Bender writes "CNet is reporting that Amazon has acquired the rights (at least in the USA) to 'Affiliate Programs.' This may have an adverse consequence on things like CDNow banners."
Stop typing www.amazon.com....
by
John+Miles
·
· Score: 5
...and start typing www.noamazon.com instead.
This seems like a worthwhile time to call attention to the efforts of one of my office pals. Visit http://www.noamazon.com for some excellent links to alternative sites for the merchandise purveyed by Amazon.
We've tried to get Slashdot to mention this site as a "quickie" news item, but apparently they are an (ahem) Amazon affiliate themselves.:-)
-- Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Re:Stop typing www.amazon.com....
by
auntfloyd
·
· Score: 3
We would also like to make it clear that we do not accept kickbacks, advertising money, or bribes. This site is about freedom from bogus software patents and harmful litigation, not money. None of the sites on our list of links paid us, nor will we allow anyone to pay us for a link in the future. We will, however, listen to all of you when chosing sites as alternatives to patent-happy companies. Send your favorite honest Internet commerce site to us at links@noamazon.com.
"Are they going to patent air next?" said John Segrich, an analyst with CIBC World Markets, who follows Amazon.com.
Some analyst this guy is! Everyone knows that patents only apply to processes, not physical quantities. Patenting the process of breathing, perhaps, but patenting the air itself? Why, that's absurd!
On a more serious note, it seems Amazon.com has finally found its economic niche -- bringing down the entire global internet economy through frivolous patents and lawsuits. It's too bad it won't actually ever make them profitable. The sooner this company dies, the better.
--
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Trying to force the issue?
by
interiot
·
· Score: 3
I'm in awe yet again... I can't believe that Amazon really expects to keep getting broad-reaching patents without something happening. My only conclusion is that they must be doing this to force the courts to realize how idiotic some software patents can be. And they get to make a buck or two along the way.
I contend that a really evil company would be more stealthy in trying to take over the world. For instance, if Microsoft had been not -quite- so pushy in forcing hardware OEMs to bundle their OS, they might have been able to amass power longer without drawing negative attention, and thus be better prepared for the negative attention when it happened.
I'd like to take a moment to thank Amazon.com for forcing the issue of patent reform. If they maintain their current rate of ridiculous patenting, the patent office will soon be forced out of their complacent attitudes towards patents on the unpatentable. Without Amazon exploring the frontiers of idiotic patents, this process might takes years longer, making the damage much worse in the long run.
Now back to your regularly scheduled "i've patented xyz" posts.
What's the next step? TPing Bezos' front lawn and putting a flaming bag of dog crap on his front porch?
Sounds good...
We meet at 11:30 at the 7-11 down the street, Waitaminute. It's Friday. He might be up late plotting his next fiendish patent (I hear "clicking a button" is still up for grabs). Better make it 12:30am.
Signal11. You in? Thought so. You're in every thread. Alright, hit the PriceClub and get as much TP as you can. No, it doesn't matter what type. We're talkin' *volume* here, brudda.
Kintanon, go get some grocery bags. Paper, not plastic this time.
Kaminsky, you drive.
Alright, now you guys. The Grits boys. We need all the dogcrap you can find. Lots of it. No, I don't know where to find some. I thought you guys knew all the best spots. Just get moving, and HEY!!! WAITAMINTUE!! Don't put the dogcrap down your pants! It's not Hot Grits. Whaddayamean ya wanted to see what it felt like? We need this shit for Bezos.
*TICK*TOCK*TICK*TOCK*
Alright. TP? "Check!" Paper bag "Check!" Dog Crap? "...and Hot Grits too..." Whatever.
There's his door, right past the Naked Petrified Natalie Port...HEY!...Anyways.
Grits boys, start with the TP. We'll get the bag ready.
What?!? We forgot matches? Dammit, alright what was it Linus said. "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome?", shit no, that was Clint Eastwood. Dammit!
Kaminsky, you wired? Good. Toss me your Palm V. Just one quick post to/. Waitasec...we need to make sure it gets read. Hey, Signal11, feel like burning off some Karma here? Whaddaya mean you need it all? You only have like 10,000.
