Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Pop-Under Ads Patented 325

Posted by CmdrTaco from the thats-pretty-funny dept.
gopherdata writes "The Oregonian is running a article about a company, Exit Exchange, that claims to have invented the pop-under ad and is currently in the process of patenting it. According to the article the company hopes to collect royalties from other companies using pop-under ads. Are two lines of javascript worthy of a patent?" On the other hand, this is one stupid patent I'd love to see held up, just so that the licensing fees could discourage advertisers from attacking their potential clients.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pop-Under Ads Patented More

Pop-Under Ads Patented

Comments Filter:
  • and charge ALL internet advertisers royalties?
  • I hope they sue the pants off and stop every other company from using them :-)

  • too bad. (Score:4, Funny)

    by cygnus ( 17101 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:33PM (#3561961) Homepage
    unfortunately, this patent is enforcable, since it's filed underground underneath the patent office and only available once you leave the building.

  • Bah. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MisterBlister ( 539957 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:34PM (#3561967) Homepage
    As much as we'd all like to see pop-whatever ads go away, please never say that you support something like this. Even if the short term result would be nice, it gets us on an insanely slippery slope that we might not be able to get off of later.

    If you really hate stupid patents, fight against ALL of them, even the ones that might have short-term benefits! We can't afford to pick and choose the 'good stupid patents' from the 'bad stupid patents'.

    • Re:Bah. (Score:5, Funny)

      by nomadic ( 141991 ) <`nomadicworld' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:56PM (#3562164) Homepage
      We're already tumbling head first down that slope, hitting our head on each rotation a la Homer Simpson. All this means is that jerk Flanders falls down with us.

    • Re:Bah. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @07:29PM (#3562376) Homepage Journal
      I'm not sure that this is necessarily a stupid patent, given that software ideas can be patented at all. The fact that it is two lines of javascript is as irrelevant as the fact that we all hate them. Complexity is not required -- originality is. Evacuating a light bulb so the filament doesn't burn is a simple operation, but it was original when it was first thought up.


      Since these things are in common use, if you can show these were created without direct or indirect knowledge of the company's work then you can make the case that the invention is obvious, and not original. Hmm. Maybe an application for Google? Quick, get me a patent lawyer.

      • This is worse than a software patent... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Scratch-O-Matic ( 245992 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @08:32PM (#3562695)
        The thing that bothers me about this concept is not that it's a patent for lines of code...what bothers me is that the lines of code do nothing more than specify which of a number of pre-existing options to use. To use your analogy: this is much more mundane and unoriginal than the incandescent bulb, which after all had never been thought of before and was an extremely useful device. No, this patent is more like if Edison had invented and patented the bulb, then invented and patented a variable resistor labeled 1-10, to control the brightness of the bulb. Then some clown comes along and says "During the day, I'll put the dial on 10, and at night I'll put it on 4." Then he patents this particular use of the bulb and dial.

        Ridiculous. Scary.

    • Re:Bah. (Score:2)

      by tcc ( 140386 )
      Well I guess he made his day by saying a double-sided comment like this, the goal of this place is to generate discussion in the first place.

      What good would it be if he'd say "yet another stupid patent that will be passed" without adding anything completely opposing a previous statement? The whole thread would be bitching whining about the patent office people that are brainless, some trolls about how USA is "the land of the free" with DMCA SSCA and EtCeTeR-A and other flames, and the typical "hey I patented sticking a finger in my nose to clean it"

      Oh.. wait... nevermind.
    • Exactly, as much as I would love to see this go through to hold off pop-unders, I would rather not have the patent at all. I don't like the current patent system, I don't like stupid patents. As cool as this would be for internet users, it's a bad patent, I want this one to be struck down. Besides, I have the Proximatron (search for it on google) I don't deal with pop-unders or overs

    • This is different (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dark-nl ( 568618 )

      In this case, we would be arguing for this patent, because it will stifle the use of what it patents, thereby holding back progress and whatnot in a field where we don't want to see progress.

      In other words, we're promoting this patent as a device to hold back innovation :) I'd like to see a patent lawyer agree with that one.

