Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Seeks '2-Click' Shopping Cart Patent
theodp writes "Looks like Amazon's really getting back in the patent game. Today, the USPTO published Amazon's patent application for conducting electronic commerce using multiple shopping carts. Using the invention, a shopper purchasing items for five relatives can set up one shopping cart for each relative, a shopper purchasing books for Johnny can name one of his shopping carts "Johnny's books", and a shopper can add items to multiple shopping carts with only two mouse clicks." This might also be a good time to point out to those who didn't see it the first time AOL's patent claims regarding "Instant Message" technology; you may be able to think of some prior art.
But there needs to be some sort of punitive damages assesed against ridiculous patents. Make it a civil tort to file unenforcable patents: overly broad, prior art, or obvious.
The burden of searching for prior art should be on the applicant. We wouldn't simply take their word for it, but hold them accountable. If the prior art was easy enough to find, make it a punitive civil matter. And this is a perfect place for a jury, since John Q. Basementinventor has a little less resources to investigate prior art than someone like Amazon.
Obviously this is fraught with more problems than the actual USPTO, but the idea is there. Somthing (like money, or the fear of losing it) to keep people from filing all these frivilous patents.
29. A computer system for conducting electronic commerce, comprising: a data component for storing information relating to a plurality of electronic commerce contexts for a user, the information relating to electronic commerce conducted while in that electronic commerce context; a component that receives from the user a selection of one of the plurality of electronic commerce contexts; and a component that, after receiving the selection of the one of the plurality of electronic commerce contexts, conducts electronic commerce with the user and stores information relating to the conducted electronic commerce in association with the selected electronic commerce context.
They are obviously trying to confuse a non-technical reader (like, say, someone in the patent office). All these words to say that you get to click on one of your shopping carts to check-out.
They can't even say "shopping cart". It's the all important, and brand new, "electronic commerce context." Ooooo.
...for your spouse, your kids and your dog.
Multiple carts lets Amazon refine its recommendations engine. Before, if you bought something as a gift, it drove your recommendations, even if it wasn't something you personally would want. Now, Amazon can generate recommendations for other people based on what you buy them or even add to their cart.
Amazon is playing smart, I think.
Not too terribly long ago I read about some guy that is a patent lawyer that is going around patenting processes that the actual inventors have not bothered to file patents on, and then demanding license and royalty fees. eBay is one of his targets, and he patented their process of concluding auctions in the manner that eBay was doing. (Anybody got a link for that?) Now he's trying to extort from eBay, based on this after-the-fact patent.
If Amazon does not patent this idea, they're likely to have the same kind of crap done to them. No, I don't think they should have to patent their process like that, but if it keeps them from getting sued, they're being smart, not greedy.
Will they sue others using one-click purchasing? Dunno. That's a different issue.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Simply "coming up with an idea" does not count. Zephyr was actually existed in 1988. AOL's instant messenger came out quite some time later.
What matters is the actual creation of the thing. Anyone can have an "idea".
AOL's patent claims are, of course, absurd. Any patent claims on such an obvious functionality as the basic IM features is absurd. What they want is the right to retroactively stop all other IM services to fill their coffers with $$$.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I'd hold judgement on either of these patents until I see whether it is being used offensively or defensively. I do not recall AOL using any patents offensively.
Serious businesses cannot reasonably ignore the threat of hostile patents to their valuable services, and so, arguably, must be active in taking out patents.
If you want to talk about evil, refer to the British Telecom patent on hyperlinks, which they tried to enforce.
There is little to this news until we see how the patents are applied. They could, for example, be used to defend the royalty-free nature of Mozilla open source, and IMHO it is quite likely it would be used in this way if a significant problem arose blocking this technology which AOL values.