"Subject: GPL = Borg!!!" "Admit it. You're all just Jealous of JC Bill Gates cuz you wish you had the same amount of control!!.. you won't be happy until the GPL has assimilated everything, and noone can make money doing software stuff no more. Well, RoR, cuz the last laugh will be on you when you put yoursleeves out of jobz, and are all forced to learn VB cuz windows still Rulz, you freaking pinko commiez!!!
Discuss amongst yourselves"
That should do it. Luckily, there's no Katz threads on right now, or noone would have seen it from the background noise. Just give it a a little more time...
Hey!! Grits Boyz!!! Put the TP in the TREES, not down your pants!
*Don's Palm V begins to smolder, as Signal11's Karma takes a nosedive*
Signal11: man, am I gonna have to post a lot tomorrow to get that back...
*lights the bag*
Alright guys! Hit the doorbell and RUN FOR IT! This'll show him that we won't take his bid for world domination lying down...
*Bing-bong*
Bezos: WTF?
{to be continued...}
-- --sugarman--
US6029141: Internet-based customer referral system
by
waldoj
·
· Score: 3
Why is stuff like this patentable? Why is it that someone can take an idea that is used in the real world, and add the phrase on the internet and get a patent?
One click shopping? I go to the grocery store, when it's time to pay, I swipe my credit card through the credit card swipe machine thing and go on my way. This is the same as one click shopping, with the addition that you not only need to move your wrist (to position your mouse over the button) but also have to move your finger as well.
And now they've essentially patented giving someone a commission on the internet. If I can't take an existing idea and add the phrase in the state of Georgia on the end and patent it, then why should I be able to add the phrase on the internet and patent it? If someone can patent gambling on the internet, shouldn't I be able to patent gambling in Las Vegas?
I'll be moderated down for this, as are all views which don't seem to match the general consensus. But a great majority of patents are not filed for enforcement. Generally, patents are filed to prevent a competitor from doing it first. If you believe that companies who patent are evil, you're being naive. It's part of modern business, just like the endless lawsuits, and other related nonsense, but you can live, in disbelief, and post to Slashdot comments about how Amazon is patenting air, or whatever else, but perhaps you need to run a company that competes globally and see that it is probably the only safe way to protect yourself. If you don't patent it first, someone else will, and sue you into oblivion.
-- -----------------
"I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused
-------------------
I'll be moderated down for this, as are all views which don't seem to match the general consensus.
No you won't, and no they're not.
But a great majority of patents are not filed for enforcement. Generally, patents are filed to prevent a competitor from doing it first. If you believe that companies who patent are evil, you're being naive. It's part of modern business, just like the endless lawsuits, and other related nonsense, but you can live, in disbelief, and post to Slashdot comments about how Amazon is patenting air, or whatever else, but perhaps you need to run a company that competes globally and see that it is probably the only safe way to protect yourself.
If you don't patent it first, someone else will, and sue you into oblivion.
This would be a good point, were it not for the fact that Amazon has by now got a history of using patents offensively. In fact, the Boycott Amazon page goes some way to acknowledge this:
Foolish government policies gave Amazon the opportunity--but an opportunity is not an excuse. Amazon made the choice to obtain this patent, and the choice to use it in court for aggression. The ultimate moral responsibility for Amazon's actions lies with Amazon's executives.
Realistically, would anyone have complained if Amazon had not started trying to enfore their patent? Off course not. This is even is spite of the fact that even the pontential of a lawsuit can and often does have a devastating inhibiting effect to a business.
Great news: obvious even to non-technical people.
by
BigGaute
·
· Score: 4
Don't worry. Be happy. While this might seem like just another ridiculous patent to me and you, it is more significant than that.
Anyone with a certain minimum of knowledge about how computers and / or the internet works knows exactly how preposterous the one-click patent is. This patent is no different in that respect. The difference is that this patent is so much more blindingly obvious that anyone should be able to see why, with minimal rethoric required. This ought to make it a lot easier to fight the patent in court, and let's hope that Amazon's competitors do just that.
The state of the US Patent Office has been long lamented, in places such as the GNU website and the League for Programming Freedom. I personally believe that although some of the examples cited there, such as the use of XOR to highlit information on a bitmapped screen in an easily reverisble way, are, believe it or not, not sufficently obvious to the population at large that the average man and woman can be easily convinced.