  • what next? patenting alert() calls? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Elphin ( 7066 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:34PM (#3561969) Homepage
    The USA! The land of the free! Where anyone can patent the parameters to a window.open() call!

  • Doesn't make any sense (Score:2, Insightful)

    by estoll ( 443779 )
    How can you patent a method of using a tool?

    One purpose Javascript was designed for was opening other windows; hence, the window.open call. I doubt that the patent will be granted.

    That's like patenting hammering nails with a hammer. You can use the tool anyway you want but I'm going to charge you for every nail you hammer in with it?

    That's absurd.
    • If you can come up with a new use for those nails and hammer, you can patent it. Patents do not strictly apply to new inventions, but also apply to new uses for older inventions. If you can come up with a new way to build something with the hammers using the nails as the placement device (instead of the reverse, which has been in use for thousands of years), then you may be able to get a patent on it.
    • How can you patent a method of using a tool?

      Well, nearly every patent is, in a sense, a method of using a tool.

      While it doesn't make sense to patent the hammering of nails, it does make sense to patent, for example, a better hammer. And when it comes down to it, a hammer can be reduced to "a method of using a foundry to pour an alloy into a particular shape" and "a method of using a sawmill to cut wood in a particular shape" and "a method of using a robotic arm (or Indonesian eight-year-old) to attach a handle to the head of a hammer"

      A computer itself is a tool; few would argue that *no* "method of using a computer" should be patented. If I spend ten years of my life developing an entirely new OS from scratch, and it's awesome, I should get some compensation.

      The question, I guess, is the level of "tools with tools" at which a patent becomes reasonable. He who figures out how to fashion a computer from a series of factories deserves a patent. He who creates a more efficient OS for that computer probably deserves a patent. Even he who creates a new programming language under that OS probably deserves a patent.

      But he who writes a three line script in an that programming language probably does not.

      • If I spend ten years of my life developing an entirely new OS from scratch, and it's awesome, I should get some compensation.

        Oh, you mean like Apple? And before you tell me about Xerox PARC--Apple paid for that technology from Xerox. Why you can patent a trivial technology like a pop-under, but not the whole WIMP paradigm, is beyond me.

        Yeah, I'm still sore. And I still use a Mac, dammit.
    • maybe you missed the /. article a few weeks ago about an individual successfully patenting swinging side to side on a swing... you can patent ANYTHING...

      Patent granted on sideways swinging [slashdot.org]
    • The other day this guy clubbed me with a small billboard and took my wallet while I read the advertisement. When I came to my senses, I ran to the patent office to make my fortune. I'd been robbed before, but never in tandem with getting clubbed by a billboard... the space on that board could be worth a fortune to police/bounty hunters/hospitals/etc. Unfortunately, the guy beat me to it.

  • What a great extortion scheme! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Software ( 179033 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:36PM (#3561986) Journal
    Exit Exchange is taking advantage of a recent change to patent law that enables it to seek royalties from companies for using its technology even before its patent is granted.
    I can attempt to extort companies for royalty payments for patents that may not be granted? Sign me up! Do I have to refund the payments if the patent is not granted? What a scam!
    • Not only extortion:

      Vilcauskas is trying to use the change in patent law to sell the company's technology -- or the entire company -- before the patent is granted

      they are trying to sell what they don't have (as the patent is not granted yet). That's fraud.

  • Is it possible...? (Score:3, Funny)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:37PM (#3561997) Homepage
    Would I be able to patent the act of patenting stupid, obvious ideas? Then I could get a royalty from the next person who tries to patent something like breathing. Maybe I could patent the process of obtaining a patent on someone's genes - now THAT would be lucrative!
  • Are two lines of javascript worthy of a patent?"

    You can patent an idea so it doesn't matter how little code it takes to implement the idea.

    When you think about it, aren't pop-unders better than pop-overs? They're all bad, but we can't escape advertising without moving to dictatorial establishments.

    www.scottauld.com

    • "When you think about it, aren't pop-unders better than pop-overs?"

