen and used "Internet Connection Sharing" to pass the bandwidth on to my main machine. Sorted. :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Call me Al, 16 Nov 2009 @ 7:19am

Re: Re:
Apple already spend their time trying to trick me into downloading their programs. I run I-Tunes and Quicktime but whenever they update Apple automatically ticks the boxes to say I want to download Safarii and some other rubbish.

They are only consumer friendly if you are an Apple convert and so worship the ground Steve Jobs walks on. For the rest of us its a nuisance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 7:28am

Not Draconian,
but Onerous. Draconian may have been nice and alliterative when applied to DRM (the dreaded, despised, Draconian DRM deeply disturbed Dante), but it just doesn't sum up the above and beyond pain in the ass that stuff like this embodies.

Come on, Mike, give onerous a chance.

Good luck alienating your customers, Apple, and let me know how that works out for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thomas, 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:06am

Oh my..
what a dumb idea. Just what I need; I'm trying to write a letter using Pages and up pops an ad that I have to respond to before I can continue writing. Or perhaps I'm reading my e-mail in Safari have to stop and read a stupid ad and respond in some way before I can continue to read mail. No way would I use any software like that.

They already put ads on GPS so that you can get a coupon or some such for McDonalds when you drive near one. Supposedly only pops up when the car is stopped, but what happens when it gets confused and pops up when you are moving in traffic and the ad distracts you and you have an accident? Just think of the lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:17am

Re: Re: Re:
i don't use iTunes for that reason
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:22am

Considering Apple consumers will buy anything because it's made from Apple I don't think they'll have too much of a problem getting this off the ground. But, as many have pointed out in today's world patents are mostly about being able to license them, or just hoard them so others can't use the same technologies.

Regardless, the overwhelming majority of Apple's customer base make their decision on what they think will give them some boost to their social status, rather on any actual merit of function or utility. All Apple has to do is get some celebrity endorsements, get the tween's to jump ship, and soon enough everyone still trying to act like they're not approaching 40 will gobble up the same products. In the event something this intrusive and disruptive does become implemented into their newer products however, it's possible it could finally be the eye-opener these people need to see that Apple products will never be user-friendly and the only use they can get out of their product is what Apple wants, not the consumers. Need proof? Just ask anyone who's spent $1500 on each generation of iPhone just so they can have half a dozen extra features that products back in '04 already had, or anyone who wanted to upgrade anything on anything Apple's ever made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:26am

Re: Oh my..
Yes, the lawsuit you'll be getting for hitting someone because you're too much of a dumbass to pay attention to the road and cars ahead of you, much less being able to read a map.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not4me, 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:26am

Won't last long
I quit using Evernote after one day because of its bothersome ad display. It wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes if it had required I click on the ad, let alone prove I'd "paid attention".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:40am

"... and would only serve to piss off customers."
Gee, you think?! And I thought Apple was just another ultra-proprietary company. ;(

Just one more reason not to buy any of their over-priced, over-proprietary products in the future. (I don't buy M$ crappy, over-priced products, either). ;p
Third-party, open-source, fully hackable devices are the way to go. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bradley Stewart, 16 Nov 2009 @ 8:41am

Don't Company's Annoy Us Enough
with advertising? Now someone wants to patent an idea to even annoy us more. OK fine with me if that's what they want to do as long as they give us a menu of stock options to respond. I have one modest suggestion to include on this list. FU I wouldn't buy this product if you gave it to me for nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Reed (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 9:40am

Re: Re: Been Done
Are you arguing that the distinction between enforcement at the hardware level instead of the software level is deserving of a monopoly on the concept? Let's say I want to be slightly different and implement a virtual machine for basic operations, and have a host os that displays the ads and stops everything for interaction, is that also a non obvious extension of the concept?

I didn't read the patent, I don't know if what I described or what you described or both are what the patent describes. EITHER way, there's a lot of obvious extensions to this concept.

I fail to see why it's a good thing for anyone to grant a monopoly on the concept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 16 Nov 2009 @ 10:04am

Re:
Agreed. I actually hope that Apple IS granted the patent because this kind of advertising is not at all Apple's style and would probably use the patent to fight against the growing interest other companies seem to have in pissing off customers with stupid intrusive advertising that doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 10:10am

Re:
EXACTLY!! I hope this patent gets approved. Then we get to watch Dumb sue Dumber for being dumb! ROFLMAO! Let the circus begin!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Gerard (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 12:15pm

Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil"
After bricking unlocked iPhones, kicking applications off the iPhone store that might even slightly compete with iTunes in the far future and filing a wave of patents on basic well-known computer science, Apple Inc. today filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission declaring that it was openly adopting Evil™ as a corporate policy.
"Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it's pretty and it's cool and it works. It's not like you'll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!"

Steve Ballmer of Microsoft was incensed at the news. "Our evil is better than anyone's evil! No-one sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Where's your antitrust trial, you polo-necked bozo? We've worked hard on our evil! Our Zune's as evil as an iPod any day! I won't let my kids use a lesser evil! We're going to do an ad about that! I'll be in it! With Jerry Seinfeld! Beat that! Asshole."

"Of course, we're still not evil," said Sergey Brin of Google. "You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my 'spreading good cheer' laugh. Really."

Blog rant: http://is.gd/4WwLA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Gerard (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 12:22pm

Re: Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil"
Oh, good Lord. Dudes, if S-M-R-T quotes work in preview, they should work in live - that's what "preview" means ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2009 @ 1:56pm

Re: Re: Been Done
Actually, it would be pretty easy for some kids to write few lines of code to bypass it, or put a few jumpers here or there to fix it (yes, fix it, as hardware being ad dependent seems broken to me). Engineering kids, ages 16-25 love this kinda project (you'd be amazed at what 1.8 or 3.3 Volts in the right place will let you bypass in hardware setups). I ought to know, I'm one of them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mirradric, 16 Nov 2009 @ 9:43pm

Re: Re: Been Done
Sounds a lot like what trusted computing is trying to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bassmadrigal (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 10:14pm

Re: Re: Opt-In Only
It wouldn't be forcing them. The way I had envisioned it was the same way Hulu's big long commercial at the beginning is. Where they ask you beforehand whether or not you are willing to do it. And if you don't, then you would just see commercials in their normal spots while watching the video.

Like I said, it isn't something I would like to see happen, but this is the only way I could see it happen without too much backlash from the community.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dennis Yang (profile), 16 Nov 2009 @ 11:50pm

Re: Re: Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil"
Sorry about that, I've fixed your comment, but I'll look into that preview bug..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Custom T-Shirts, 17 Nov 2009 @ 2:51am

Marketing
Nice Content. Great idea to promote your product or services is to use customized gifts such as Custom T-Shirts, customized sanitizers and many more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ajax Harington, 17 Nov 2009 @ 9:02am

Apple Evil - Of Course
Apples have always been evil....

http://lavatoryreader.typepad.com/the-lavatory-reader/2009/10/the-danger-of-eating-apple s.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vlweir, 17 Nov 2009 @ 3:28pm

Evil Apple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vlweir, 17 Nov 2009 @ 3:30pm

Evil Apple
Steve Jobs may be Evil, but he is not Stupid. As much as I would like to think that this Ad platform is something that he will embrace, I think he's doing this to make sure it doesn't get done. Could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]