The plaintiff in a long-running trademark infringement lawsuit against Google has agreed to drop its case targeting the Web search advertising leader’s core business, according to court filings.
American Blind & Wallpaper Factory Inc., a reseller of window blinds, had charged that Google abuses trademarks by allowing rivals of the company to buy ads that appear when consumers search the Web for information on that business.
“After almost four years of litigation, the American Blinds lawsuit ended today with a stunning victory for Google,” wrote Eric Goldman, an assistant professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, in commentary on his widely read legal blog.
American Blinds doesn’t get a penny. Google changes nothing.
And forget corporate weenies so afraid of competition they sue over a competitor’s name appearing on the same page of a search engine.
Why do they even waste their time? Does anybody pay attention to those bought-and-paid-for ads that come up on a Google search? Jeez. I search on “quantum phyics” AND quark, and at the top of the page is an advert linking me to eBay so I can buy them.
I can’t imagine the convoluted mess the web would become if American Blinds had won.
John might be happy to know that I often click on ads or links when I visit Dvorak, as I do when I visit any site i find of value. It’s a small effort for me to help keep the www concept working smoothly and not just being a leach.
>>I often click on ads or links when I visit Dvorak
I sometimes click on the ads also, but I NEVER click on the ads from a Google search that link me to eBay to buy quarks or Charles Manson.
M Mustard, for the most part I agree with you, but if I’m actually looking to buy something and I see an ad that looks promising when I do a search, i’ll click on it. I also use froogle.com. Most of the time though, i’m not looking to buy anything so those ads are ignored. I must be a typical surfer because Google is friggen loaded.
This brings up a relevant point… I appreciate competitors ads because it saves me searching for their web pages.
Mr Mustard
How much are they getting for a bushel of quarks these days?
#2 It’s a small effort for me to help keep the www concept working smoothly and not just being a leach.
Are you actually buying anything – or even seriously considering the advertised product – or are you just clicking in order to “donate” someone else’s money to your favorite websites?
I wonder how much web ad money is wasted on “sympathy” clicks for the web-sites hosting the ads.
I wonder what percentage of each ad campaign is budgeted for such “click fraud”.
“I wonder how much web ad money is wasted on ‘sympathy’ clicks for the web-sites hosting the ads.”
I’d say about 99.9%. In the early days banner ads worked, but these days it just isnt serving the purpose its supposed to. If someone wants to buy something they go to their favorite site and buy it. There will probably be a fallout eventually and Google/Yahoo will have to find other clever ways to advertise to consumers over the web. Banner ads are dead.
“I wonder how much web ad money is wasted on ’sympathy’ clicks for the web-sites hosting the ads.”
I find this conversation more interesting than the article itself because I think that it opens up discussion about what advertising is really for.
If you click the advertisements in sympathy, and load the page and read something on it then you are learning or reinforcing brand name recognition. You may not buy immediatley but you may consider using that product in the future. Considering the cost of adwords compared to say television or radio advertising it may be more relevant to you and cheaper in the long run to establish this. If you are seeing content then the advertiser has one more potential client to market to, at least for the time that you are there.
I also dont see there being much wrong wit the sympathy click because if you have a TV show that you like and watch its ads to you are only watching them becuase you want to see the main program. This is not much different than a blog that you really like and support by clicking links. The same goes for newspapers and magazines, generally (with the exception of classifieds) you do not buy these products for the advertisements, but you are exposed to them because you wanted access to the content.
BTW I click on links to support this and many other blogs
#9 BTW I click on links to support this and many other blogs
And that is what I find interesting.
People mention print and TV ads in the same breath as Web-based advertising, but the pricing-model is different.
TV shows depend on Nielsen ratings – and/or data from Nielsen’s competitors – to negotiate the price advertisers pay for placing a commercial on a given show.
More eyeballs, in the age/income/ethnic market the advertiser wants to reach = more $$-per-minute for the commercial.
Broadcast networks hate that VCRs and DVRs allow skipping commercials – in one famous instance claiming this was a violation of the “social contract” between commercial-sponsored network shows and viewers.
Similar with print media, where subscriber and newsstand sales figures determine what the ad will cost.
While web-based ads depend on “click-throughs” and “buy-throughs”, and the problem of bloggers and web-masters soliciting clicks to help support their sites.
With the Firefox plug-in Adblock, the “social contract” discussion has come to web-based advertising – with some people clicking on Ads to “help support the site”, while others are blocking ads altogether.
http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Discussion of whether Adblock is hurting smaller sites.
http://tinyurl.com/ywzj62
I don’t think Adblock can hurt smaller sites, because the only people who would use Adblock are the ones who were never clicking on ads, to begin with.
For me anyway, the whole idea of ads trying to get me to buy something I don’t need at the moment, just doesn’t work. It rarely works on me for Tv ads. I’m 99.5% more interested in the show I’m trying to watch. Rarely, if ever, am I thinking of getting a new car. And the car ad of Tv no longer give any useful information. It’s all just image and flash. Internet ads are even less of interest to me. It’s like finding billboards in your public library, instead of books, CDs or DVDs. I’m to focused on finding what I want to find NOW. Than to entertain the thought of finding what I might want at some future time. When I ask for what cellphones are available, that’s when I want to read about them. Maybe the rest of america is different from me. Maybe they all have five different cellphones apiece. Me, I generally use something until it breaks, and only then start looking for a newer model.
As for companies suing Google over ad space and position. Don’t they understand that Google doesn’t let them buy their way to the top of the search engine? Or buy exclusive space on their results page?
It’s never worked that way. And that’s why Google got popular over Yahoo and others. I hope Google never changes this policy. And the court system should keep these idiot lawyers off their backs.