Emerging Tech

Google Magazine: Patent points to magazine customized with articles and ads you choose

Google's recent patent indicates a day when you can create your own publication with content you like and ads you are interested in.

Google's recent patent indicates a day when you can create your own publication with content you like and ads you are interested in.

An excerpt from CrunchGear:

The Goog has filed a patent for a system that would allow the “Customization of Content and Advertisements in Publications.” That sounds to us like custom-made magazines.

The way we think it, it’s like RSS for print; you subscribe to feeds, either as they pertain to specific items or broad topics, with categories or keywords. Each month, you’ll receive your print magazine with all the feeds you’ve subscribed to, along with targeted ads.

It's a great idea that might just turn the whole publishing industry on its head. Also, with Google announcing its kiosks at gas stations for maps and directions, perhaps the distribution model may be already thought out.

A detailed deliberation on the patent is available at HuoMah. The concept brings readers center stage. While it may be true that many of the great articles you come across are more stumbled upon rather than discovered, this product may be the best thing to happen in connecting writers to their immediate audience.

What do you feel about the customizable magazine from Google?

33 comments
deepsand
deepsand

This is yet another example of a TR "article" which provides absolutely [b]no information[/b] re. the subject matter, i.e. the [u]patent[/u]. Thus, it serves as naught but grist for pure speculation.

Becktemba
Becktemba

It appears that Google can see, contrary to popular online geekers, that the demise of the print medium is greatly exaggerated. I for one prefer to read from paper and not everything written will be read online. Google sees the likes of the FeedJournal: www.feedjournal.com ???and wants to get into the game before upstarts can get a first mover advantage on the ???Personalized Print Content with targeted advertising??? I hope the FeedJournal can beat them to the punch. Check out how the FeedJournal application has become my ???Personalized News Paper??? from Full-text RSS feeds I selected on my blog. Click on the Paper to Publish and Print it in Adobe Reader: www.NewsCloud.blogspot.com Regards, ~Becks

judy.shapiro
judy.shapiro

It feels like invasion of the digital HUNS. Wherever you turn Google seems to be bearing down, wireless, content, advertising. This sound like someone said at Google, "Gee our search business model is great. Let's apply that to everything. I know, we will let people create their own magazine." Bad idea all around. As one clever previous poster said, we kinda screen what we want to read by the very choices we make in our publications. But more to the point, if you only read what you choose how can we expand our horizons and learn about things we don't naturally expose ourselves to. Case in point. A homework assignment for my 12 year old son was to watch the presidential debates. Not in a million years would have chosen that but at the end of it he was truly interested. Let's not sacrifice staying open to the world by becoming content control freaks. The only ones to benefit will be the shrinks.

MichelliL
MichelliL

If it allows me to receive a print magazine, rather than simply pulling everything into an e-zine, then I'd be one of the first to jump on board. If I have to read content online, however, there's simply no reason for me to subscribe to something like this. I've seen a number of publications I loyaly read in print go to an online-only format recently, and I refuse to read them anymore. I can only read so much on a screen before I tire of it. However, a print magazine I can read cover to cover in a single sitting. I don't like the idea of Google being the sole option to do this though. Competition is good. Google truly seems to be going the Microsoft route of a "we want to own everything you see" business model. I want to see this option from numerous sources, not only so that I can have any content I choose, from any publisher, but also to ensure prices are kept fair. Overall, a fantastic concept though.

pr.arun
pr.arun

What do you feel about the customizable Mag from Google?

herlizness
herlizness

yes, it would be nice if journalists provided references to patents, case law and the the like they write about .. but they usually don't you can read the Google patent here: http://tinyurl.com/38t64j

herlizness
herlizness

your point is well taken, Judy ... but tell me why a parent or a teacher would not, should not or could not have input into what goes into your 12 year old's Google Magazine? more broadly, I am somewhat concerned that the "personalization phenomenon" is apt to lead to a world which is lacking a common informational base and at least some common values .... but we can't stop that; when I get in the car and tune in Sirius and I can choose to listen to liberals all day, or conservatives all day (and everything else) ... I'd rather hear the news and the various input than slanted viewpoint ... so I do ... but I think some people get home at night whipped into a right or left wing frenzy ... and it just isn't productive or healthy

Antagonist
Antagonist

This format allows you to choose a certain type of article and general ad categories. Within theses parameters, google is trying to allow you to basically filter content to create a more targeted magazine for yourself. They aren't telling you to write the articles or to choose particular catalog items from a retailer to view the advertising for. I see it as an opportunity to choose the best kinds of articles from wired, pop sci and maybe keyboard musician magazine and have it only have ads for computers, peripherals, music electronics/instruments and software. This is going to be very successful. I think you are being very short sighted. Just my opinion...