      No, you stupid fuck, pop-unders aren't better than pop-ups; in fact, quite the opposite. With pop-ups, at least we know they are there and can quickly close them, preventing them from opening more windows or using more of our resources. Pop-unders may go unnoticed, thus stealing our resources, while simultaneously opening up more pop-unders, thus stealing more of our resources, until the entire system comes to a screeching halt trying to deal with twenty-thousand pop-unders.
    • You can patent an idea so it doesn't matter how little code it takes to implement the idea.


      It should.

      Anything which can be written in two lines of code should be considered "obvious" in the
      unpatentable sense of that word.
      (Obviously, the lines need to be limited to reasonable length.)

      -- this is not a .sig
    • > When you think about it, aren't pop-unders better than pop-overs?

      Not when you tend to open a lot of windows in the background and those f*cking window.focus() calls screw up your window ordering; the end result is even *bigger* windows get popped to the front; requested ones, yes, but when you open a window in the background only to have it force itself to the front, it's very irritating.

      I'd rather have the fairly well defined behavior of popup's than have my window stack ordering screwed up as well.

  • I recommend Mozilla to block popunder adds (Score:5, Informative)

    by brodiedreamyou.ca ( 542180 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:41PM (#3562044)
    Just goto Edit > Prefrences > Advanced > Scripts and Windows > and disable the checkbox that says "open unrequested windows"
    • I recommend Opera. File -> Preferences -> Windows -> Pop-up Windows (set to refuse).

      What's cool about this is it's the default setting.
      • What's not so cool about this is it breaks opening *any* JS windows.

        While not a problem on sites that do it properly (<a href="foo.html" onclick="openwindow('foo.html');return false;">foo</a>), it's annoying on sites that use the javascript: pseudo-protocol (<a href="javascript:openwindow('foo.html')">foo&lt ; / >) and which misuse onclick (<a href="#" onclick="openwindow('foo.html')">foo</a>) .

        *grumble*

  • Denied. (Score:4, Informative)

    by chrysrobyn ( 106763 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:42PM (#3562048)

    This application will be denied. They have to state when the idea was put into practical use, and when they say that it was over 12 months ago, the USPTO will deny the application. At least, that's what I was told when I filled out the applications for my three patents. An idea is not legally patentable, and will hence be denied, if the company decides to patent it over a year after its introduction. The laws in Japan are different -- you must submit the patent BEFORE the public sees it. I'm 100% positive that I've been subjected to popunders for longer than 12 months.

    • just to bakck this guy up yes... the law says that in the US, if it is publically accessible for more than 12 months it is not patentable.

      i make a bunch of closed source software for a company but because only the company uses it, i can file patents long after the 12 month period.

  • watch out, Cmdr-T (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vex24 ( 126288 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:43PM (#3562062) Homepage
    On the other hand, this is one stupid patent I'd love to see held up, just so that the licensing fees could discourage advertisers from attacking their potential clients.

    Be careful applying judgements, CmdrTaco... remember that the Bill of Rights isn't just to protect the "good guys"...

  • money spent on research? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Weh ( 219305 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:46PM (#3562078)
    So how much money did it cost to research the concept of a pop-under ad? Did they spend years in developing and perfecting the concept? What a load of crap. Someone should patent reasonable thinking in patent offices, there sure doesn't seem to be much prior art.

  • we can't have this both ways (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:47PM (#3562085) Journal
    Come on folks, let's try sticking with a position. Ridiculous patents like this need to be fought, even if by fighting them, we open ourselves up to the most annoying form of advertising online yet. Why? Because this type of trend opens us up to yet worse patent ideas. When someone can patent a small, simple bit of code like that and get away with it, what's to stop someone from patenting the 'cp' command? The US patent office doesn't appear to follow the guidlines for issuing patents, so there's not a whole lot to stem the tide of patents being issued for things that are extremely simple (ie one-click shopping.. duh), ubiquitous (ie palette bars - hello Adobe), or just plain ridiculous (ie the patent issued for 'inducing aerobic exercise' by pointing a laser pointer at a wall and moving it around).

    We either fight all the patents we disagree with, or we fight none. When we pick and choose ("Well, this patent sucks, but maybe I'll get less spam on web pages") we appear weak. If our position truly is that we support patents issued for non patent-worthy things, then our position is weak.

