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."

Comments

Sorry /.

[HeelToe]

Yet again, another patent looks overly broad and poorly awarded. /., be prepared to pay license fees for use of this patent.

Prior are right here!

[WPIDalamar]

A method and system for conducting an electronic discussion relating to a topic. The discussion system of the present invention receives a selection of an item that is to be the topic of the discussion. The discussion system then receives comments relating to the selected item and generates a message that includes a description of the selected item and the received comments. The discussion system then sends the generated message to participants of the discussion. The discussion system receives from a participant who received the generated message additional comments that are to be added to the generated message. The discussion system sends the generated message along with received additional comments to the participants of the discussion.

That describes Slashdot. Where the Item to be discussed is a news story.

WTF?

[Quixote]

Here's a snippet from the abstract: The discussion system of the present invention receives a selection of an item that is to be the topic of the discussion. The discussion system then receives comments relating to the selected item and generates a message that includes a description of the selected item and the received comments. The discussion system then sends the generated message to participants of the discussion. It was filed in 1999. I'm sure there were 100s of sites before that doing this: letting users post comments on websites. Prior art would be abundant. Looking at all of these patents being granted by the USPTO, I get the impression that they (USPTO) have given up their responsibility of taking a critical look at the patent. They are letting the courts decide whether there was prior art or not. This begs the question: why bother with checking any prior art anyways? Why not just reduce the USPTO to a "copyright" sort of office, where anybody can file a patent for anything, and the courts decide? Obviously this patent system is not old Ben had in mind.

Re:WTF?

[Thavius]

I think the biggest push that Amazon has for this is the "item" must be offered for sale. Check down in the claims section.

Seriously though, I agree with your stance on the USPTO. They either: a) Must have patent apps up the wazoo and suddenly are getting bonuses based on number of patents accepted, or b) have hired dolts. "Electronic discussion, oh like bulletin boards. Those have been around for... wait. About something for sale. That's new! *sound of approved stamp hitting paper*"

I wonder if it's possible to proactively challenge the validity of these patents. I wonder if it's worth it. (time/money wise).

A legitimate reason for patenting the obvious

[fishdan]

I'm not defending Amazon or the patent process by any stretch of the imagination. I worked for an online calendaring company, and somehow got my name on the patent for the ability to share appointments online. Which of course was nonsense. I and the developers pointed out that it was nonsense, and bucked against the filing of the patent.

The lawyers convinced us that filing the patent is the only way to prevent someone else from filing a patent, covering your technology, and then suing you, forcing you to PROVE to a court (always a chancy thing) that you had created prior art. And quite frankly every innovation we made to our online calendar showed up 3 months later in someone elses calendar. In fact we even found instances where people had literally cut and pasted our code, comments and all!

So we knew that there were unscroupulous bastards out there, willing to completely rip us off. So bearing that in mind, we agreed to file for patents, not so much to enforce them, but to protect ourselves from future suits. I agree, if the system was healthy and working, we wouldn't need to have done that, but the system is already full of sharks -- I don't blame people for getting shark repellant. Applying for the patent HAS to be done nowadays. Enforcing the patents is when I start to get mad. I know it's a fine line...

Re:Well now

[briaman]

I think this patent is a little broader than that. A cursory read found this passage

One skilled in the art would appreciate that 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. Also, one skilled in the art would appreciate that the term "item" refers to anything (e.g., book, news story, musical score, electronic product, scientific theory) for which a user wants to share information about with other users or to elicit comments from other users.

Surely /. counts as prior art against this.

Re:Well now

[Lawbeefaroni]

Yeah, but prior art doesn't count for crap. If you read the patent information, they give it a broad definition but a range of extremely narrow specifics. Basically no one has done exactly what they have said. So the Patent Office accepts it, figuring if they screwed up, the courts can fix it. But the courts won't. You can't sue because you think a patent is wrong. You can only take it to court when they try to impose licensing fees. Fat chance you or I can go up against Amazon (or really will ever have cause too). And those who can have routinely just paid the fees (Apple for once click shopping for one). Hell, it's just creative accounting for them. They patent shit and pay each other.

And with time, the "prior art" is dilluted. Will google have caches of everything ever? Will courts really believe that HTML file and screen shot of the product discussion at SmallCompShop.com from 1996 is legit? Afterall, this is the great visionary Bezos. How could some amateur come up with such a revolutionary idea?