kmoore
kmoore

A few years ago Jeff Whatshisname at Amazon tried to patent the number 1. You cannot patent concepts or ideas, only the expressions of them - otherwse, I would patent the idea of a coffee cup and get rich. There will be plenty of competition if this thing works. Ken

The Technologist
The Technologist

If Google starts this and starts eliminating other magazines,I'll stop buying ANY magazine. People buy magazines for the focus a particular magazine provides within a particular industry, hobby, niche, etc. If a lump it all in one format takes hold, then the overall content of a magazine will become dilluted and eventually the quality and content of many of the articles will become dilluted as well. Dilluted content won't sell, except for those narrow band folks who need their total content to be two lines of information (basically a Headline and a 1 sentence article).

lancekolb
lancekolb

My first response was that is awesome, to be able to actually have a magazine that is worth the $8.00 - $16.00 because it is filled with the stuff that I really would like to know about and to be able to have it be more articles then ads makes it finally worth the money. But then I thought how much stuff would I be missing out on because I didn't think it was important, sometimes the stuff you don't think you'll need to know still is usefull especially in the todays technology world, for me its a horse a piece.

kevin.rowe
kevin.rowe

People want informationbright people yearn for it. Google's letting us pick our content not some editor whom we may or may not understand their political leaning either conservitive or liberal. It's a great idea

jturek
jturek

well, for me the point of reading something that is really worth reading - such as a good professional paper or a clever magazine is that it offers a chance to discover something that I did not know about, but it turns to be interesting - and the more unexpected the topic the better. Actually, we already are making a pre-selection of topics of interest by choosing the magazine we buy/read and rely on the editors to bring in information that is relevant to the particular magazine, etc.. In case most of the information is not interesting for us, it is a) our bad choice, b) weak job of the editors. So, indexing texts and analyzing reading preferences of other users may be nice, but it probably can not substitute a good journalist thinking.

deepsand
deepsand

it seems to fail the test of novelty; i.e., it seems to be naught but an obvious application of existing methods.

deepsand
deepsand

Ideas, i.e concepts can be patented, but not copywrite protected. Expressions can be copywrite protected, but not patented.

herlizness
herlizness

you're confusing patent and copyright here .... copyright covers expression; I'm not sure what I think of the Google patent since I have not read the patent yet ... but I'm a little skeptical .. not of the idea but of the idea that it's actually patentable under the legal standard

DanLM
DanLM

One of the things I like about current published material ss the possibility of spotting something you never thought about before, and just might be of interest. This is why I still read 2/3 newspapers (yes, hard copy) a day and at least one real magazine a week. Hell, I still buy books (for pleasure) by the cover. And yes, I have been burned but I have also found new authors that I follow now because of it. I don't want to narrow my reading subjects, I want to expand them. Dan

silikonski
silikonski

1st. It is so ridicules, one can patent such concept. 2nd. In order to construct our personalized magazine we need to read articles we desire. Once we do that why wasting money on printing it?

transmkg
transmkg

Way, way, back in the day, as a journalism student, I landed an editorial internship on a daily newspaper. I was privileged to have lunch 1-on-1 with the publisher who reminded me of a truth I have never forgotten: the business of publishing is to sell advertising. Some smart people at Google haven't missed the lesson; they're banking on it. The paradigm shift is wrapped into Goog's production and delivery model. Personalized Googlemags are all about delivering targeted eyeballs to advertisers for as many bucks as possible. After spending a couple of decades in the marketing trenches, I could script Google's pitch to the advertisers large and small. Can't wait to see how they go to market with this one...

deepsand
deepsand

When addressing a crowd of non-lawyers, such is oft called for. Baer in mind the statutory terms where not spun from whole cloth, but from the strands of common usage.

herlizness
herlizness

> not true at all; it is quite possible for an application to meet the novelty requirement but not the non-obviousness requirement. you're trying to apply common meanings to statutory terms and it doesn't work that way read the statute, read "Chisholm on Patents," or at least read Wikipedia

deepsand
deepsand

As for novelty and non-obviousness, while I concur that there is a distinction, there is also a relationship in that that which is obvious cannot be truly novel. Therefore, as said "invention" is seemingly obvious, it also fails to be novel.

