We must have posted at about the same time, as yours about the patent was not there when I posted.
Fair enough. You were correct in identifying that the method of implementation is what is important and I definitely didn't mention that in my first post.
Anyone else notice the DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL notation? Isn't that done all the time by patent trolls to get a gullible jury that doesn't know anything about technical issues to vote their way?
I don;t think the jury get to see that paperwork (EDIT: I see what you mean now but your sentence can be taken two ways) and it's boilerplate stuff anyway.
EDIT 2: Claims 1-10 in the patent looks to be a pretty good fit to what iAds does. From the remainder of the claims though it appears to focus on fixed devices but if you take the strict wording of claims, only claim 11 of the particular system would be in dispute.
What is claimed is:
1. A system, comprising:
a terminal, wherein said terminal has an identification 45
code for determining an exact physical location of said
terminal;
a database having a profile for a user; and a program for displaying personalized information,
wherein said personalized information is selected for 50
display based upon said profile.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein said personalized information is also selected for display based upon said usage history information.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein said personalized 55 information is also selected for display based upon the exact physical location of said terminal.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein said personalized information includes an advertisement.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein said personalized information includes an online service.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the system records the time said user logs on to and logs off of the system, and wherein said personalized information is also selected for display based upon the time said user logs on to the system.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein said profile is progressively developed and updated based upon said usage history information.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein said program displays advertising content tailored to said user's interests and behavior.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein said terminal comprises a keyboard and a touch sensitive screen.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein said terminal comprises a credit card swipe terminal for processing credit transactions.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein said terminal is publicly accessible.
You know it's nice to see someone starting a patent infringement action when they themselves actually have a product based on the patent. What I can't stand is people who have a patent, have done nothing with it, then sue to make money.
How can you patent location based advertising in the first place?.
You can't. Their patent was for "Method and System for Providing Personalized Online Services and Advertisements in Public Spaces,".
Their patent was for a method and a system. It provides personalized data, unlike your examples. It provides the data online, unlike your examples. Some of the data is advertising, which is where your examples are tangent to the real situation.
Geez, what's next? Maybe the map makers will sue all the GPS device makers for "providing maps based on the user's location".
That seems pretty unlikely.
What is more likely is that the Patent system will get increasing press, and the public will learn about it, and demand that reforms be implemented which better tailor the system to the new technologies.
That is the general history of intellectual property law in the US.
Anyone else notice the DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL notation? Isn't that done all the time by patent trolls to get a gullible jury that doesn't know anything about technical issues to vote their way?
It is their right under the Constitution. Some people think it is a good thing.
Appearances can be deceiving. I am fully aware that HTC produces handsets that run WinMo and the like. If you search for Apple sues HTC, several of the "headlines" read Apple sues Google phone maker...
Apple sues Google apparently gets more clicks than Apple sues HTC.
Also it seems the device in question is stationary and has multiple profiles which identify individuals in a public place. Cell phones have the profile of one individual, are mobile and are used by the owner.
It is their right under the Constitution. Some people think it is a good thing.
Wow you really are condescending. Yeah, some people abuse the hell out of it too. The point was that demanding a jury trial for lawsuits regarding complex technological issues is often done when they know they don't have a case. Their only chance is a tired and confused jury.
They can, but I think it stifles innovation and stops some interesting products coming to market.
I had an idea for a product a few months back, researched it, got as far as having a PCB layout done then thought I'd better do a patent check and, sure enough, the idea is patented. It has been for years. The patent owner has done nothing with it in terms of creating something people can actually buy and use, but it's stopped me in my tracks.
Just because the patent owner can do with it as they wish doesn't make it right.
You can't. Their patent was for "Method and System for Providing Personalized Online Services and Advertisements in Public Spaces,".
Their patent was for a method and a system. It provides personalized data, unlike your examples. It provides the data online, unlike your examples. Some of the data is advertising, which is where your examples are tangent to the real situation.
Apparently I need to edit my first post, since I've been told this three times already and we are only on the first page. If you would have scrolled down the page a little, you would have seen that I responded to the first poster that pointed this out and discussed how I didn't feel the method that they patented didn't have any relevance to the companies they are suing.
I can understand that it becomes difficult to read several pages of posts to see if the point you want to bring up has been discussed, but come on, we are on page one.
Comments
We must have posted at about the same time, as yours about the patent was not there when I posted.
Fair enough. You were correct in identifying that the method of implementation is what is important and I definitely didn't mention that in my first post.
Anyone else notice the DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL notation? Isn't that done all the time by patent trolls to get a gullible jury that doesn't know anything about technical issues to vote their way?
I don;t think the jury get to see that paperwork (EDIT: I see what you mean now but your sentence can be taken two ways) and it's boilerplate stuff anyway.