    • Wow, using HTML and JavaScript can be patented! What will they think of next? Using the left button on a mouse to get something to happen? Ops, sorry that has already been patented.
    • Not that I disagree with your main point - I actually am right there with you - but I hardly think this is the most annoying form of online advertising yet.

      I have two things that personally I find much, much worse.

      1) Popups on close. Window spawning hell is what initially made me get (slightly) serious about using a filtering program to weed out javascript.

      2) The most annoying yet, in my mind, is what I've recently seen on Yahoo (and I'm sure other places). They now have started to adopt "floating" ads, which move around on the screen using either flash or DHTML and do not pop up a new window at all. Instead, they cover the content of the main window with moving animations and other crap. I know that these have been around for a few years, but haven't really caught on too well until now. Perusing some of the trade rags to see what the enemy is up to, it appears that they are starting to gain popularity and probably will continue to so long as the people doing the campaigns are the ones used to designing for television. They want your attention fixed on their product for a given amount of time, without any way of getting what you're really after before they're done promoting to you.

      For an example of one company I found who creates these things (and a place where you can see what I'm talking about if you haven't seen them yet), see www.eyeblaster.com [eyeblaster.com]

  • In other news, a public statement was released by the supreme asshole, the originator of all internet ads, the fuck who schemed up banner ads, pop-unders, pop-ups, screen-take-overs, home-page-stealers, link-stealers. He stated that he was claiming patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets on all of these "brilliant" "great" ideas which have so promoted progress in the Useful Arts and Sciences, and now will be charging a million dollars for each instance of their use.

    He also said that if he found out anyone was using these techniques without paying him royalties, not only would he sue them, but he would also send them fifteen thousand SPAMs, another thing he's claiming patents, copyrigths, trademarks, and trade secrets on.
  • So, I do think this is a silly patent, however it's not the simplicity of the solution that is patented, it's the idea.

    The paperclip is an example of a brilliant idea with a technically simple solution. It was patented and I don't think many slashdot readers would argue with that.

    Tim

  • Prior Art (Score:2, Interesting)

    by giminy ( 94188 )
    Okay, let's think about this for a second. If Javascript was written to allow pop-under windows, obviously this feature had to be written in JS, and tested at some point. So are we to believe that Exit Exchange actually wrote this part of the language and tested it? I think not. Surely there must be an example of prior art out there, then.

    Or maybe I should patent using X language to add two integers between 25 and 50 together. It's the same thing, I'm using X's built-in add operator to do something specific.

    So yes, this patent is retarded.

  • NOT something we want to see happen! (Score:3)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:50PM (#3562123) Journal
    "...On the other hand, this is one stupid patent I'd love to see held up, just so that the licensing fees could discourage advertisers from attacking their potential clients."

    TERRIBLE idea! Bad law is not the way to solve bad behaviour. If this patent is issued and enforceable, we'll have far more fallout than just stupid pop-under ads.
  • What's scary isn't a patent for a pop-under ad.

    It's the MPAA-inspired patent on blocking pop-under ads... a patent that exists solely to prevent you from implementing it. You WILL watch every commercial, you WILL read every popup add, you WILL navigate every site from the base page (no deep links), etc....

  • WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @06:57PM (#3562171) Homepage Journal
    On the other hand, this is one stupid patent I'd love to see held up, just so that the licensing fees could discourage advertisers from attacking their potential clients.

    You can't have it both ways. If you want patents to make sense, you can't just say "oh well, this patent sucks, but I like the way it sucks." No entendre intended, double or otherwise.

    Consistency is the only positive thing that government is really capable of. Right now, the patent office is consistently stupid. Don't confuse them with selective approval.

    • Why can't one idly wish that one could have it both ways? Even the let's-ban-the-fucking-patent-office types have to be at least mildly amused by this. No one here is committing to the idea that this patent should be allowed to stand; it merely brings a little fleeting mirth to them for now.

      You can't stop people from smiling at the sight of those they dislike fighting eachother.

  • Didn't Netscape invent it by creating a set focus option in JavaScript? How can you say you invented a feature of someone else's language?

