Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Patents Censorship of "Annoying" Content

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the goggles-they-do-nothing dept.

Google 114

An anonymous reader writes "Google has been granted a patent for a rating engine that reserves the right to approve or reject content that is published on the Internet. The patent especially refers to advertising and those rather invasive and disturbing blinking ads that exploit the entire range of color pairs that are found displeasing to the human eye: 'The embodiments described herein enable Flash and animated image documents (e.g., advertisements). Some of these types of ads are annoying.' However Google notes that ads are just an 'illustrative example' and the idea could be applied to 'content pages (e.g., web pages), search results, emails, applications, IM messages, audio content or files, video content or files, other files, other data or applications that may reside on one or several (e.g., a network) of computer systems, or other definable concepts or content.'"

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Call me when . . . (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613612)

. . . they have a patent on censoring content farms and expert sexchange.

Re:Call me when . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613692)

So, was that a patent on censoring expert sexchange, or did you actually want to be informed when Google has an expert sexchange?

Re:Call me when . . . (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36615290)

Either one would be interesting news!

Re:Call me when . . . (1)

durnurd (967847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613710)

unfortunately it's not supported everywhere (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613888)

The country-specific google sites don't all support site blocking. In particular, google.ca doesn't.

Re:Call me when . . . (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614028)

On the right track, but requires URLs rather than being able to block whole domains (e.g. .info -- and yes, I know there are two or three legit sites with .info domains).

Re:Call me when . . . (2)

base3 (539820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614040)

Correction to above -- "being able to block whole domains and/or TLDs"

On the same note... (3, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614016)

On the same note, while they're at censoring ads, I'd like to see crap censored that includes:

- before/after images that either aren't even the same person, or are the same thing with a different zoom factor. Seen it from penis enlargement pills to diets to God knows what else. Yeah, it's soo not insulting my intelligence to try to sell me a diet where the before and after aren't even the same person.

- all those retarded "free IQ test" ads that actually have nothing to do with IQ, but are just ambiguous images that have no right or wrong answer. Sorry, if I'm to trust anyone to give me an IQ test, it kinda helps if the ad doesn't convince me up front that they're drooling morons who don't even understand what IQ means.

Though a new low in stupidity was such an IQ ad recently which was about solving a maze... where blatantly one end was completely walled in and quite within a short distance of it too. As in, next square.

- ads which are unskipable movies, and with sound too. I don't give a fuck about what colours they are in, nor about whether they blink or not. In an age where bandwidth caps are becoming the norm, and are sometimes measured in single digit gigabytes, serving a 100 MB video as an ad is just plain old evil. I don't care how important some cretin PHB thinks his new product is, if they waste so much of everyone's resources for it, they should be not just censored, but taken out back, put in a sack and beaten savagely with a stick. But I'll settle for just censorship too.

- ads served in the wrong dimension. I mean, not only it's some annoying animation, but now it's something that was in horizontal banner format and is squeezed and stretched in a vertical banner box. So not only it blinks and makes funny noises, but I can't even read what the fuck is it trying to sell me, even if just to avoid those idiots.

Etc.

Yeah, yeah, I know, there are plugins that do that. But, hey, if Google is going to take over the web, they might as well solve that problem for everyone. Right? :p

Re:On the same note... (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614252)

Genuine question here - where are data caps becoming the norm?

Re:On the same note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614318)

All over North America, and I hear that Australia has some pretty nasty caps too.

Re:On the same note... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614598)

America has fairly high ones compared to Australia, the latter often has caps like 5GB.

Re:On the same note... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614648)

Genuine question here - where are data caps becoming the norm?

You mean there are places where they aren't?

Certainly in the US and Canada you increasingly hear about ISPs imposing caps on how much data you can transfer before you have to pay more. Lots of coverage about how "unlimited" doesn't actually mean "without limits", but some arbitrary number which is deemed "big enough for anybody unless they're willing to pay more".

This is happening for both internet connections, and mobile data plans.

Re:On the same note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614396)

I use FlashBlock and AdBlock for Safari. I don't see most ads, and I certainly don't get unskippable movies. Those video ads that appear before YouTube can be circumvented if you choose an HTML5 format instead of Flash; I don't know about others because I haven't seen any.