Off course, being non-obvious to the average person is a subset of the legal requirements to obtain a patent--theoretically, a new patent may not be obvious, even if only to experts in the field. However, it has been obvious for a long time that the US Patent Office is blindingly incompetent in this regard. Maybe this time, we will have our day in court, and win it too.
Until then, I suggest that we all chip in and make a link to the Boycot Amazon page. Have you emailed Amazon to tell them what you think yet? I have.
Amazon has a _lot_ of patents
by
jhedley
·
· Score: 5
Amazon to Patent Boycotting
by
Greyfox
·
· Score: 4
In a press release today Amazon.com announced that it has received a patent for boycotting. Now anyone planning on boycotting any internet entity will have to pay Amazon.com a royalty fee.
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
exploring the frontiers of idiotic patents....
by
nmarshall
·
· Score: 3
let me think about this, so Amazon is patenting air... well, seeing that the USPTO granted a patent for entertaining a cat using a laser pointer. i guess it could happen.
nmarshall #include "standard_disclaimer.h" R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
-- nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.. --Colonel Burr 1783
Calling all would-be public servants!
by
IronClad
·
· Score: 5
USPTO Employment Application
1. Name ______________ 2. Date _______________ 3. DOB _______________ 4. SSN ________________
5. I.Q. (check one) ( ) Moron ( ) Idiot ( ) Dim-wit ( ) Liberal Arts Flunkee
(Y or N) Have you ever been affiliated with a terrorist organization or received a grade D or or better on an engineering examination?
(Y or N) Can you be trained to operate a rubber stamp within a period of 16 weeks?
(Y or N) Are you able to employ a method and process for inducing condensation upon a reflecting surface?
(Y or N) Do you agree that you deserve a patent for the above?
(Y or N) Were you alive when Al Gore invented the Internet?
(Y or N) Do you agree he deserves a patent for that?
some thoughts on this and other patents
by
jetson123
·
· Score: 3
I think people generally misunderstand the meaning of these kinds of patents. The patents are not intended to make lots of money from licensing fees. Rather, they are needed for trading with other companies with big patent portfolios. If priceline.com gets silly patents, amazon.com needs to as well, so that they can trade their patent portfolios. No money changes hands.
The net effect of this is, of course, not innovation. Rather, it increases barriers of entry to new companies who don't have patent portfolios to trade (this is seen as an advantage by established companies). Furthermore, it increases the cost of doing business, because all that patent activity costs lots of money and time. I estimate that in a corporate environment, each patent that is filed probably costs around $50k (there are a lot of highly paid lawyers and engineers involved in each patent).
Ultimately, the US patent office needs to stop this kind of abuse by reviewing patent applications more dilligently and not expanding notions of patentability as they go along. Individual companies are ultimately powerless: if they try to be high-minded about it, they'll simply go out of business.
And it's pretty clear that the US patent office is at fault. Apologists for them say that there is really no basis on which to criticize them. But there is actually a pretty straightforward metric: you can simply look at the kind of technical and legal comments you get from the US patent office vs. the European patent offices on the same patent application. The European patent office generally make competent evaluations, understand prior art quite well, and impose clear limitations on claims. The European patent offices are also much more reluctant to expand notions of patentability, usually only being pushed along by the US. From those, direct comparisons, it's pretty clear that there is a lot of room for improvement at the US patent office.
Nevertheless, I find that even by the currently low standards of patentability used by US businesses, priceline.com and amazon.com are pushing the limits. They can be justly criticized for that. It's one thing to go along with the crowd because you have to, it's quite another thing to try to deliberately push the boundaries. For that reason, I boycott Amazon, Priceline, and similar sites (I spend several thousand dollars in books and airfare each year, so this isn't an empty threat).
FYI: what I got back from feedback@amazon.com
by
guerby
·
· Score: 5
After I told them I was happy with their flawless (from my experience) customer service, but that this patent stuff was not acceptable. This was a while after RMS call for boycott. Well, it looks like they don't get it. May be they're loosing hope of making money the regular way, so they turned to they lawyers, pffff.
Dear Laurent,
Thank you for taking the time to share your views with us. Not surprisingly, we have received a variety of reactions from customers about the preliminary injunction awarded to Amazon.com in its patent infringement lawsuit against barnesandnoble.com.