    I hereby decree that I invented the concept of "pull-down menu", since Set Focus is already taken by Exit Exchange.
  • "The real money, it hopes, will come from licensing the technology..."

    I wouldn't call a line or two of JavaScript technology.

  • In a world where advertising must exist, I'll take popunders ahead of pop-ups ANY day.

  • Author Obviously Doesn't Know Much About Patents (Score:5, Informative)

    by SquarePants ( 580774 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @07:03PM (#3562218)
    Exit Exchange filed a provisional patent application in May 2000 and doesn't expect a ruling from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for at least another year

    Uhm ... provisional applications are NEVER examined and therefore the Patent Office never "rules" on them. They are just placeholders for the "real" (non-provisional) application. They have to file a non-provisional application which is then queued for examination. The Patent Office will probably not act on the non-provisional application for 3+ years after it is filed

    But the company founders are not going to just sit back and wait for federal bureaucracy to take its course

    Its nice to hear how proactive they are but they really don't have much of a choice. The law is clear that they cannot sue for patent infringement until after they have an issued patent.

    Exit Exchange is taking advantage of a recent change to patent law that enables it to seek royalties from companies for using its technology even before its patent is granted.

    The "new law" allows the applicant of a non-provisional application to recover damages from the time he makes his application public ONLY IF AND WHEN the application issues into a patent. AFAIK, there is no non-provisional application, the application has not been made public, and no patent has issued. It may be quite some time, if ever, before these guys collect one red nickel.

    "Because of the new law, we're now free to put anyone on notice and let them know that damages are accruing,"

    Again, putting anyone "on notice" is not sufficient, you must have a non-provisional application on file, it must be published, and you can only get damages if you actually get the patent. These guys are blowing smoke!
    • I did some research. I think I found a non-provisional application filed by these bozos. The link to the application is here [uspto.gov]

      Of course, there still remains the issue of this POS ever issuing!
    • [Again, putting anyone "on notice" is not sufficient, you must have a non-provisional application on file, it must be published, and you can only get damages if you actually get the patent. These guys are blowing smoke!] On the other hand, if they can get a few people to pay up-front (to avoid being sued for damages later), their stupid application has made some money. Maybe it's not so stupid after all -- just underhanded and lacking in integrity.
  • "They have done a wonderful job going back to find out what was there before them," said Karen Oster, a Lake Oswego patent attorney who began representing Exit Exchange in 1998. "When they came to me, they didn't say, 'Gee we have a great idea.' They said, 'This is what's out there, and this is what's different.' "

    Amazing, isn't it?! Before jumping on a land-grab scheme, this company actually researched their idea for prior art. Granted, I don't think that this is worthy of a patent, but at least this company came up with their own idea, rather than trying to steal someone else's.

    And no, I'm not going to make the obligatory slashdot comment about how the patent office needs to be reformed; someone else is bound to do that for me...

  • I was kind of hoping that the pop-under concept would languish forever in the public domain. Now that the intellectual property system is involved, we're in for an era of non-stop popundervation! Now we have to wait 17 years until there's no profit in pop-under ads again. Phooey.

  • That's about as useful as a patent on the CueCat.

  • Prior art? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dr. greenthumb ( 114246 )
    This Usenet-thread [google.com] from comp.lang.javascript, dated September 1996, shows that this technique was commonplace years before they filed their patent application. Try a search for "window.open()" and "window.opener.focus()" on Google [google.com] and you'll find plenty of other examples.

  • Misinformation from the Title of the Story (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pclinger ( 114364 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @07:13PM (#3562287) Homepage Journal
    First off, the title says that pop-under ads have been patented. Wrong. It is Patent Pending. It has not been approved, so that is misleading.

    Second of all, I doubt that Exit Exchange was the first company to come up with this idea. Well ok, MAYBE the first company, but not the first person. Hell, back in the days when I used Tripod, GeoCities and all those other crap free sites, they started to throw up popup ads and I used the focus() command to move them behind my visitor's browsers.