Re:On the same note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614458)

all those retarded "free IQ test" ads that actually have nothing to do with IQ, but are just ambiguous images that have no right or wrong answer

Sounds like someone didn't score so well.

Re:On the same note... (1)

kat_skan (5219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614686)

They're the kind of test you pass simply by not participating.

Re:On the same note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614464)

It doesn't say Google will censor ads; only that they patented censoring them.

Which may prevent others from implementing such a scheme, or require them to pay Google.

Re:On the same note... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614760)

I hope this doesn't kick out the Android Adfree app for patent infringement... the one that lets me block annoying AdMob ads that tell me "God cares about you" after "Find singles online" or some nonsense when I'm listening to TinyShark. Not sure if that's intentional or not, but it bugs the snot out of me when the ad pops up and changes the position of the play button.

Re:On the same note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36616068)

Find singles online?!?! When and where?

Censor trolls??? (1, Funny)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613642)

Will this allow them to censor trolls??? This will get rid of 99% of the content on the Internet and 4chan won't show on their search results....

Re:Censor trolls??? (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613830)

Just install AdBlock Plus and you will get rid of all ad trolls.

That's good enough for me.

The human trolls trolling forums - they are a different kind of business/animal, but when you have some experience you know how to troll them back.

B.t.w. 4chan is an excellent training ground for trolling trolls.

Re:Censor trolls??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614866)

drink bleach fgt

Up Next: Oracle (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613658)

Google will now apply this patent to censor all the annoying crap that gets published by or about Oracle. Payback is a bitch, Larry.

Re:Up Next: Oracle (0)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613794)

lame

Re:Up Next: Oracle (2)

x6060 (672364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613816)

I would much rather they censor anything bitcoin.

how impartial? (1, Insightful)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613670)

Does the ability of the rating engine correspond to financial payments to Google?

Re:how impartial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613742)

"Hi! It's Vince with ShamWow..."

Not sure, TBH (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613846)

I'm not sure exactly what it'll censor, TBH. I mean, even they identify flash ads as the main problem it applies to, but it's not like most of those flashing or fake UI ads were coming from Google in the first place. And I should hope that google didn't index the ads on the page. (If I search for, say, "Rift MMO", I want to get to its home page or a page relevant somehow to it, not just to some unrelated gaming site that has an ad for Rift.)

There aren't many sites I've seen that actually have such content as part of their own page. Most sites would be quite happy to not have any such crap, but get it in ads actually.

So exactly what will Google reject there? Sites which signed with other ad providers than Google? Or will it be just an irrelevant filter that only rejects a couple of annoying newbies' pages that wouldn't rank as particularly relevant for any search anyway?

Re:Not sure, TBH (2)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614636)

Hm, your gaming example reminds me that most large gaming websites have templates for any game title whether they have actual content or not, searching for a review of an obscure game will spew out pages full of IGN, Gamespot and so on advertising themselves as the best source on the game when all they have is a page stating the title and basically "we know nothing about this". I'd like to see Google do something about that.

Re:Not sure, TBH (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36616170)

Hell yeah, good example. If Google could get rid of those content-free template pages, THAT would get them a lot of good will from me.

targets non-google ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614754)

How convenient...

When are they going to shut down the massive content farms that show google ads and continue to pollute their search results? I wish bing wasn't such a disaster so I could switch to something else.. sigh :(

I want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613680)

patents on pressing keys on a keyboard, moving and clicking a mouse and looking at a computer monitor whether powered on or not.

captcha: contends
lol

Really Cool... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613684)

So when are religious nutjobs, politicians and NewsCorp going to be "censored" off my internet? Why stop at that internet, can Google please remove these annoying entities from the planet?

Re:Really Cool... (0)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613822)

And the atheist nutjobs and NBC!

Re:Really Cool... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613866)

Don't even try it. Apples and oranges, grasp on reality vs lack there of.

Re:Really Cool... (1)

biek (1946790) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614020)

Being correct doesn't make them any less annoying

Re:Really Cool... (0)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614670)

Have to say. Between the Right and the Left. It seems funny that those most prone to yelling, screaming and violence are the left.
They say "Stop the bombing and let people live in loving peace with their differences. You fucking racist, fanatical, fucking bastards!"
It is awesome.

