I have a lot of respect for patents both within and without of software. Sometime I'll write a post on why I think they're a valuable but flawed solution to a genuine problem.

What I don't fully understand is the logic that lies behind the patenting of busines methods. Business methods are not patentable in the UK but they are the US and to my untrained eye they seem to allow for some pretty unwholesome lockups.

Amazon's Jeff Bezos does seem to realise the ridiculousness of the status quo as he is calling for patent reforms. Calling for reform he may be but the big-book man is either a two-faced hound-dawg or caught in an unavoidable arms race as it hasn't stopped him registering the infamous 1-click patent or the concept of recommending something to someone based on what they've already bought.

Ho-hum - this is patenting of sales 101, can't be a good thing can it? There's a big difference between protecting vulnerable companies and investments and simply auctioning peoples' rights to free and efficient trade. America though seems to be getting a little confuddled.

Today I see that the company that does no evil is attempting to patent the concept of RSS advertising. In summary, their patent looks to protect advertising based on the keyword content of RSS items and whose effectiveness is tracked via clickthoughs.

To my mind there are at least four very basic reasons why refusing this application should be a no brainer:

First off is that patents cannot be granted when there has already been a public disclosure - this puppy's been pooping in the wild for two years already.

Second is that patents are supposed to be granted for non-obvious inventions and for something that someone without an ounce of creativity or lateral thinking could not have created. It has become a truth of our world that people will advertise anywhere they possibly can, including on their heads.

The concept of advertising on an emerging medium must surely be the very definition of an obvious invention and the firm behind the "Are you thinking what we're thinking" campaign is nothing if not a blow to the latter criterion. It was smart when it first came out but keyword/clickthrough advertising is a done-deal. Google's already eaten this particular cake.

The third reason is unlikely to make a difference to the lawyers. However, should the case hang in the balance then it's worth remembering that Google is not a vulnerable company with a huge amount of unsecured investment that could be destroyed without an adequate return period. It's the largest advertising company on the internet with a big barn full of greenbacks and has invested almost nothing to create this technology-tweak.

Fourth is again unlikely to sway the lawyers but is to my mind the most significant and potentially damaging issue. That is that granting unnecessary patents to large companies stifles other companies and prevents market variation. Patents such as this ironically work to smother, not protect innovation.

I do think that patents are both important and valuable but some of these applications make me not a little uneasy.
Update:
I've subsequently discovered the patent was in fact filed two years ago. The only reason it's only just breaking in the news was that it was originally filed under the name of a Google employee rather than the company itself. Nonetheless it still seems that RSS advertising was had been suggested and hence disclosed even before this date.