    It's incredibly stupid that someone creates a language, JavaScript, and someone patents the combination of using two simple commands together. They didn't invent the language. It is obvious that the creators of the language intended for things such as that to be possible, and so much more. It's like saying in C++ that you can include iostream.h but if you "cout", oh man are we going to get you.

    For those who don't know JavaScript, here is the most basic code to make a popunder:

    <script language=javascript>
    <!--
    window.open("URL");
    s elf.focus();
    // -->
    </script>
  • Go to the Preferences dialog, click on Advanced|Scripts & Windows and uncheck "Raise or lower windows". Bingo, no more pop under ads.


    For good measure also uncheck "Change status bar text", "Move or resize existing windows" and "Open unrequested windows".

  • From the article: "Some dot-com giants, such as Yahoo, try to make money from the marketing tactic, which experts say is more effective than traditional banner ads but also more annoying."

    The Oregonian makes heavy use of popunders. I got two when I followed the link!
  • Now that there is one company that owns up to it, the following exercise can be undertaken:
    1. Gather many people who have a usage limit (time online, amount downloaded, etc.)
    2. Calculate how many pop-under ads these folks download.
    3. Associate a dollar value with that amount
    4. Sue the patent holder for theft of services.
    I admit that there are probably a ton of problems (why not sue the advertiser? How are pop-unders more harmful than bannner ads (which might be tolerated in order to pay for the site)? etc.). However, now there is a name to the pain, and we can go after it the American way.
  • It's simple now ExitExchange is simply going to offer their services, citing all the hoopla about pop-under ads, showing just how visible pop unders are. Any company that saw how visible the ads are would love to get in and try to benefit from that. It's all marketing.
  • Method for aquiring monetary gains via trade for goods and services.

    In other words, making money by selling things.

  • You heard me, if these two commands can be patented, why not look for other nonobvious pairs of commands? Let's find something in .NET that is "worthy" of such nonsense!
  • Hopefully they'll get the patent awarded, and quash everyone else.

    The end result will be they'll be the only people who use pop-unders, and I'll have that many fewer sites to avoid.

    Even better, all the scum who want to use pop-unders will sue each other for the privilege, thereby draining money from each others coffers, hopefully resulting in some bankruptcies.

    My hat is off to you all.
  • If it gets someone with deep pockets annoyed enough at it to challenge the patent office over the concept of software patents.

    OTOH, they'd probably just buy it and annoy everyone even more. But maybe they'd annoy someone with....
  • At least these ads don't shove in your face... yes its annoying, but its far less so than pop ups that interfere with your browsing.

    Stupid patent, yes, its too obvious. If they had to go and hack a 50000000 line C program or code in straight binary to pull this off that would be one thing... but it just seems too obvious to patent if it could be done in javascript. Odds are someone had played with such a thing almost as soon as java script was released.

    Of course, patents only go to those who find a way to make something profitable. Not like the good old days where inventors had dozens or hundereds of useless patents that were actually innovative, like the automatic doughnut dunker.

  • Out of control (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @10:27PM (#3563174) Homepage Journal
    Patents have gotten out of control. I am not the world's biggest GNU fan, but in this area I am in full agreement with Richard Stallman. Software patents (along with any patents on algorithms, processes or methodologies) are absolutely despicable.

    I don't know who to blame more, the filers for inhuman audacity, or the USPTO for criminal negligence.

    We just got hit by a stunner at work today. One of our competitors (number three in the market) has disclosed a patent for a configuration utility identical to the one we (number one in the market) have had for six years. A configuration utility! There's obvious prior art. It's obvious to anyone in the field. And the only innovation they showed was copying verbatum our name for the utility. How much do you want to bet that our company is going to roll over and license this "technology" from our competitor?

