Bezos Seeks Amazon Honor System-Related Patents

theodp writes "When Amazon's Honor System debuted, some questioned if Amazon would try to patent it. More than 18 months later, the USPTO has provided the answer with the 8-29 publication of patent applications 20020120568 ("User-to-user payment service with payee-specific pay pages") and 20020120567 ("Hosted services for collecting payments from and providing personalized content to web site visitors"). Both list Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as an inventor and use the Amazon Honor System to illustrate a commercial implementation of the inventions." Hmm...wouldn't eBay's point system be prior art in this situation?

Comments

Prior Art?

[cenonce]

Prior art!?! The novel and non-obvious requirement is what's gettin' me!!!

-A

Re:Prior Art?

[Golias]

Nearly all software creations fail this simple litmus test. It's about time that those of us in the industry lobby congress to establish that only copyright, not patents, should be the protection which software enjoys.

As long as you are not stealing code, there is nothing unethical about writing a program that does the same thing as somebody else's program. The only "invention" involved would be the versitile Finite State Machine ("the PC", for you patent lawyers), which allows these applications to work.

I can't take out a patent on a method of using my car to light my house. Likewise, I should not be allowed to patent a new application for my computer.

IANAL, blah blah blah

Re:Prior Art?

[hburch]

I can't take out a patent on a method of using my car to light my house

Are you sure about that?

All inventions are new application of existing technology (ignore patents on DNA, since that is not always new). You take a bit of this, a bit of that, and pretty soon you have a car.

Since I program, I think in terms of software. Libraries exist, but I can create a new routine that uses the functions. Just because all I did was find a new application for libraries does not mean I did not create something, nor that what I did not have value.

To take your argument to the extreme: "I'm sorry, this invention is just a new application for atoms."

I do agree that "do X with a computer", where X has been around forever does not seem very innovative. On the other hand, if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier? (no demand, no one pursued, no one had thought of it (but that would make it innovative)). On the other other hand, just because it is innovative does not mean that it should qualify for a patent.

Re:Prior Art?

[schon]

Just because all I did was find a new application for libraries does not mean I did not create something, nor that what I did not have value.

Nobody is debating that.

You put work into your software, and you get recognition for it, in the way of copyright protection

If someone else were to do solve the same problem you did, in the same way, why should they have to pay you? They put in the same amount of work, they created something - why should you be rewarded for their work if they didn't use anything you did?

Patents are supposed to protect a specific solution to a problem - they are not supposed to protect the problem itself.

if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier?

Perhaps it was, but nobody thought that it was worth patenting, because it's so obvious.

Prior Art

[tuxedo-steve]

Hmm...wouldn't eBay's point system be prior art in this situation?

If someone does have evidence of prior art in a case like this, is there some procedure for bringing it to the attention of the patent office? I mean, we obviously can't rely on the good people at the USPTO to do their homework - surely it's in the best interests of the tech community to do it for them, in cases like these?

If someone knows of prior art, posting it on Slashdot is not going to help. It needs to be nipped in the bud, by putting it in the face of these patent-happy bureaucrats.

Donations / Payments

[z_gringo]

From the article:

Dubbed the Amazon Honor System, the new payment method will allow Web sites to solicit small donations from visitors or charge for content on a pay-per-view basis. The system will tie into Amazon's one-click payment feature and Amazon's customer database, meaning that third-party Web sites will seemingly recognize Amazon customers and make it easy for them to donate money.

That makes it sound like it's just for donations. However, with a "user-to-user" payment system that really works, It sounds like a great market might be in international money transfers. I mean Wester Union charges $30 and up to send money. A few others are somewhat cheaper, but this would be dramatically cheaper.

Oddly, from reading the article, it doesn't sound like anyone over there has even thought of that angle..

It sounds like a good idea to me...

How about these guys?

[melvin22]

I think their ideas are dated back to April of this year. Now the question is: can their stuff be interpreted as pretty much being the same (therefore prior "art"?) as the Amazon patents? Or do I just not know what the hell I'm talking about at 7AM on a monday?

*sigh*

[EmagGeek]

I can see it now... Now anyone who transacts personal business on the 'net has to pay Amazon for the privelege if they use the "honor system" for payment and shipping... basically, trusting someone will no longer be free.

The Patent Office has become ridiculous. They'll grant a patent application for just about anything because it generates filing fee revenue.

I'll file the following Patent now: "Method of generating income by filing obvious patents and suing everyone in sight." That way, I can pay off my student loans....

*sigh*

Re:*sigh*

[DragonMagic]

Yes, they keep the filing fee even if it is rejected, however, they lose filing fee revenue if people know they can't file patents based on a certain structure.

Take away software patents, you lose software patent filing fees.

Re:Prior Art

[PatentLawyerCraig]

Prior art can be cited to the Patent Office pursuant to 35 USC Section 301 and 37 CFR Section 501. These sections specifically relate to issued patents, however, so it is unclear whether anything sent to the patent office would be placed in the file wrapper of the application. It is worth a shot, anyway, and should also be sent directly to the applicant so there can be no claim that the applicant wasn't aware of it during prosecution. I glanced at the published application and at least the first claim seems to be related to paying for "content" with the one click system through an external service provider.

Patent Office Is Not Stupid

[DerFeuervogel]

Nearly all software creations fail this simple litmus test.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the patent office is smarter than
we give them credit for. It's possible they realize that these patents
are all unenforceable and is granting them in the hope that the whole
software patent system implodes from the sheer number of bad patents.
When it becomes clear that 80% of software patents are bad then they
will suggest to the congress that this part of the patent system be
scrapped. So in effect they are letting the system fall apart by
inaction. Lets try to patent the bubble sort and see what happens:^)

Re:Patent Office Is Not Stupid

[larry bagina]

You've hit the nail on the head. Also, the legions of pimple-faced teenagers spitting in your burgers at McDonalds and acting surly are, in reality, trying to encourage you to eat better.

It's *Just* An Application

[hawksmoor]

As an assistant to a patent attorney, I think I can say that everyone is being a little bit alarmist here. These are patent applications, not granted patents. You can file an application for any old stupid thing, and it will be published. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the patent will be granted. And, while I'd be the last person to say the USPTO is a flawless organization, I can assure you that the examiners do not rubber stamp applications which come from large entities--although I sort of wish they would.