Targeted Advertising? Patented! Bunch Of Media Companies Sued
from the and-here-we-go-again dept
Back in 2004, we wrote about a ridiculous patent (6,712,702), for a "method and system for playing games on a network." The guy behind the patent, Sheldon Goldberg, was claiming that a bunch of online solitaire games violated his patent. When the EFF launched its patent busting project, they went after a different but related patent from Goldberg. In 2008, we noted that he had sued Digg, CNET, the NY Times, the Washington Post and others for violating this patent (yes, the solitaire patent). Now, it appears he's going after even more media companies, over both this patent and a second patent (7,496,943), which is for a "network system for presenting advertising," which describes sending targeted ads to Blackjack players.It really makes you wonder what sorts of examiners they employ at the USPTO that crap patents like this get approved in the first place.
Anyway, the latest lawsuit goes after a ton of media companies and Amazon:
The defendants in the lawsuit are: Advance Publications; which owns Conde Nast magazines and several newspapers; ALM Media, which owns The American Lawyer magazine group and several legal newspapers; Amazon; American Media (Playboy, Flex, Fit Pregnancy, Shape); Rodale (Men's Health, Runner’s World, Bicycling); Scripps Interactive (Food Network, HGTV, DIY Network); Demand Media; Viacom; and alt-weekly publisher Village Voice Media.Suing a magazine for lawyers? Wonder if they can find some good legal help...? In the meantime, I'm curious if any of our regular patent system defenders can explain how these patents help to promote progress. Better yet, explain how these two patents present a single, non-obvious invention.
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, patents, sheldon goldberg, targeted advertising
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Waitiaminute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waitiaminute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oddly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior art date
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/sarcasm or dementia. You pick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Familiar venue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to the latest news from the USPTO they are in the process of taking out the human factor completely from the equation.
Quote:
Source:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/ePetition-FAQs.jsp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why make it automated? A computer isn't going to be able to make a PROPER DECISION if a human cannot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I intend to send it through their automated patent process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(Make sure you're a safe distance away from the Patent Office computer-- I saw them do this a couple of times on Star Trek, and it can get messy.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I bet it will play a nice official looking animation before going *ding* APPROVED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a patent preventing them from having an automated ding relating to successful approval of something on a website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurry up.
The Automated process for eight patent-related petition types using a web system. Data is input through a secure web interface and the petition is decided automatically, eliminating months of waiting for these types of petitions to be docketed, decided and uploaded into Private PAIR.
Then sue the USPTO.
Because we all know it will get rubber stamped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Part of the problem...
What are the qualifications needed to become a patent examiner for IT patents, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the problem...
Good, that's just the type of technical skill we are looking for!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Part of the problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Part of the problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Part of the problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the problem...
An over-developed bicep on the dominant arm for rubber stamping and the ability to pick a computer out of a lineup with a lump of cheese, a small chimpanzee, a rotary engine crank case and a fruitbat - best out of 3 minimum qualification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yay for me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When is enough enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is enough enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When is enough enough?
This is most definitely a patent we do not need. There is already too many people around that are full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what sorts of examiners they employ at the USPTO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patenting the patent troll business process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patenting the patent troll business process?
Too late. Halliburton beat you to it:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0118162765.shtml
And if that doesn't cover it, IBM has another one:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110102/15363912492/ibm-files-patent-patent-trolling-it-ma y-be-too-late.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here, a patent examiner has examined specific claims and at least some subset of the prior art and said the claims in these patents are valid.
Mike posts an article suggesting the patents are invalid, without any analysis of any claim of any patent, and asks for people to give reasons why the patents are *not* invalid.
The majority of TD commenters appear to assume the patents are invalid.
Curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm assuming most people here are knowledgeable, and can read the patents for themselves, and recognize how ridiculous they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you think they are obvious (or more specifically, were obvious at the time of claimed invention)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Assuming your readership (or any readership, really) (a) understands how patents work (i.e., what the claims are in relation to the specification, etc.), (b) has the patience and ability to read and understand the 50+ claims in the patent, AND (c) has a comprehensive knowledge of what the state of the art was at the time of claimed invention, is assuming a hell of a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ditto
"A system of suing companies who actually do work and make things, so that the complainant doesn't have to."
[rubber stamp thud] ... APPROVED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]