    The sad part is that patents have become necessary to protect yourselves against other people with patents. No matter how much you abhore them, they're your only defense against those that don't. It's the IP version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

    A patent for pop-under ads doesn't suprise me. Nothing surprises me any more. I've been told flat out at work "let's have a brainstorming session and come up with some new patents." I don't have any yet. I fear that I'll be fired if I don't come up with any disclosable ideas soon. Is there any market out there for software engineers that don't believe in software patents?
    • My employer pays a fat bonus for coming up with a patentable idea (and supplies lawyers to rewrite it into the proper language, file it, etc.) You then get another fat bonus (ten times bigger, and about one third of my total salary) if it's ever licensed. The carpark is full of TVRs, Porsche, and Lotus sports cars; there's a "no mortgage" club of employees who've paid theirs off. In this atmosphere, trying to explain why software patents are evil is HARD, and frankkly, it HURTS to be refusing free money because I consider it unethical. It would be a lot easier to feel smug about my principles if I wasn't living in a shithole with no chance of (eg) buying my own place to live (this is the UK, house prices are astronomical), hell, even of going somewhere on holiday. I don't even have a stereo or TV. Why am I doing this perverse thing?! Am I mad?? *shrug* The only positive reinforcement I ever get for doing this crazy thing comes from reminding myself that you folks (slashdotters, and the community in general) would presumably thank me for not going to the dark side. I just wish there was more money in doing the Right Thing :\
      • Give me the name/email of your HR person so I can send my resume! Ethically, I agree with RMS. Realistically, I O I O
      • > I just wish there was more money in doing the Right Thing :\

        Well, I salute you and your self discipline. Anyhow, money's no good if you had to feel like the hollow shell of a man to get it. =)

        I, also, refuse to climb the corperate latter if it means pushing technologies or principals I do not ethically condone. Good for you.
  • I wish some fee-happy scrooge would successfully patent telemarketing and door-bell religious preaching.

    Sig-1: Sacramento Kings MVP: cheese cake
  • I'm a programmer. I work at a company. I 'invented' popupunders, without ever having heard of this company of jokers, in under 4 minutes. For that, you get 5 or 25(?) years of royalties?

    Thats a joke. A complete, insane, joke. To whom do I send my hard earned dollars making these 'giant leaps' in technology in order to fight this shit?

  • The reason you still see pop-under ads (Score:3, Interesting)

    by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Wednesday May 22, 2002 @03:02AM (#3564083) Homepage
    Yes, they are annoying. However, internet advertising is very scientific. An internet advertiser can make a change, such as trying a pop-under or a pop-up or a banner, or changing wording, or whatever, and in a couple of hours have plenty of data. They can run a mix of different things. They have people with degrees in math and statistics analyzing the data.

    Bottom line? They can quickly figure out what works, and what doesn't. So, when you see something stupid and annoying and wonder how the heck they can get away with offending people...it's because they've got numbers that prove that it works.

    It really is like something out of those science fiction stories where big brother adjusts the propoganda and policy in real time in response to instant opinion polls.

      • However, internet advertising is very scientific [...] They have people with degrees in math and statistics analyzing the data.

      That's an astonishing assertion. Have you got any - any - data to back that up? I don't see why advertising executives would let something as inconvenient as facts and data get in the way of their three hour working lunches and powerpoint presentations about market segmentation and mindshare. Advertising is a scam, perpetuated mostly for the benefit of advertisers. I mean, we're five years or more into the era of serious web banner advertising: it's still not paying for itself, and it's never paid for itself, and yet still advertisers perservere in the astonishing belief that one day people will click-through and make them rich.

      Ain't never gonna happen

  • A better Idea... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TygerFish ( 176957 )
    I have a better idea.

    Make it clear to the people who put those damned things on web pages, that you will never buy anything from them, that is, anything at all--not even the latest, pea-sized hornicam(tm), unless it's cold water, delivered to you, in the desert, at a discount.

    By putting those ads up, advertisers are opening windows in your GUI that require your attention to get rid of. It's computer intrusion using JavaScript and, patented or not, if you never buy anything you see advertised that way, they should eventually get the message and stop doing it.

    Better still, even if they don't, you win the moral victory of knowing that arrogant clowns with too much money are spending a lot of it in a collossal waste of time.

  • Now they are responsible for stopping all the pop-under ads, not caused by them. The patent is flat-out stupid, but it might help us out, unless they decide to "license" it.

    Now's a good time to get bannerfilter [phroggy.com]. It runs as a squid redirector, so you wont have to give up your accellerated cache, like you would if you used junkbuster.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close