Company Claims Patent On Pop-Up Ads, Sues Porn & Travel Companies

from the well,-if-it-gets-rid-of-pop-ups... dept

Wed, Jun 19th 2013 12:28pm — Mike Masnick

I have to admit that I'm still a bit surprised that pop-up/pop-under advertisements still exist. The concept is so annoying and so anti-consumer that pretty much all browsers figured out ways to build in pop-up blockers many, many years ago. Every so often one gets through (almost always advertising Netflix, by the way), and I get annoyed and try to remember never to visit that site again. However, Paul Keating alerts us to the news that a company called "ExitExchange" now claims to hold a patent on pop-up ads, and has sued seven porn sites and two travel companies for using them without a license. The patent in question is US Patent 7,353,229 for a "post-session internet advertising system." It was only granted in 2008, but its priority date goes back to May of 2000. I tried to look up a history of pop-up ads, but was unable to find any definitive source on when the first pop-up ad was used. Still, just because it wasn't done back then doesn't mean the patent is valid -- perhaps people were just smart enough not to do something that annoyed the hell out of everyone. The company has sued Travelocity and Kayak along with a variety of porn sites.

Of course, this is hardly the only company claiming a patent on pop-ups. Years ago, there were multiple stories of others claiming patents on pop-ups and suing over those patents -- and it appears that most of those patents were filed long before the patent above. And, if you were hoping that maybe something good would come out of patents on pop-up ads, that they might be forced to go away, this history of patents and lawsuits over pop-ups suggests that it hasn't helped very much in stopping them.

162715 Motherless 051013 (PDF)162715 Motherless 051013 (Text)

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: patent trolls, patents, pop up ads, porn companies

31 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

fogbugzd (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:35pm

There was a "Pop-Up Killer" application in 1999, which suggests that the popups predated the patent application.

You can read the original patent at http://www.google.com/patents/US7353229 . To my untrained eye it looks like this is a patent for the idea of using mechanisms already in JavaScript and Java applets to present advertising. Reading the article as a programmer I didn't see much in the way of how to do popups other than "Use the tools that are already provided."

JavaScript and the ability to do pupups and popunders was released by Netscape in 1997. I am sure that by the time the '229 patent was filed there were a lot of tutorials that explained how to do pupup and popnder ads and did it better than this paptent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:41pm

Am I the only one feeling ambivalent toward this?

One one hand, it is patent trolling.

On the other hand, anything that gets us less pop-up ads is fine by me :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glen, 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:47pm

Point of curiosity...
(almost always advertising Netflix, by the way)

I've noticed that too. What sorcery do they use to get that through?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:53pm

"almost always advertising Netflix"

There should be a cookie that indicates you already have a Netflix account so you'd get a different ad. Netflix is wasting a lot of money advertising to its own customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:58pm

Re:
A patent on calling a function.

Job well done, Luke S. Wassum, Primary Examiner!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 12:59pm

Has anyone that browse the web with scripts disable ever saw a popup?

How can anybody patent a pop up?

The idea goes back to popups on OS, how is that patentable?

Every single GUI that I saw ever has popups for one thing or another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

Yes I am that old.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:04pm

Re:
ha, I have complained to companies that I subscribe to, verizon, AAA, etc, who keep sending me Ads to join their service via snail mail. and they just won't stop

I doubt netflix will bother with stopping a pop-up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChrisB (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:06pm

Of course there were
Of course there were pop-up ads pre-2000. I remember getting them while in university (1997) when looking at por ... um ... travel sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:09pm

pretty sure popups existed by 1998.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:10pm

Re:
Might get us less porn too though if the porn companies have to pay out. That is not so good :-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:11pm

Re:
I clear my cookies at the end of every browsing session so that would not have an affect for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kog999, 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:31pm

Re:
"There should be a cookie that indicates you already have a Netflix account so you'd get a different ad. Netflix is wasting a lot of money advertising to its own customers"

Thats a pretty good idea. i think i will patent it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:47pm

Re: Point of curiosity...
I have never seen an unwanted popup from anybody, not even Netflix, since I started using NoScript.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 1:56pm

It's almost non-existent to me as well. Every once in a great while I see a pop up or under. I actually want to see none. As in zero.

I've learned long ago not to trust ads on the internet. They are a security problem and I will do everything in my power to prevent them from occurring on my machine. I know of several instances where others got malware through infected iFrames I didn't because I don't allow them to run.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DubzDubz, 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:28pm

Re: Re:
"There should be a cookie that indicates you already have a Netflix account so you'd get a different ad. Netflix is wasting a lot of money advertising to its own customers"

Thats a pretty good idea. i think i will patent it.

I called dibs. You might not have heard it, but I said it before you typed that. (That's how the patent system works right?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:38pm

Simpsons Did It!
The Simpson episode "Das Bus" Feb 1998 featured popups in the show. If they were already that prominent and annoying I would have to assume they had to have been a part of life before 1998.
I remember one annoying night (and I'm pretty sure it was '95) that a site I visited generated a popunder. Then that popunder spawned another...in short order I had 3000+ windows and my Win95 promptly died with a BSOD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tux (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:44pm

In case you need some prior art...
This might be handy. Popups have been around since at least the late 1990s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 19 Jun 2013 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re:
I block all cookies. I also disable Java, scripting, and Active X. I also use cleaning programs after every use of my computer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC Unknown, 19 Jun 2013 @ 3:29pm

Re: Re: Point of curiosity...
NoScript rocks. I haven't had to deal with popup ads, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 3:39pm

"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS"

Gee, what a surprise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
illuminaut (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 3:42pm

Re: See
Pretty funny to see spam posting on an article related to the nuisance of ads. I should patent automated spam posting in forums and sue these bastards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:42pm

Re: Re: Point of curiosity...
Or you COULD simply use your built-in popup blocker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Point of curiosity...
The built-in popup blockers don't block all objectionable popups, and they don't protect against the myriad other nasty things that NoScript does (i-frame tricks, Cross-site scripting, invisible buttons, etc.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:24pm

Could this possibly be a case of Patent Trolls for Good?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 6:27pm

Re: Re: See
My sister made $99999999999999.99 working from home for 0.5 hours! follow this link: totally-not-a-scam-dot-com to find out how!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
totalz (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 8:30pm

I do get pop-under from time to time, but the ads pic are already blocked, and usually that window will close itself!

Talk about the innovation of scams, US of A is always on top...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:06pm

I definitely remember getting Popups in 1996.
I got suckered into clicking on a deceptive porn site link and they wouldn't stop poping up.

(it really was deceptive)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:16pm

From the Patent....

"most Internet businesses use interrupting advertisements such as pop-up windows"

So can you patent something that already has a name?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2013 @ 11:22pm

Actually, your use of "Pop-Up" has been very misleading, both in your interpretation of the story and as a red-herring for your commentators (who very rarely, it seems, read any of your primary sources).

If you read the patent, it is for "Pop-Under" advertising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Johan N, 20 Jun 2013 @ 8:40am

window.open existed before 2000
A quick search on Google for results before 31 May 2000 shows that the window.open function in JavaScript that's used for pop-ups has been around for way longer than then: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=window.open&sa=X&ei=oiHDUd71KvSQ4ASTp4CABg&ved=0CB 8QpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A31-5-2000&tbm=
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 20 Jun 2013 @ 10:51am

Re:
If you read the patent, it is for "Pop-Under" advertising

I think everybody understands that. It doesn't change the fact that there is lots of prior art on this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]