Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Scores Another Patent
theodp writes "Chalk up yet another patent for Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, this time for a Method and system for conducting a discussion relating to an item."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Seriously, for anyone with that click paralysis that prevents reading source materials, here is the *gist* of the patent, which targets merchandise (almost unlike
I wish we were seeing more original examples of software method patents, if they are to be allowed at all. There's a lot of patenting the wheel going on here. I wouldn't assume, though, that Amazon enforcing a patent like this would have that much effect. Everyone will migrate elsewhere, as appears (?) to be happening to GIF's following Unisys's demand for license fees. Perhaps I'm an optimist, though I've been rarely accused of it.
1. A method in a computer system of a non-participant for starting a discussion relating to an item offered for sale, the method including:
This is the preamble. In most cases, the preamble does not actually limit the claim. So let look at the elements of the claim and see if they have been done before.
providing information describing a plurality of items being offered for sale;
So it is showing a bunch of items.
receiving from an originating participant a selection of one of the items being offered for sale;
The client selects one of the items.
providing to the originating participant information describing the selected item offered for sale and an indicator for starting a discussion relating to the item being offered for sale, the information and the indicator to be displayed to the originating participant;
The client gets information about one of the items and the client is told that he can start a discussion on the item.
in response to selection of the displayed indicator by the originating participant of the discussion, providing to the originating participant an initial discussion thread that includes a description of the item being offered for sale;
If the client "selects the displayed indicator" (clicks on a link) a new discussion thread is created where there is a description of the item for sell.
receiving from the originating participant comments to be added to the discussion thread;
The client adds comments.
receiving from the originating participant an indication of one or more other participants of the discussion;
The client notes that he (and perhaps others) is going to be a participant in the discussion.
providing the discussion thread, with the description of the item and the received comments added along with a link that when selected effects the placing of an order to purchase the item, to the one or more other participants, and
Now other people see a link to the discussion thread.
tracking the discussion thread as one or more of the participants add comments to the discussion.
The discussions thread is "tracked". Sending out emails as it is updated is probably enough.
The first claim is probably easily beaten. You would need to find something published or publically known on or before August 1st, 1998 which satisfies all of the above elements/limitations. Of course, there is the doctrine of obviousness (which this could probably be beaten under), but looking at the claims, it might be hard to find something that actually beats this under anticipation. This is especially true considering how limited some of these claims appear.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
I would think any number of usenet *.forsale groups would provide prior art to counter this patent (epecially claim 12). Ott.forsale has been around a lot longer than Amazon.com, and provides exactly what this patent describes.
which targets merchandise (almost unlike /.)
What about Slashdot Book Reviews, which include a link to purchase a copy of the book at Barnes & Noble?
Will I retire or break 10K?
According to the patent document, these are the people responsible for granting this patent:
Primary Examiner: Kincaid; Kristine
Assistant Examiner: Nguyen; Thomas T.
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
Can't we just contact them and ask them how much they were paid to grant this crap? Seriously, maybe someone could ask them what they are thinking.
Ha ha... I was gonna say "wow, amazon's had this for years, how can it get patented by..." oh yeah, Amazon.
/. book reviews is a good one, but what about eBay?? I've personally had my account since 1998, and I know they've had feedback the entire time. Of course it's a discussion per-user, but each post is about a particular item and transaction. This seems to really, really count.
But seriously. I think B&N has had this on their site all along as well; the question is, did their site start before 1999? I know they were kind of a late-comer on the ecommerce scene (Oh god... I did not just use that phrase).
Anyway, the point about
According to the USPTO (and my own experience), the USPTO recently changed it's practice and started publishing patents before grant. The link (as I know most won't read it) says that items go into the database up to 18 months before grant. That is, this case may not have been examined for novelty/obviousness yet. Most commonly (ie across worldwide patent systems) there is an A and B-publication. The A is published to tell the public what's happening. The B tells the public what's being granted. The claims will nearly always change before B-publication. It appears the US is now following this type of system.
pbhj
I think that even usenet is prior art in this case. For example, you've got comp.sys.*, each of which could be viewed as a discussion about a specific product...
