Google ads on Wi-Fi
p2p news / p2pnet: Apparently, Wi-Fi isn’t reaching its full potential because Google doesn’t have enough advertising.
That appears to be the message behind three patent applications launched by company employees.
Filed by Google’s Wesley Chan, Shioupyn Shen and the former Google product management director Georges Harik, the patents would lower wireless access costs by offsetting them against advertising, says ZDNet UK.
"The gap between what Wi-Fi operators charge and what casual mobile users are typically willing to pay is relatively significant," according to the patent applications, it says. "Therefore, Wi-Fi Internet access as an industry has experienced a rather slow start."
The answer?
"Patent application number 20060058019 seeks to develop a system for dynamically modifying the appearance of browser screens on a client device when connecting to a wireless access point," says the story. Under the patent, the browser’s appearance would be modified to reflect the brand associated with the wireless access-point provider.
"The patent application says that Wi-Fi Internet access would be provided freely to customers in exchange for their agreement to receiving ads on their devices."
The other two applications, 20060059044 and 20060059043, "cover ads based on wireless access points and wireless access at a reduced rate, respectively," says ZDNet.
Also See:
ZDNet UK – Patents could show Google’s wireless intent, March 28, 2006
March 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
I personally dont mind being marketed to by companies like Google if they are providing ad supported services for free to the public .
March 28th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Here we have an example of another ’software’ patent. The problem with software patents is that the ‘inventors’ do not have to produce a single working physical ‘device’ because their “invention’s” implementation varies from platform to platform. Thus, the patent becomes in effect, a patent on an idea or a concept. Patents are only supposed to be awarded to devices or processes (such as manufacturing processes, not the printer driver process running on your PC.)
Once the patent has been awarded, it can then be used to bludgeon anyone who develops and implements something similar in software. The threat of patent litigation is more than enough to discourage small firms and entrepenuers from proceeding with any kind of innovation in the gray areas or along the fringes of the patented idea.
So, if this patent were awarded to Google, conceivably Google could then sue anyone who develops any kind of software that changes the appearance of a browser based on ANY kind of attribute of the computing environment. This is just plain wrong.
The EFF (eff.org) has an on-going project of challenging and attempting to invalidate some of the more onerous patents that have been awarded, like the patent for the html hyperlink. Yes, the hyperlink, which we all take for granted now, is patented. The owners have not attempted to enforce it because of the can of worms it would open, but it’s still on the books and the EFF is trying to change that.
–TurboGeek