EDIT 2: Claims 1-10 in the patent looks to be a pretty good fit to what iAds does. From the remainder of the claims though it appears to focus on fixed devices but if you take the strict wording of claims, only claim 11 of the particular system would be in dispute.
What is claimed is:
1. A system, comprising:
a terminal, wherein said terminal has an identification 45
code for determining an exact physical location of said
terminal;
a database having a profile for a user; and a program for displaying personalized information,
wherein said personalized information is selected for 50
display based upon said profile.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein said personalized information is also selected for display based upon said usage history information.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein said personalized 55 information is also selected for display based upon the exact physical location of said terminal.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein said personalized information includes an advertisement.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein said personalized information includes an online service.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the system records the time said user logs on to and logs off of the system, and wherein said personalized information is also selected for display based upon the time said user logs on to the system.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein said profile is progressively developed and updated based upon said usage history information.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein said program displays advertising content tailored to said user's interests and behavior.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein said terminal comprises a keyboard and a touch sensitive screen.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein said terminal comprises a credit card swipe terminal for processing credit transactions.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein said terminal is publicly accessible.
You know it's nice to see someone starting a patent infringement action when they themselves actually have a product based on the patent. What I can't stand is people who have a patent, have done nothing with it, then sue to make money.
Why? They own it and can do with it as they wish.
How can you patent location based advertising in the first place?.
You can't. Their patent was for "Method and System for Providing Personalized Online Services and Advertisements in Public Spaces,".
Their patent was for a method and a system. It provides personalized data, unlike your examples. It provides the data online, unlike your examples. Some of the data is advertising, which is where your examples are tangent to the real situation.
Geez, what's next? Maybe the map makers will sue all the GPS device makers for "providing maps based on the user's location".
That seems pretty unlikely.
What is more likely is that the Patent system will get increasing press, and the public will learn about it, and demand that reforms be implemented which better tailor the system to the new technologies.
That is the general history of intellectual property law in the US.
Anyone else notice the DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL notation? Isn't that done all the time by patent trolls to get a gullible jury that doesn't know anything about technical issues to vote their way?
It is their right under the Constitution. Some people think it is a good thing.
Appearances can be deceiving. I am fully aware that HTC produces handsets that run WinMo and the like. If you search for Apple sues HTC, several of the "headlines" read Apple sues Google phone maker...
Apple sues Google apparently gets more clicks than Apple sues HTC.
Apple sues Google is #4
http://twitpic.com/2jse36/full
Apple sues Google is #4
[/IMG]
Apple Sues HTC, the Maker of Google's Nexus One Phone - WSJ.com
Apple Sues Google Phone Maker HTC Over Patents Again
Apple Sues HTC, the Maker of Google's Nexus One Phone - NYTimes.com
Apple Sues Google Nexus One Maker HTC for iPhone Patent ...
Ghana News :: Apple Sues Nexus One maker HTC over iPhone patents ...
Apple sues Google phone manufacturer – SciTechBlog - CNN.com Blogs
It is their right under the Constitution. Some people think it is a good thing.
Wow you really are condescending. Yeah, some people abuse the hell out of it too. The point was that demanding a jury trial for lawsuits regarding complex technological issues is often done when they know they don't have a case. Their only chance is a tired and confused jury.
It is their right under the Constitution. Some people think it is a good thing.
...seem <almost> magically trollishious. Dial back the snark just a tad junior.
It is their right under the Constitution. Some people think it is a good thing.
Uh, perhaps you need to study a little bit more.
The Constitution does not mention anything about civil lawsuits. You get a jury in a criminal trial (which this is not).
The Constitution is all about limiting the power of the federal government in relation to the states and citizens.
Why? They own it and can do with it as they wish.
They can, but I think it stifles innovation and stops some interesting products coming to market.
I had an idea for a product a few months back, researched it, got as far as having a PCB layout done then thought I'd better do a patent check and, sure enough, the idea is patented. It has been for years. The patent owner has done nothing with it in terms of creating something people can actually buy and use, but it's stopped me in my tracks.
Just because the patent owner can do with it as they wish doesn't make it right.
I knew you could.
You can't. Their patent was for "Method and System for Providing Personalized Online Services and Advertisements in Public Spaces,".
Their patent was for a method and a system. It provides personalized data, unlike your examples. It provides the data online, unlike your examples. Some of the data is advertising, which is where your examples are tangent to the real situation.
Apparently I need to edit my first post, since I've been told this three times already and we are only on the first page. If you would have scrolled down the page a little, you would have seen that I responded to the first poster that pointed this out and discussed how I didn't feel the method that they patented didn't have any relevance to the companies they are suing.
I can understand that it becomes difficult to read several pages of posts to see if the point you want to bring up has been discussed, but come on, we are on page one.