herlizness
herlizness

well, here we can agree .. and it's precisely what I thought of the One-Click patent ... it was all rather obvious in light of the prior art I think people think that patent applications get all sorts of scrutiny but the truth is that the examiners do not have the time for it; so they often issue an "office action" rejecting some or all of the claims and then wait for the applicant to respond with their counter-argument; skilled patent prosecutors respond vigorously and effectively and overworked examiners tend to say, "ok, patent shall issue" ... remember, there's no "other side" there to argue against patentability; that typically happens in post-patent litigation, if at all. It's all a game that well-heeled parties tend to win. Novelty and non-obviousness are two separate requirements of patentability but no need to quibble over that here

deepsand
deepsand

You have deliberately chosen to ignore the fact that the usage chosen for the express purpose of differentiating between "ideas" and "expressions," and the relationship between "patents" and "copyrights," respectively. And, you deliberately chose to mis-represent the statement in question as being a categorical one, when such was clearly not the case, even after such was pointed out to you. If it's a discussion with lawyers that you seek, you've come to the wrong place. Good day, sir.

herlizness
herlizness

> try expressing yourself clearly in the future; in any case, you are still not getting it: NO IDEA IS PATENTABLE. INVENTIONS ARE PATENTABLE. The fact that inventions spring from ideas is so blatantly obvious it is not worthy of mention. I'm done with this conversation; if you want to discuss legal issues seriously then go to law school or otherwise train yourself to think like a lawyer.

deepsand
deepsand

"Ideas, i.e concepts can be patented" is [b]not[/b] the same as "[u]All[/u] ideas, i.e concepts can be patented."

herlizness
herlizness

> please, stop fooling around with this; here's what you said: "Ideas, i.e concepts can be patented, but not copywrite protected" and you were wrong, and I told you so, and I told you why you were wrong and now you want to cover it all up with: "All patentable inventions are ideas; not all ideas are patentable inventions" you're still wrong; NO idea, qua idea, is patentable ... if you want to get it right, here's how: "not all ideas culminate in inventions which might be patentable"

deepsand
deepsand

I am neither ignorant nor ignoring of the requirements re. patentability. And, at no time did I make any statement re. the requirements for an idea being patentable, only that patents deal with ideas, as opposed to expressions. All patentable inventions are ideas; [u]not[/u] all ideas are patentable inventions.

herlizness
herlizness

> what I'm telling you is that NO idea or concept is EVER patentable unless it can be embodied in a useful device or process; patent law requires "enablement" as a condition of issue; an inventor must ENABLE (through disclosure in the application) people of ordinary skill in the relevant field involved to MAKE AND USE the invention. The fact that ideation is a precursor or sine qua non to invention is quite beside the point; you've pointed to the definition of "invent" and ignored the key element of devising, fabricating, or producing something useful. so, if indeed you've had a law professor who told you that an idea is patentable I'm sorry to say that s/he needed a refresher on the state of the law ... if this was a professor in an accredited law school I have to say I'm surprised; they don't tend to err on basic doctrine .. and this is very basic. If it was a professor of "business law" in a non-law school, they tend to be a bit less rigorous in their pedagogy, and can generally afford to be, because they are not training lawyers. I suspect your take-away from the course was just a little off.

deepsand
deepsand

[b]Definitions[/b]: Main Entry: [b]invent[/b] Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Latin inventus, past participle of invenire to come upon, find, from in- + venire to come ? more at come 1 [i]archaic[/i]: find, discover [b]2 : to devise by thinking[/b] : fabricate [b]3 : to produce[/b] (as something useful) for the first time [b]through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking[/b] and experiment Main Entry: [b]idea[/b] Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, from Greek, from idein to see ? more at wit Date: 14th century 1 a: a transcendent entity that is a real pattern of which existing things are imperfect representations b: a standard of perfection : ideal c: a plan for action : design 2 [i]archaic[/i] : a visible representation of a conception : a replica of a pattern [b]3[/b] a [i]obsolete[/i] : an image recalled by memory b: an indefinite or unformed conception [b]c: an entity (as a thought, concept[/b], sensation, or image) actually or potentially present to consciousness 4: a formulated thought or opinion Take note that I did not say that all ideas or concepts qualified as patentable inventions. However, it is true that all patentable inventions are indeed ideas or concepts.

herlizness
herlizness

Let's try this once more: you CANNOT patent an "idea" or a "concept" ... this is Intellectual Property Law 101 ... don't take my word for it; look at the statute or the case law ... again, Title 35 of the US Code, and (ironically) Section 101 ..

Editor's Picks