I say shit I do not even believe just to watch a lefty get pissed.

Re:Really Cool... (1)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36615858)

I see roughly the same amount of immature behavior on both sides. (as if it could really be broken down into just "both" sides)

It's unsurprising that you see more yelling, screaming, and violence from the left when you do shit just to piss them off. Ever heard of cause and effect? Or confirmation bias, for that matter?

--Jeremy

Re:Really Cool... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36616094)

Nope.
I have trolled a great number of people IRL.
There is a difference in the mostly right people vs the mostly left people.
The hard core fucktards on both sides are equal though.

It seems to me that the left preaches tolerance and practices very little.
The right preaches right and wrong and tolerates more.

It seems weird to me as well but it is what I have found.
For the most part and excepting the fucktards on both sides.

Rag on Google all you want... (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613728)

but they really have a tasteful approach to their advertising. On their sites and services, the plain-text ads go almost un-noticed. I'm glad to see them making an attempt to get rid of the 'You won! Shoot the monkey to claim your prise!' type ads. Next up: content farms.

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (1)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613812)

Google seems to be just like any other corporation these days. They do some good stuff, and they do some questionable stuff. I do like what they are trying to do with ads though.

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (1)

yarnosh (2055818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613882)

But hate that they patented it. Patent implementations, motherfuckers, not ideas!

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (1)

tenchikaibyaku (1847212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614914)

I think you might have missed the whole idea with patents and how patent law differs from copyright law..

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (1)

yarnosh (2055818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36615476)

I do understand the difference and what I'm saying is that from what I've gathered of this patent, it is, like so many software patents, too broad. I'm annoyed that do-no-evil Google would patent such a thing. At least in principle. Practically speaking, I don't really care. I simplify the whole thing and block all advertising because I find it all to be annoying unless I'm seeking it out.

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (1)

TheDarkNose (1613701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36615670)

From TFA, the patent seems a lot closer to an implementation than an idea - they might not have actually written code, but they didn't just patent "anything that blocks annoying content."

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (1)

yarnosh (2055818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36616284)

Pretty close. They patented "anything that blocks annoying content using a rating system and content patterns." Not only is it extremely vague in terms of how it is implementing the system and where it can be used, but I'm pretty sure prior art can be found in many different spam filters. It is a bullshit patent that never should have been granted.

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (-1, Troll)

yarnosh (2055818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613860)

The news isn't that they're making such an attempt to get rid of those ads. The news is that they're patenting it, which is completely ridiculous. So now other people can't rate/filter ads without payign Google. Fuck you, Google.

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613872)

As long as the ads are static and doesn't look like the day after a bad party I can stand them, but the problem is that when there are ads bloating a site and craps all over the content you want to watch or limits your readable area to a mailbox slot and at the same time plays some shitty music or starts to moan unexpectedly then it's time for softwares like AdBlock Plus.

125 tabs open - which tab is moaning?

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614068)

125 tabs open - which tab is moaning?

Maybe you should sandbox the porn browsing?

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (2)

Megane (129182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614292)

You tube on the internets with your speakers turned on?

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36616050)

Too late, too bad. Ads passed the point of no return for me years ago. Adblock + and noscript to eliminate absolutely everything not the webpage I'm looking at. Want to complain that you're not getting enough money from ads? Tough, you shouldn't have had ads that were godawful annoying.

Ads years ago had countless chances to curb their idiocy and make them less annoying. But no, they made them MORE annoying. So it's too late, you can't backtrack now. There's no way in absolute hell I'll ever turn adblock off.

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614690)

the plain-text ads go almost un-noticed

Which mean's they're almost un-effective.

Re:Rag on Google all you want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614696)

What part of collecting as much data about me as possible in order to make more money targeting advertisements at might is tasteful? If there were a viable alternative for good search results that wasn't interested in knowing everything about me, I would completely ditch Google in a heartbeat.

Last annoying post! (-1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613730)

OMFG did u hear about wut happened on Jersey Shore last nite? Teh orange doods n orange chix went out + got drunk + partied and then they all fuxxored lololololololololololololol! Cant wait 2 see wat happens nxt week 4 realz!

sounds familiar (2)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613738)

mod patent down.