I bet Amazon has a whole department that's targeted specifically at trying to formulate every little part of their process into a patent, and trying to push it though. I suppose there is nothing to stop them from trying, but I sure hope there is something to stop them from actually getting patents on things like "Talking about stuff over a network" and "Clicking to buy things".
-S
http://goatee.net/2003/02#_26we
03.02.26.we | Non-Novel Patents
An outcry over an offensive software or method patent is surfacing
nearly every week now. But the storm is not yet upon us, these are
merely the first chunky hail stones: it can, and probably will, get
much worse.
Patents are supposed to be novel, useful, and non-obvious. However,
these are rather subjective criteria that require the discretion of
knowledge, experience, and good judgment. Such attributes belong to
those skilled in an art, not of bureaucratic institutions. (Witness
how those administrative functions formerly administered by John
Postel, a skillful and respected Internet elder, are now bungled by
ICANN, the bureaucracy intended to the same.) However, we have no
great patent arbiter, only a governmental process and this has led to
a focus on, and misunderstanding of, prior art by computer
professionals.
The question of novelty and non-obviousness is proxied by a
mechanistic process of push and pull between a patent applicant and
patent examiner. An examiner, on his judgment can not arbitrarily
dismiss the application of a proprietary interest worth, potentially,
millions of dollars. He can only ask, "how is your claim different
than this prior art." Once this dance is done, a court is not likely
to disregard the patent's novelty as documented in its file wrapper
(the exchange between the applicant and examiner) and the resulting
claims.
In the narrowest construction, this process of emulating good judgment
with respect to novelty and non-obviousness works: the resulting
patent claims are more narrow than the initial application with
respect to some existing works. But in the sense of promoting
innovation and the "useful arts and sciences" of computer software and
networking, it is a huge failure.
As I've mentioned before, "Good technology, often created through
simple processes, lends itself to applications unforeseen by its
designers." As Lessig, in The Future of Ideas, amply demonstrates this
principle is what makes the Internet and Web such an innovative force
when as expressed as layered end-to-end architecture. To adopt his
metaphor, our common roads permit arbitrary journeys; our private cars
permit us to traverse our chosen paths. Much like the Internet and
Web, there are no patents or controls on the roads that determine
where you must go. (There are rules such as which side of the street
to drive on, much like networking protocols, but these don't affect
your destination.) It would be a shame to loose this flexibility, and
this is just what the patent system encourages: claims that combine
our common infrastructure and abilities in "novel" ways.
It's as if roads and driving themselves are recognized as an important
infrastructure and ability, but someone could patent using a car on a
road to drive to my house. Is using a car on a road to drive to my
house really that novel? The Patent and Trademark Office can not make
this judgment well, it will only look for prior art of someone
previously, explicitly, specifying this exact method in the past.
Perhaps they will find the method of driving to my house that I've
provided on the Web. The applicant can then amend their application
such that they have a claim for a car, on the road, driven to my house
using a stick shift, and a new claim for the same using automatic
transmission. The claims have been narrowed and there is no previous
exact description of this, hence no prior art. Success, or failure?
It's a failure of innovation because even if the patent office is
reformed and there are more examiners with access to larger prior art
data-bases the claims only become more numerous. The space of
innovation layered upon our common infrastructure and abilities is no
less encumbered, it is only more complex and confusing. The Free
Software Foundation calls this the "new wrinkle" when they explain why
Patent Reform Is Not Enough.
Intellectual property lawyers know this, and they will refer to the
courts as a final arbitrar: "Yes, this process is, as all processes
are, imperfect and may yield mistakes, but in those rare exceptions a
judge or jury will decide." However, as I mentioned, courts are
extremely reluctant to second-guess the decision of a patent examiner
with respect to novelty and prior art. And this process is so
expensive it is an option only exercised by those who can afford
lawyers or their own patent portfolio. Sadly, those individuals and
organizations that provided the enabling concepts, technologies, and
standards of innovation are threatened from actually using them! And
the future of innovation is displaced by a malignant growth fed by a
downward spiral of greed (those that never innovate, only sue) and
fear (those that don't like the system but feel compelled to
participate as a defense).