IBM Patents Dividing The Number 60 By Your Car's Speed

from the divide-by-zero dept

theodp writes “”A billboard,” IBM explains to the USPTO in its newly granted patent for Determining Billboard Refresh Rate Based on Traffic Flow, “is a large outdoor advertisement.” Guess you have to pad your writing a bit when a cornerstone of your ‘invention’ is dividing the number 60 by the speed of a car (in mph). To be fair, Big Blue explains things this way in the patent: “A system for determining the refresh rate per minute of the dynamic billboard based on the traffic flow information, wherein the refresh rate is equal to 60 mph/V, wherein V is equal to an average velocity in miles per hour of vehicles passing the dynamic billboard. If the average velocity is 60 mph, the new refresh rate of the dynamic billboard is one refresh per minute (i.e., each advertisement is displayed for one minute), while if the average velocity is 10 mph, the new refresh rate of the dynamic billboard is six refreshes per minute (i.e., each advertisement is displayed for ten seconds).” Which begs a question: Will you see an infinite number of ads if traffic comes to a full stop?”

Filed Under:
Companies: ibm

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “IBM Patents Dividing The Number 60 By Your Car's Speed”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

That's neat but the new Microsoft Provisional Patent is better.

Right now, someone at Microsoft is filing a Me-Too provisional patent that “Embraces and Extends” the IBM discovery.

Not only will the billboard show rotating banner ads but it will also include photo-radar in the billboard. This is so Microsoft can report your license plate number to the authorities and various partner companies.

The logic is this: if you are speeding and they are unable to force-feed advertisements to you, they’ll look for the last time you used your Bing account. If you don’t have a Bing account, they’ll sell your picture, likeness and license plate information to advertisers, marketing companies, and your car insurance provider.

EF says:


Isn’t “refresh rate” basically determined by efficiency vs quality? Why is this even patentable?
If instead they’re talking about when a new advertisement appears: dynamic billboards are allowed to change images only according to city code ordinances in which they reside. Too fast and flashy or too many, is a major distraction to drivers, which is dangerous! Don’t we have enough distracted driving already without some company patenting an optimization system to squeeze the most out of our driver’s attention?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Ridiculous

“…dynamic billboards are allowed to change images only according to city code ordinances in which they reside.”

Interesting. My township and its neighbors are currently fighting the billboard industry tooth and nail to keep it out – we all have ordinances prohibiting signs of such a size but they’re claiming those ordinances violate their constitutional right…to be utter d-bags, I guess. They’re stealing my tax dollars with this fight so they can steal my property values should such a horror come to pass.

It’s like the content industries – not a constitutional issue but a bad business model problem.

OT: why the hell is anyone permitted to patent math? This is the second word math problem IBM’s patented in recent months (the other was weighing a bus with and without passengers to figure the difference. Otherwise known as The Cat Weight Determination Method.)

ckoning says:

Patent Workaround

As mentioned in the quote:

Will you see an infinite number of ads if traffic comes to a full stop?

Patent the same system with lower and upper bounds to the refresh rate. This should certainly be considered an advancement, since it is roughly three times as complicated:

freq = max( min( (60/V), 20 ), 30 )

Then when they deploy their astounding innovation, get Intellectual Ventures to sue them for payola.

Anonymous Coward says:

I am one of the first to post contrarian opinions when I see articles and comments decrying the issuance of a patent because “it sure looks obvious to me”.

This one, however, has even me scratching my head. Maybe there is something hidden in the file history that might alleviate my need to scratch, but having read the specification and the claims it does jump out at me what the file history could be hiding.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is why would IBM even be concerned with an invention such as this? I find it hard to believe that some aspect of this invention figures into its business plans. The only thing that makes sense to me is that someone at IBM has too much time on their hands and an imperfect understanding of when applications should be filed and when they should not. This instance seems to fall in the latter class.

MAtt says:

Re: Re:

I think the problem here isn’t that it is obvious, but that it takes genuinely patentable processes (e.g., detecting traffic flow on a highway, LED billboards that change the image at a set frequency) and then adds very little of substance (i.e., calculating the refresh rate instead of setting it manually). Or is that the same as “obviousness” in the patent world?

Either way, I am jumping on the “disdain for retards in the patent office” bandwagon for this one.

Anonymous Coward says:

For large corporations, their subsidiaries are set up as seperate corporations. For may subsidiaries, they “sell” their patent to the parent corporation to earn money. What you see here is the effort of a subsidiary in attempting to gain money from IBM. Most large corporations automatically buy the patents , and thus you have situations where junk patents are purchased by the parent corporation.

Thats why IBM “bought” worthless, non business related patents, because they are contractually obligated to do so. And the cycle continues forever more.

anger-management dude says:

You Punks Just Don’t Get It

You think they just picked that number 60 out of a hat? How long do you think it takes to sift through all the millions and billions of integers to come up with the right one? It took decades of research to come up with that number. No-one else came up with the number 60 before, so IBM fully deserve their patent for thinking of it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...