Re:sounds familiar (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613884)

Slashdot mod system don't work on USPTO. (but it would be nice if it did work)

Re:sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36615192)

You might be onto something here... I envision a world where Google and USPTO strike a deal implementing a system where the vast majority of patents are rejected for prior art and obviousness. What a better world that would be!

/. Mod system != prior art for this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614120)

According to the claim language, it requires a seed document to function so it's definitely not the same as the /. mod system.

I'm not saying that there isn't relevant prior art for this... I actually think there probably is, I just can't think of a good example off hand. In this case though, the /. Mod system wouldn't work.

Skitso (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613842)

The only people who find anything annoying (i.e. with an over reactive persona) are going to also have a deformed sense of aesthetics. You'll wind up with horrid aphasic color schemes. No one with a normal psyche would have that sense of emotional over reaction.

Re:Skitso (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614468)

You mean like the sorts of people that would point out that it's Schizo, not Skitso?

Why patent? (1)

IDK (1033430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613870)

Too bad they patented it. Every site would benefit from this...

Algorithm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613878)

if (ad.provider == GOOGLE_ADS) return true; else return false;

Let's try it out: (1)

snarfies (115214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613912)

lol u tk him 2 da bar|?

(user was banned for this post)

Re:Let's try it out: (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613960)

omgz u ddn't!!!1 Tehn wut happen?

doesn't seem to be working...

Re:Let's try it out: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614118)

If it worked, this site [stevezeidner.com] wouldn't exist!

Back in the day... (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613944)

Oh, this would have been so useful for about 90% of the "content" on GeoCities.

Re:Back in the day... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614504)

Wait, Google has a patent on banning sites for use of the blink tag?

Re:Back in the day... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614810)

Only when used in combination with marquee while on the same page with *.gif.

Foxnews stopped showing up in my search results! (0)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613954)

This tech really works!

NYTimes & Huff Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614086)

At last we'll be free of these POS.

Re:Foxnews stopped showing up in my search results (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614282)

Truth and facts really are annoying to most liberals.

Re:Foxnews stopped showing up in my search results (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614774)

Stop.
You know how they love to yell at you till you stop using facts on them.
It is not nice to troll the liberals. Also there is no skill involved. They are Stupid, Loving, Hate Filled, Free Spirits who love the earth more than their own children.

ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613996)

does that mean i can block google ads now? =)

Misplaced "quotes" (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614074)

The title should have been: Google Patents "Censorship" of Annoying Content.

I don't see how this is any different (in application - in implementation maybe) from something like AdBlock, or even the exiting ability to block images, Javascript, etc in a browser's settings. As long as the user has the ability to override it, it's *not* censorship, it's a content filtering feature - one that many people would *like*.

Self defense? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614112)

Considering Microsoft's insanely aggressive bogo-patent onslaught; who could blame google for aquiring as many patents as possible.

M$ flogs ANOTHER Android license

http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2011/06/29/microsoft-and-velocity-micro-inc-sign-patent-agreement-covering-android-based-devices/

REDMOND, Wash., June 29, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Microsoft Corp. and Velocity Micro, Inc., have signed a patent agreement that provides broad coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio for Velocity Micro, Inc., Android-based devices, including Velocity Micro, Inc.’s Cruz Tablet. Although the contents of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicate that Microsoft will receive royalties from Velocity Micro, Inc., under the agreement. (Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20000822/MSFTLOGO) “We are pleased to have reached this agreement with Velocity Micro, Inc., to address and secure IP rights for its Android-based Cruz tablet devices,” said Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of Intellectual Property and Licensing at Microsoft. Randy Copeland, CEO of Velocity Micro, Inc., said, “By entering into this agreement with Microsoft, Velocity Micro, Inc., will be able to better meet the needs of our customers with the introduction of exciting new Cruz tablets having increased performance and functionality.” Microsoft’s Commitment to Licensing Intellectual Property The patent agreement is another example of the important role intellectual property (IP) plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem. Since Microsoft launched its IP licensing program in December 2003, the company has entered into more than 700 licensing agreements and continues to develop programs that make it possible for customers, partners and competitors to access its IP portfolio. The program was developed to open access to Microsoft’s significant R&D investments and its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio.

