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)
Isn't the scope of the patent something like slashdot? Comments about articles? A discussion system on the Web?
... whenever a text is transmitted, variation occurs. This is because human beings are careless, fallible, and occasiona
That business and government do not require Common Sense. Just greed and low standards.
I'm going to patent Common Sense, but I probably won't get too much $$ out of it. Seems that there really isn't much need for it in recent times.
Grimwell - old, cranky, mean, obsessive
...that we're using a method for discussing an item (in this case the item is the patent) right now don't you? :-D
Wow, maybe we can actually submit SlashDot as prior art!
(And they said this wasn't art.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I dunno, but if this goes trough... I'll just patent "Drinking wine by removing the cork to allow the wine to pass trough the bottleneck".
That should be a just as valid patent as I see it... Or maybe someone allready got that one pending? You never know, specially not when it comes to the USPO.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
This has got to be the funniest of the stupid patents ever. Even beats the swinging sideways patent. Basically, the sort of comment system it describes is implemented here on /. and in a million other blogs all over the web. In fact, even many mainstream news sites allow readers to poat comments. You might want to check out a list of prior art implementations ;^)
actually, on a more serious note, could slashdot be used as prior art? Slashdot's been having "discussions" about "items" for a long time (items being anything ranging from the latest Apple fanfare to the Xbox).
Just another reason to boycott amazon.
Don't forget the classic stupid patent. I don't see any concern for blinding the cat. I'm intrigued by this "invisible beam of light" description. True if used in a vacuum, not our house.
I'm unsure whether it's more aberrant for an applicant to expect to get a patent for something like this, or for them to actually get one. With the trend, I guess it's become the latter, though with time that will become accepted as well.
What's really needed for patent reform is the ability to penalize companies and individuals who file overly broad and bogus patents such as this. Right now, there's no reason for Amazon (or other large corporations) not to do this, and bully license fees from anybody they think would rather pay a fee than fight them in court. The burden of proof is currently on the wrong side here.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
It's not trivial. If you read the patent (and understand it, and read all of it, not just the summary at the top), you'll see it's far from trivial.
This is like the one-click misunderstanding. One-click is only obvious after you've seen it working. Before one-click existed, it took a significant effort to innovate it. That effort should (and thankfully has been) rewarded.
If you don't think one-click is hard, consider this: the geek who was assigned to churn out the software after the creative guy had invented the concept came back with a first version that when you clicked "Buy" popped up a dialogue box saying "are you sure?" which you had to click "Yes" to. "One-click" nicely implemented with a "two-click" solution. So even the tech nerds writing the first version didn't understand it.
Rewind 8 or 9 years.
No one bought anything over the internet. E-commerce didn't quite exist.
Here comes some upstart that asks people to risk them the cash to make this new business model happen. They do something that most people would call innovative. A new business model is formed, the face of commerce completely changed. Today everyone sells over the internet.
If you're this upstart who was there since day one doing what no one else did, taking the risks back then which aren't really risks today (relatively speaking), you'd be pretty mad. Especially when your big stupid competitor finally wakes up and realizes the internet exists and copies your site almost exactly, from look to semantics, and starts eating away at your bottom line.
All of your hard work, creative energy, raising capital, the meetings, market analysis, research, etc. you put forth to make your crackpot idea a reality is now being blithely ripped off by your inferior. Through simple cloning your inferior is now your equal.
If you've been in that position before, you know how infuriating it is. So what are your options? Sadly, very few.
Amazon is getting patents because it seems like the only way to fight off their idiot copycat competitors. I think software patents are detestable, but I understand Amazon's reasoning.
It's kind of a mixed bag. It sucks that Amazon does it, but it's not going to stop me from supporting them. Why? I'll put myself in their position.
The position is one where my shareholders are screaming at me to protect their investment which they entrusted in me. A position where my customers are leaving to buy from my copycat because they can't tell the difference anymore no matter what we do. Where my employees who helped me build such a great service are worried that they might not have a job in 6 months. The choice is clear, I'd do the same thing.
Amazon provides a simple service. That service is mail order over the internet.
Their site is merely a medium to make that happen. Websites should not be patentable anymore than traditional paper (mail order) magazines. Amazon's business model relies on being the best in their business. Well, it should, but it seems Amazon doesn't want to compete on their merits. They just want to make it harder to others to compete with them by turning the business into a maze of patent law. There is nothing original about mail order and putting it on a web site does not constitute originality. Again, web sites should not be patentable. That's what copyright is for.
BTW, today in 1991, Tim Berners Lee presented the world with the first web browser. That means today is arguably the birthday of the world wide web.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
In slashdot's case, the story is the item
Where do YOU think the phrase "User Error" came from ?
One-click required the same "decision" that the process you described does. Except that the decision was blanketed in setting up the users' preferences. Most programs include them, they're called confirmation prompts, and, if you're enough on the ball, you code things so that they're configurable. If you configure to not prompt you in ACCESS ( ok, cheesy example, but it's to the point ), when you're about to run a query that modifies a table...that's ONE-CLICK. If you configure OUTLOOK to automatically send when you click "SEND" ( ooo, what a concept ), instead of making you click "SEND" and then "Send/Receive", guess what...that's ONE-CLICK.
Don't give me this lame argument that because it's implemented on the web, that it somehow gives it this mystique to how something is implemented. Get over yourselves already.
I'm currently offering for sale:
Anyone got comments/stories/advice about this car? Post 'em here, then cease and desist.
Have these lawyers not heard of copyright? You should be able to include licensing information in your code, and if someone does cut & paste you'll have some protection.
Imagine if Stephen King decided to patent a new literary genra, now he is the only one who can author novels in this format. This makes absolutely no sense, especially when the best protection he would have for his new books would be to copyright them and thereby prevent unauthorized copying / redistribution.
It is unimaginable to me that you can patent a creative work. Computer programming is a fairly creative process that anyone with a PC is capable of doing. If I wrote a horror novel, I would not expect to infringe on a patent -- for the same reason that if I wrote a calendaring application I would not expect to be in violation of your patent. How are we suppose to write computer programs if everyone else has a patent on them?
Pure sillyness.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
The patent as filed is for a "system" and not specific to the WWW. Therefore, USENET would be prior art... the various "forsale" newsgroups are presented for subscription, many by item, and discussion is allowed without registration.
Patents are not defined by whether they are awarded, but by whether they can be exercised. Amazon couldn't win any claims with any of its patents, so whether or not Amazon has paper patents is a moot point... such uninforceable patents serve only to help Amazon's annual reports deceive uninformed investors into forking over more capital-- nothing more.
Feel free to continue exercising your Constitutional right to free speech.
Jeff Bezos:
...the discussion system may be used in conjunction with a non-commercial environment and with a network other than the WWW or even with a system that is not based on a network.
Luckily, we're protected [in the U.S.] by some fine prior art.
The U.S. Constitution (First Ammendment):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011