Slashdot Mirror
BountyQuest vs. Stupid Patent Ideas
Sara Winge pointed out
BountyQuest which (not surprisingly) allows people to post cash rewards if people can find prior art on a patent. Tim O'Reilly has posted a bount on Amazon's notorious 1-click shopping patent. If you can produce a document describing one click purchasing that was published prior to September 12, 1997, you can earn the $10,000 bounty.
BountyQuest Launches Patent Reform! Featuring: * Charles Cella * Jeff Bezos * Tim O'Reilly This is the story of how a group of people who share a vision of a market-based patent reform, including the Time Man of the Year, one of the world's leading computer book publishers, and Bounty Quest's CEO (that's me, Charles Cella) launched a product that we believe will * revolutionize the way people search for high value information * transform prior-art searches related to the validity of a patent. * release the value of untapped knowledge all over the world. The story is just beginning, but if you love knowledge and want to harness it to change things for the better, come along... we think you'll enjoy the ride! Read on to learn more of the story...
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
To this end, any questional patent needs to be researched effectively. In a project like bountyquest, this means that any bountied prior art should be given equal priority, even if one is as important as the Amazon One-Click and another is the use of an animated gif to submit a form (which may or may not be patented, just the first example of something that might seem utter useless now). Placing more money on one patent than other would lead to people activity grabbing the bigger patent rewards and ignoring the small ones that 5 years from now, could bite back.
Ten thousand is certainly NOT an unreasonable number for the average trouble-making patent, and given the breadth of the site and general ecommerce field, is probably about as much as they can afford to give away without being a loss-leader. It's also enough incentive for anyone to get involved ($1000 may be low to some folks).
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Posting a reward is only going to lessen the chance that people will put their heads together and find a provable instance of prior art. Isn't the greed to be the only one to find it going to make it unlikely that people will collaborate on this?
I mean, how un-open source can you get? Think about it...
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
This one would require special hardware: if 1/2 click is the act of holding the button down, what about the part where the button is going down but has not reached its lowest position yet? An apparatus comprising a computer system and an input device ('mouse'), whose triggering device ('button') is sensitive to acceleration.
Even better? Fraction of a click shopping! This one requires an analog mouse button. The sale is triggered at a variabble amount of pressure.
--
Not really. It requires the storing of a tolken that represents a credit card number on a central, easily accessible server. Transactions can be dumped from this central server every so often, allowing batch processing of orders, where tolkens are matched with the actual credit card numbers offline in the course of the processing.
Of course, this doesn't allow for real-time processing of orders, but it has been my experience that most online transactions are not performed in real-time anyways.
This would prevent en masse abuse of credit card numbers if this central server is compromised (like the CDUniverse incident last year). Without a better understanding of the protocol developed to process orders, I can only guess, though.
I'm writing a paper for review on this subject, based on systems I have developed. I'll post a link to it once it's completed (although I'm sure my hosted site can't handle the Slashdot effect).
No sense of humor?
DUH must be a word they use in the Windows world. I'm not familiar with it.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
For example the reformulated gasoline patent stands to give Unocal over a BILLION in royalties
and interest if it passed the supreme court.
$10,000 for a bounty- hogwash.
Well, in the pharmaceutical industry the major abuses occur through blocking of any development at all of certain things. The pharmaceutical companies develop something, patent it, go through a profit analysis and decides there isnt a big enough market for the substance to be profitably developed to a finished product. They still retain the patent however, and for one reason or the other may choose to block development by other corporations or public funded projects.
For that type of development I'd rather see a 'develop a product within a certain time or lose the patent' kind of rule.
Darn, I thought it was some multiplayer RPG involving Boba Fett.
Let's say someone does the legwork, finds a company that was using one-click shopping before Amazon, and wins the 10,000 clams. Why couldn't that company then rightfully patent it, and we're back where we started? Perhaps that company can then make a kajillion dollars (and their attorneys a nice contingency fee) charging Amazon for back-royalties for infringement, like the guy who invented the delay circuit for windshield wipers.