Because the case is still pending, we are unable to discuss the specifics of this litigation. As a general matter, however, we agree with United States District Judge Marsha J. Pechman's ruling that "granting Amazon.com's preliminary injunction will serve the public interest" in part because "protection of intellectual property rights in innovations will foster greater competition and innovation." To that end, Amazon.com will certainly continue innovating on behalf of its customers.
Judging from some customers' e-mails, there appears to be significant confusion about the scope and nature of Amazon.com's patent. For more comprehensive information about the patent and the circumstances of the lawsuit, the full text of the federal court decisions in the case may be viewed at: http://www.mccutchen.com/are/ip/ip_001.htm
We appreciate feedback from customers about this lawsuit and other important issues concerning Amazon.com, and we carefully consider all viewpoints expressed. We hope you will continue to let us know how we can improve our service to customers.
I don't understand it, even the article states, that These "affiliate programs" are commonly used by many sites so it's obviously nothing amazon has innovated. I thought that patents can't be granted for things/processes already in wide use or already published. I even wonder if it isn't possible to sue Amazon for hurting (american) economy with such patents. If they get this patent in court, next i'll try and patent bricklaying, baking bread, brewing beer and some more things which come to my mind (i mean as of now nobody has a patent on that) perhaps someone shuold really go and try to push through such a ridicoulous patent just to draw some public attention to the subject.
-- "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Slashdot Mirror
...and start typing www.noamazon.com instead.
:-)
This seems like a worthwhile time to call attention to the efforts of one of my office pals. Visit http://www.noamazon.com for some excellent links to alternative sites for the merchandise purveyed by Amazon.
We've tried to get Slashdot to mention this site as a "quickie" news item, but apparently they are an (ahem) Amazon affiliate themselves.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Some analyst this guy is! Everyone knows that patents only apply to processes, not physical quantities. Patenting the process of breathing, perhaps, but patenting the air itself? Why, that's absurd!
On a more serious note, it seems Amazon.com has finally found its economic niche -- bringing down the entire global internet economy through frivolous patents and lawsuits. It's too bad it won't actually ever make them profitable. The sooner this company dies, the better.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I contend that a really evil company would be more stealthy in trying to take over the world. For instance, if Microsoft had been not -quite- so pushy in forcing hardware OEMs to bundle their OS, they might have been able to amass power longer without drawing negative attention, and thus be better prepared for the negative attention when it happened.
Conclusion: Amazon is not a truly evil company?
I'd like to take a moment to thank Amazon.com for forcing the issue of patent reform. If they maintain their current rate of ridiculous patenting, the patent office will soon be forced out of their complacent attitudes towards patents on the unpatentable. Without Amazon exploring the frontiers of idiotic patents, this process might takes years longer, making the damage much worse in the long run.
Now back to your regularly scheduled "i've patented xyz" posts.
Gosh, I'm already boycotting 'em as a result of their last patent.
What's the next step? TPing Bezos' front lawn and putting a flaming bag of dog crap on his front porch?
Amazon.com -- Helping You Explore Your Violent Tendencies(tm).
The patent.
Why is stuff like this patentable? Why is it that someone can take an idea that is used in the real world, and add the phrase on the internet and get a patent?
One click shopping? I go to the grocery store, when it's time to pay, I swipe my credit card through the credit card swipe machine thing and go on my way. This is the same as one click shopping, with the addition that you not only need to move your wrist (to position your mouse over the button) but also have to move your finger as well.
And now they've essentially patented giving someone a commission on the internet. If I can't take an existing idea and add the phrase in the state of Georgia on the end and patent it, then why should I be able to add the phrase on the internet and patent it? If someone can patent gambling on the internet, shouldn't I be able to patent gambling in Las Vegas?
I'll be moderated down for this, as are all views which don't seem to match the general consensus. But a great majority of patents are not filed for enforcement. Generally, patents are filed to prevent a competitor from doing it first. If you believe that companies who patent are evil, you're being naive. It's part of modern business, just like the endless lawsuits, and other related nonsense, but you can live, in disbelief, and post to Slashdot comments about how Amazon is patenting air, or whatever else, but perhaps you need to run a company that competes globally and see that it is probably the only safe way to protect yourself.