Prior Art (2)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614144)

So you mean it works like /.'s comment moderation system?

Re:Prior Art (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614592)

I threw a brick through my TV set back in 1982. I claim prior art.

Re:Prior Art (1)

torgis (840592) | more than 3 years ago | (#36615462)

So you mean it works like /.'s comment moderation system?

Similar, except that this system might actually filter out the useless content instead of posting it on the front page as a breaking story.

Re:Prior Art (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36615648)

Nice :)

No, really judge. (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614190)

I researched the web using google chrome with the annoying content filter on and i could not find any software patents of third parties regarding my product. Also the TOS fields in the web were always empty.

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614236)

Don't patents have to be non-obvious? What the hell isn't obvious about blocking annoying shit?

Re:WTF (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614522)

It's supposed to be the implementation that's the non-obvious, not the problem. Although, this is a software patent where implementation is apparently unimportant.

Wait, so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614260)

The have a patent for a combination of ad/flash block?

Crap Factor (1)

rossjudson (97786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614276)

I always wanted Google to calculate page ranks by gauging "Page Crap Factor". Of course, I'd really like Page Crap to include Google ads too. I won't hold my breath!

all advertising is annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614314)

but there already a means to block it all

Can this be easily re-purposed? (1)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614320)

It seems to me that once they have this technology in place, it would be a very simple matter to re-purpose it, to, say, provide restricted search results in China based on Chinese government censorship, provide restricted search results in Iran based on what the Iranian government wants censored, or produce a special "evangelical" search page that only produces pages friendly to creationism, Biblical literalism, etc.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I think such a tool could be used for things that are counterproductive to the very things that make the Internet the most powerful force for democratization we've seen since the invention of the movable type printing press.

Re:Can this be easily re-purposed? (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614506)

The internet as force for democratization has long since failed. People tend to use it so selectively that they create their own echo chambers, doing nothing than reinforcing their previous beliefs. I think we had an article on that lately, and it is most definitely my experience when I talk with other people about what they are actually doing on the net.

Adblock (1)

beetlenaut (913805) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614414)

But Google makes money from ads, and this sounds like what the Adblock extension already does. Does anyone think they got this patent is so they can remove that extension for violating it?

Irony (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614426)

Patents like this are annoying. This is obvious. It fails the patentability test. Google is doing evil.

Automated Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614546)

This will save them a great deal of time in adapting to each country's political climate. I presume they will have a way to make some votes count more than others.

Google Patents the Filter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614612)

Gee, what a novel idea. Hey wait, don't we already have several examples of this already...

/. is prior art... (1)

jbarr (2233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614968)

...with mod up or down.

USPTO Idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36615144)

Just how stupid are the people at the Patent Office? People are born being able to detect "annoying" content. Is there nothing that they won't grant a patent for?

Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36615252)

This comment has been deemed annoying

Google Patents [] "Annoying" Content (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 3 years ago | (#36615520)

Now here is a solution! Patent the act of 'placing annoying content on a website' and then let Google rake in the money. The benefit to the world at large is that the "annoying" content goes away and we the users/readers are left with just the mundane and easy to ignore advertising content, the way the world should be. Unfortunately there is already plenty of prior art to fight such a patent.

Google's motto "Don't Be Evil" notwithstanding, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36615596)

human nature presents sooner or later in all its ugliness.

"or other definable concepts" (1)

andsens (1658865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36615712)

... or other definable concepts
They just couldn't keep themselves from taking a piss on the patent system, haha.

Better filter bubble (1)

utkonos (2104836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36615726)

There is still quite a bit of content slipping past my filter bubble that I wish I could get rid of. Wouldn't it be nice if google were able to scrub, clean, and filter 100% of the content that you get from the internet? Why can't I just pay someone to spoon feed me what I want to hear?

What advertising? (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 3 years ago | (#36616306)

http://adblockplus.org [adblockplus.org]

Why rate ads when you can block them just as easily?

Re:What advertising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36616394)

http://adblockplus.org [adblockplus.org]

Why rate ads when you can block them just as easily?

The patent was filed in 2005. I do hope it doesn't affect this.

Good (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36616386)

Step one, make it so if we want to rid ourselves of your obnoxious instant search it fucking sticks for more than a week

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>