Can BountyQuest explain why this can't become just another game where the lawyers win? I'm not pointing fingers at the distinguished staff at BountyQuest, but have they unintentionally fallen into a "Break SDMI" sucker job? The real goal should be not to prove that Amazon (or any other particular company, deep pockets or not) doesn't deserve the patent, but that the concept is not patentable. Perhaps BountyQuest should consult their own attorneys about the patentability of a SETI@Home analog for legal research.
Bust Patents -- "Should the Patent and Trademark Office be issuing 20,000+ new software patents every year? Is there that much novel and unobvious, unpublished, innovation in the software industry? Are biotechnology patents really avoiding these problems, especially as biotechnology patents incorporate more and more computer technology? Probably not, and thus your company or law firm will need resources and tools to cope with the growing legal problems associated with tens of thousands of patents of questionable validity being issued every year. If you are a victim of these patents, or want to make sure you don't victimize others with patents of dubious validity, these Web pages will help your efforts."
Bounty Hunter E-Commerce Experiment -- "I'm going to keep this simple. Look at this picture. Now that I have your interest, here is the scoop. I will give $25 to the first person who can correctly identify the object. You don't get any clues and you have to be exactly right."
John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com -- Industrial Strength Usability
How to Download YouTube Videos
Because if so, then there are some questions as to why they are searching for prior art.
Once an inventor has recieved a patent, he/she might ask the patent office for a "reexamination" of his/her invention once he/she realizes that there might be some prior art existing to invalidate his/her invention.
He/she can submit an application for "reexamination" to the patent office along with the prior art, and the inventor's argument as to why it is not prior art and the patent office can then decide whether or not the patent is still valid. This is a cheap way of strengthening a patent as when a patent has proceeded through a "reexamination" it is often considered to have more validity by courts.
Anyway, just a thought.
has anyone been nailed for being a bitch yet? that's the sort of morale boost that'd be good pr too
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
The problem is not that one-click shopping has been done before. The problem is that software patents should not be granted period.
What happens if no one ever finds prior art for one-click shopping? Haven't we then basically proven that Amazon's patent is valid?
We need to focus on fixing the patent system. Then the these patents will automatically be invalidated.
*** On the Internet, no one knows you're using a VIC-20
The math prof turns away from his thickly scribbled blackboard to his frantically scribbling students: "Now, it's obvious that..." He hesitates. Turns back to the blackboard. Scribbles for another five minutes. Finally turns back to his students: "Yes! I was right! It is obvious!"
__________
Apparently so!/a& gt; Or so they claim. But it's slashdotted now so I can't check the details...
sulli
RTFJ.
i think that you're right, and it's also a sign of a larger problem in our society. everyone is so afraid of lawsuits, that we've legislated common sense out of existence...
Unfortunately someone thought it was a troll and moderated it down to -1, and its now archived.
Here is the basic idea, buy a product only using the mouse down message. It is clearly more efficient that previous single or multiple clicking techniques (1/2 the time required). I suggested that someone (perhaps the EFF) patent the technique and place the patent into the public domain.
Note that the half click technique ignores the mouse up event therefore it is compatible with the patented one-click process yet because it uses a different process and is not covered by their patent (patents protect processes, not physical things, however our patent lawyers have found some really creative ways of stretching this).
sure, the 1-click patent may be something thats totally stupid, but, lets consider what happens when a person with some form of disability uses the computer for online shopping?
:)
does the notion of using an accessibility feature (of Win9x or whatever) have any meaning here? there is no "clicking" being performed. the purchase could be issued with a pressure sensor/voice recognition/brain wave tap.. who knows? i am no lawyer, but surely these types of issues should mess up the pot
For years Star Trek has allowed clients to order whatever they want with a single command. Knowing the clients STORED voice print, it knows who's credits to charge for the item. (No, items are NOT free onboard the enterprise). Sounds dumb, but Star Trek replicators can "order" anything" with a single command based on stored information about the client/person requesting the item. The original series ran from 1966-1969. ST The Next Generation ran from 1987-1994. Deep space nine was from 1993-1999. ST Voyager has run from 1995 to now. All of these (I think with the exception of the first series) showed people making purchases in this way.
