Overture Sues Google Over Pay-for-Placement Patent

Ana anonymous submitter wrote: "C|Net News is reporting that Overture is suing Google over its AdWords advertising method since it may be infringing upon Patent 6,269,361 'System and method for influencing a position on a search result list generated by a computer network search engine'."

ok, i looked

[doooras]

this is probably just another play for recognition. i had never heard of Overture before this, so i clicked the link to see what they were. woo.. another alta-yahoo-whatever. they're probably hoping to get the traffic, and maybe get some of google's loot if they're lucky.

On a side note...

[Loki_1929]

Although I submitted a story (since rejected) about this, I'm looking for more info. Apparently, Comcast.net customers who try searching Google [google.com] get the following message...

403 Forbidden
Your client does not have permission to get URL /search?hl=en&q=slashdot from this server. (Client IP address: *snip*)

Unfortunately, Google has received a significant amount of abuse from your network. Because some person or people on your network have violated our Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html) and sent us numerous automated search queries, we have been forced to shut off access to Google's services from your network.

Note that we are not accusing you personally of having violated our Terms of Service; you are most likely an innocent victim of someone else's bad behavior. We're really sorry to have had to take this action.

We very much want to be able to work this problem out with your sysadmin or your ISP's network and/or abuse department. Unfortunately, so far, we have not been able to do so. Please contact your sysadmin or your ISP's network and/or abuse department and request that they track down who is causing this problem with Google. Please don't complain to Google about this problem (since there's nothing we can do until the problem on your network has been identified and stopped). Instead, please complain to your sysadmin or your ISP's network and/or abuse department. Letting them know that they need to take immediate action so that you can enjoy full access to the Internet (including Google) is the quickest way for you to regain your Google service.

We wholeheartedly apologize for the inconvenience to you, and with your help, we expect that we'll soon be able provide search results to you once more.

This has been confirmed by myself and 3 friends on Comcast.net. Anyone have more information? Please share with the class.

Poster's description is vague...

[Cutriss]

'System and method for influencing a position on a search result list generated by a computer network search engine'.

Specifically, the patent covers a bidding process in which link owners compete in a bidding process to show which bids are highest. Though, in this case, Google is only using this data for the ads on the right sidebar of searches. GoTo.com used the bidding process to insert paid links within its regular search results. The free links would appear afterward.

The application of the technique is where this differs, but this is yet another case of an overly broad patent.

business method patents aren't new

[frankie]

Overture's patent infringement suit comes amid widespread criticism of so-called business method patents--a relatively new class of invention recognized by the U.S. Patent Office and the courts that has led to a flood of filings laying claim to nuts and bolts Internet activities.

This paragraph of the article is phrased badly. The concept of patenting a business method is not new. What's new is that USPTO and the courts are allowing these stupid things to stand.

The Supreme Court wrote a fabulous ruling [findlaw.com] about bad patents way back in 1950. I urge everyone to read the full ruling and see how utterly it applies to modern events. Here's a couple favorite quotes:

• "The mere combination of a number of old parts or elements which, in combination, perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them, is not patentable invention."
• "The function of a patent is to add to the sum of useful knowledge. Patents cannot be sustained when, on the contrary, their effect is to subtract from former resources freely available to skilled artisans."
• "The Patent Office, like most administrative agencies, has looked with favor on the opportunity which the exercise of discretion affords to expand its own jurisdiction. And so it has placed a host of gadgets under the armour of patents - gadgets that obviously have had no place in the constitutional scheme of advancing scientific knowledge."

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

prior art

[chompz]

I think I've seen prior art to this, how about the phone book.

Think about it, the "YELLOW" pages are pay for placement, while in the "WHITE" pages most listings are free, excepting businesses who pay extra high rates on thier local phone bill to have bold and two lines instead of one.

Hello! Does the addition of the word internet make this entirely different or something?

Internet adaptations of widely used ideas in print should not be pattented. The search engine just serves to filter the irrelevant from the relevant, something done in the yellow pages by "CATEGORIZATION", its just the with a search engine, the categorization is much more general and can be both a benifit and a detriment to the quality of the searching experience.

My 2cents, but I think I have a point here.

how (not) to write spec

[mshurpik]

Wow. This is my first time looking at a patent, and you know what? It reminds me very much of every kind of half-assed spec my client handed me when I was a web programmer.

Read on for analysis:

The system and method of the present invention provides a database

Provides a database? How about "uses," "engages," "is dependent upon"? This usage of "provides" is so far out in left-field that it's almost backwards. And yet, I see this exact mistake a lot.

In addition, each account contains at least one search listing having at least three components: a description, a search term comprising one or more keywords, and a bid amount.

As always, input fields are detailed to a laughably meticulous degree. Not to mention, the usage of "comprising" is backwards. One or more keywords comprise a search term. A search term is composed of one or more keywords.

The network information provider enters the search term and the description into a search listing.

And the physical process of using the application is folded into the spec itself like it's some sort of revelation. "First, the user fires up the application." Woah, crucial info!

The rank value generated by the bidding process determines where the network information providers listing will appear on the search results list page that is generated in response to a query of the search term by a searcher located at a client computer on the computer network.

Meanwhile, the actual guts of the algorithm are never defined, instead replaced with tangential buzzwords like "client computer" and useless information about network topology.

This is the current state-of-the-art in spec, boys. This is why your programming job is hell.