If you don't patent it first, someone else will, and sue you into oblivion.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Anyone with a certain minimum of knowledge about how computers and / or the internet works knows exactly how preposterous the one-click patent is. This patent is no different in that respect. The difference is that this patent is so much more blindingly obvious that anyone should be able to see why, with minimal rethoric required. This ought to make it a lot easier to fight the patent in court, and let's hope that Amazon's competitors do just that.
The state of the US Patent Office has been long lamented, in places such as the GNU website and the League for Programming Freedom. I personally believe that although some of the examples cited there, such as the use of XOR to highlit information on a bitmapped screen in an easily reverisble way, are, believe it or not, not sufficently obvious to the population at large that the average man and woman can be easily convinced.
Off course, being non-obvious to the average person is a subset of the legal requirements to obtain a patent--theoretically, a new patent may not be obvious, even if only to experts in the field. However, it has been obvious for a long time that the US Patent Office is blindingly incompetent in this regard. Maybe this time, we will have our day in court, and win it too.
Until then, I suggest that we all chip in and make a link to the Boycot Amazon page. Have you emailed Amazon to tell them what you think yet? I have.
Here's a list I pulled from IBM's Patent site:
In a press release today Amazon.com announced that it has received a patent for boycotting. Now anyone planning on boycotting any internet entity will have to pay Amazon.com a royalty fee.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
let me think about this, so Amazon is patenting air...
well, seeing that the USPTO granted a patent for entertaining a cat using a laser pointer. i guess it could happen.
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
USPTO Employment Application
1. Name ______________ 2. Date _______________
3. DOB _______________ 4. SSN ________________
5. I.Q. (check one)
( ) Moron
( ) Idiot
( ) Dim-wit
( ) Liberal Arts Flunkee
(Y or N) Have you ever been affiliated with a terrorist organization or
received a grade D or or better on an engineering examination?
(Y or N) Can you be trained to operate a rubber stamp within a period
of 16 weeks?
(Y or N) Are you able to employ a method and process for inducing
condensation upon a reflecting surface?
(Y or N) Do you agree that you deserve a patent for the above?
(Y or N) Were you alive when Al Gore invented the Internet?
(Y or N) Do you agree he deserves a patent for that?
The net effect of this is, of course, not innovation. Rather, it increases barriers of entry to new companies who don't have patent portfolios to trade (this is seen as an advantage by established companies). Furthermore, it increases the cost of doing business, because all that patent activity costs lots of money and time. I estimate that in a corporate environment, each patent that is filed probably costs around $50k (there are a lot of highly paid lawyers and engineers involved in each patent).
Ultimately, the US patent office needs to stop this kind of abuse by reviewing patent applications more dilligently and not expanding notions of patentability as they go along. Individual companies are ultimately powerless: if they try to be high-minded about it, they'll simply go out of business.
And it's pretty clear that the US patent office is at fault. Apologists for them say that there is really no basis on which to criticize them. But there is actually a pretty straightforward metric: you can simply look at the kind of technical and legal comments you get from the US patent office vs. the European patent offices on the same patent application. The European patent office generally make competent evaluations, understand prior art quite well, and impose clear limitations on claims. The European patent offices are also much more reluctant to expand notions of patentability, usually only being pushed along by the US. From those, direct comparisons, it's pretty clear that there is a lot of room for improvement at the US patent office.
Nevertheless, I find that even by the currently low standards of patentability used by US businesses, priceline.com and amazon.com are pushing the limits. They can be justly criticized for that. It's one thing to go along with the crowd because you have to, it's quite another thing to try to deliberately push the boundaries. For that reason, I boycott Amazon, Priceline, and similar sites (I spend several thousand dollars in books and airfare each year, so this isn't an empty threat).
I don't understand it, even the article states, that These "affiliate programs" are commonly used by many sites so it's obviously nothing amazon has innovated. I thought that patents can't be granted for things/processes already in wide use or already published. I even wonder if it isn't possible to sue Amazon for hurting (american) economy with such patents. If they get this patent in court, next i'll try and patent bricklaying, baking bread, brewing beer and some more things which come to my mind (i mean as of now nobody has a patent on that) perhaps someone shuold really go and try to push through such a ridicoulous patent just to draw some public attention to the subject.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks