Microsoft patents obvious idea

US patents are a strange thing. We recently consulted a patent attorney about our software product modelQED to try and determine what protection if any we could obtain for some of the more unique parts of the software. The answer we got back was not the one we were looking for. We were told that there was no chance of patenting a clever mathematical idea or software process here in the UK or the rest of Europe. However we were informed that about $30k would suffice should we wish to write (and most likely obtain) a patent in the US at very low risk.

It appears that the standards are very different on both sides of the Atlantic – so much so that even Congress is now looking at reforming the system to stop “obvious” inventions being patented.

Microsoft are sure to have an entire raft of patent and they’ve added another one into the mix in the last few days (see http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220070174117%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070174117&RS=DN/20070174117). This application is for an ad targeting system making use of “biometric sensors, cameras, remote controls, or other accessories” to monitor who is watching a TV or other device and adjust the content accordingly. This is akin to web surfing on a PC who knows exactly who is using it at all times.

As I’ve mentioned in the past (http://marketing-works.blogspot.com/2007/06/privacy-concerns-to-hamper-measurement.html) privacy concerns will undoubtedly throw a spanner in the works should Microsoft try to come up with a system such as this. In many ways this device would be some sort of Direct Marketing nirvana if there was a return channel to allow purchase. Obviously there is if the device is online and this is the market that Microsoft, Google and even some ad agencies are going after. However I would bet that these patents will come to little in the next five years or so. Privacy issues are becoming more and more important and “big giant head” devices that communicate with big brother aren’t exactly popular. Even if they can somehow find a way to use ad dollars to subsidise such a device, will people really embrace a new advertising channel such as “sniff you first” TV?

Just back from the Technology for Marketing and Advertising conference in London

I'm just back from the snappily titled Technology for Marketing and Advertising conference here in London and I have to say that I was very disappointed at the range of exhibitors who were present at the event. My overall impression was that the range of visitors ranged from "e-mail optimisers" to "direct mail optimisers" and little in between. From my point of view, i had hoped that some of the broader technologies would be on show - where were Clearchannel, DDS and others who appreciate that "marketing" is a broader church than just anything containing 0's and 1's?

Having said this, there were some highlights which made attendance worthwhile for me:

1. the Google University - a good introduction to Google Adwords which was well received by all present. The funny aspect of the presentation was watching tech specialists struggling to get a projector and laptop to work together which shows it happens to all sorts of organisations.
2. the keynote speech on web 2.0 - i couldn't actually get into this so am taking a punt but the fact that almost everyone wanted to see this speech showed how important this new trend is for the industry.
3. a company new to me called Apteco and their FastStats product which had some interesting graphics to help cut through data clutter and what looks to be a solid offering with a good graphical interface.

Whilst i was initially disappointed that no exhibitor that i could find took a broader approach to what marketing means, i was also heartened to see how many people attended the event. Assuming all goes well with our new business, we shall endeavour to attend this event and show people another side of marketing.