If I win, donate my money to EFF.
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
It does conjur up visions of the old west.
The need for such a site is indicative of the failings of the patent office and perhaps the concept of patents in general.
Do patents really serve a viable purpose anymore? It would be interesting to know what percentage of patents are held by struggling "inventors" and what percentage are held by huge multinationals who really don't need an inducement to invent. Their existance is dependent on their abilities to perform/provide servics/things to generate profit.
Perhaps we should leave patents as they are for individuals but shorten their duration by more then half for large companies. (perhaps something inbetween for small entities)
In the realms of technology and especially software the patents seem to hurt more then help.
Is it as bad in other fields? What about materials engineering and genetics? Are the same kinds of abuses occuring with the same frequency as in the technology field?
The body of information is too big to research by yourself. There is no place you can go and see what technology everyone came up with. If you want a piece of information that is not readily indexed in an "In a nutshell" book, information like did anyone ever do this, ask the public, they have the widest knowledge base.
This isn't sloth this is efficency.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
I remember in the 1980's they had these machines where you put quaters into it and pressed a button (just once) and out came a can of soda pop from the bottom of it. It wasn't over the internet though and you did not have to pay for "shipping and handling" but the delivery happened in seconds!
I miss the Karma Whores.
However, here's the best one:
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Sure, this is a good idea, but the problem with many of the patents (at least in the computers section) is not prior art. It's that they shouldn't have been issued because they're obvious to anyone working in the field, not because someone else did it earlier.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
The patent is not, actually, if you read it, on '1-click' shopping, but on single-action-to-purchase' shopping. ;)) , however you'd have to cite the Amazon patent (because it covers in general, any single event to initiate a purchase, including a mouse-button press), and you'd have to license the amazon patent before you could even use your patent.
You could patent button-press shopping (that's what the first half of a click is, a press-event; the second half is a release-event; your OOP library may vary in terminology.
This also applies to one-word-voice-activated shopping, 'point-and-buy' gesture-recognition-shopping, etc, etc.
Amazon's -PATENT- may be stupid, but their Patent -Attorneys- are not, and they covered the bases.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Look at the bounty for the patent describing the BountyQuest patent for $14,159.
:)
This brings the total from $300,000 to $314,159. Does that number look familiar?
æeee!
Amazon.com's patent directly conflicts with my more general patent on "1-Click-Credit-Card-Fraud'.
Now give me my money.
Will the real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up
The point of this is that the people in the bookstore know the customer and will send him what he asks for in a letter. Although he usually repeats his address in a letter, he doesn't have to - they know it. They know his payment history. This is essentially the "one-click" business system, without the clicks.
The problem with business system patents is that you can take a business system that's been going on without a computer for centuries, make a single change of using a computer to perform it, and that is granted a patent. There is no real invention and no patent should be granted.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
This does not fix the basic problem of too few patent clerks going over a growing number of bad patents. I also don't think that this will solve problems like the Church of Scientology's copyright on all information about their cult. Nor the growing amount of information being stolen from the public domain for a very long 17 years by corporations demanding everyone else standardize on their products (like Microsoft).
Large corporations like it this way - small businesses are more or less excluded from the patent trade and they can have thousands of jargon-filled patents over their section of the economy. It's a government enforced monopoly system that rewards larger corporations over innovation. What we need is fewer patents. Far far fewer, and better decisions up front.
And who said the patent people have to pay for it all up front? How does this help poor inventers who go all out for their invention and don't always have money for patents (and who therefore have to sell their ideas to GREEDY investors who are more interested in finding a big pile of money than using the invention as intended)?
-Ben
I don't know if this is really stupid, or really smart. But what if someone patentened the 1/2 click? No, this isn't a troll. Read on.
If a "one click" is defined as clicking on the mouse button and releasing it (as is needed for any web browser), then a "half click" could be defined simply as the act of clicking on an object (without regard to releasing or not).
Make a javascript a submit button, and viola! You've got 1/2 click shopping. Amazon's patent becomes irrelevant.
[Note: Devil's in the details, tho'.]