Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Court Rejects Patent On 'Watch An Ad To Get Content'

from the bilski-ftw dept

Last fall we wrote about how a company named Ultramercial had sued Hulu, YouTube and WildTangent over patent 7,346,545 for requiring people to watch an ad before being able to access content. It resulted in an interesting discussion in our comments, where some patent system defenders insisted that the patent was perfectly legit. Unfortunately, the court disagrees with those folks. It has ruled that the patent is not valid (the ruling covers Hulu and WildTangent -- YouTube was dismissed from the case). Perhaps most interesting is the fact that the court chose to use the "machine or transformation test" for judging the patent. While some have read the Bilski ruling to "reject" the "machine or transformation" test, that's not quite true. It just said that's not the only test. The court in this case went through an explanation for why it felt this was still an appropriate test:
It is important to note, however, that even after the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski, the machine or transformation test appears to have a major screening function--albeit not perfect-- that separates unpatentable ideas from patentable ones. Indeed, four of the Justices, listed on Justice Stevens's concurring opinion, would have taken the machine or transformation test to its logical limit to hold that business methods are categorically unpatentable. Id. at 3257 (Stevens, J., concurring). Joining a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia, who signed on to parts of the plurality opinion as well, would not hold all business methods unpatentable, but would agree with Justice Breyer that "not [] many patentable processes lie beyond [the] reach [of the machine or transformation test]." Id. at 3258 (Breyer, J., concurring). In sum, at least five (and maybe all) Justices seem to agree that the machine or transformation test should retain much of its utility after the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski. Therefore, even though the machine or transformation is no longer the litmus test for patentability, the Court will use it here as a key indicator of patentability.
And, using that test, the court finds this particular invention not patentable subject matter. It also points out that the patent is really just covering an abstract idea (the reasoning used by the Supreme Court to reject the Bilski patent):
At the core of the '545 patent is the basic idea that one can use advertisement as an exchange or currency. An Internet user can pay for copyrighted media by sitting through a sponsored message instead of paying money to download the media. This core principle, similar to the core of the Bilski patent, is an abstract idea. Indeed, public television channels have used the same basic idea for years to provide free (or offset the cost of) media to their viewers. At its heart, therefore, the patent does no more than disclose an abstract idea.
I'm guessing this will likely be appealed, so it should be an interesting case to follow. You can read the full (quite clear) decision below:


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Aug 20th, 2010 @ 3:30pm

    Of course it'll be appealed but...

    the reasoning is clear and consise and right to the point so it's difficult to find an error in law in it.

    They're probably wishing they'd picked that lovely "patent any stupid thing" court in West Texas, now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2010 @ 3:41pm

    errr... that means I now have to watch ads to get content. That's dumb, I wish the patent was enforced so that I don't have to watch ads to get content.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2010 @ 3:42pm

    Re:

    now the Internet is going to be full of commercials. How lame is that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2010 @ 4:44pm

    Re: Re:

    It doesn't mean that at all, it just means when people do it they dont need to pay Bilski.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Aug 21st, 2010 @ 4:41pm

    Re: Of course it'll be appealed but...

    East Texas, actually.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 23rd, 2010 @ 11:25am

    Re:

    So you prefer to pay?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2010 @ 7:59am

    "*Unfortunately*, the court disagrees with those folks."?? You mean, "fortunately?" Surely you don't actually want the patent enforced...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This