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)
We're all quite in the shit here at Slashdot, are we not?
How can something as trivial as this become a patent?
-- 7 string electric violin + live loop samplers
perhaps we shouldn't discuss this item, then. don't want to infringe upon copyrights and all...
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
Yet again, another patent looks overly broad and poorly awarded. /., be prepared to pay license fees for use of this patent.
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
It's difficult to tell. But it does look like they patented the concept of having a discussion board linked to a product.
I should probably go ahead and patent "A method for mass advertising using electronic messaging to a group of recipients" and go for the spammers. But there there isn't much money in repo'd trailer houses.
...
Amazon has just patented Tupperware meetings!
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.
...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.
Sooner or later these patents are going to strangle communications completely. This would be no different if I were to patent a method in which 'two or more people can hold a conversation over a medium which converts the spoken word of one party into a format which can be understood by the second party, and vice versa', then charge everyone the next time they want to hold a press conference, debate, meeting, etc.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
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.
Up next Amazon is going to patent being the company to first patent common sense procedures that shouldn't be patentable in the first place.
This will save them considerable time, and automatically grandfather in everything they haven't tried to patent yet, including such classics as "Allowing full sentences to be used to describe product", "Shipping material ordered by people from our site", and "Using vowels in our company name".
(This message Patent Pending)
Clicking submit? I wouldn't recommend patening that. I already have a patent a 'visual design to facilitate the submission of data over a networked video typewriter interface'.
Perhaps we can split it though. I'll take rectangular GUI-based submit buttons, and you can have image-based submit buttons.
(But please, before you send off that reply, don't forget the 50 cent royalty in the tip jar to recieve your one-use license to click 'Submit'. This also includes 'Preview'. Thank you.)
BytesTemplar.com
Step 1: This is simply yet another reason to not shop at Amazon. Show them that you don't belive in their system, don't shop there or at any of its affiliates. And make sure you tell everyone you know why you don't shop there.
Step 2: Start collecting anything that might be relevant prior art. Seeing as this was applied for in 1999 there has to be something. I personally am stunned that something this trivial is a patent, gotta love the USPTO.
This means I can cancel all of my meetings. After all discussing things on the agenda would violate the patent and I wouldn't want that.
Oh hang on this means that its okay as long as it isn't structured around a topic. Damn you Amazon for condeming us all to a world which only contains long rambling ill focused meetings.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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 ;^)
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.
I get it... instead of reminding everyone weekly that the patent system is screwed, we're going to do it daily.
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.
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
Of course, if you were daft enough to provide source code for your software, evil patent lawyers might be able to see which patents you are infringing, but what sort of idealistic fool would do that?
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.
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.
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...
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
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?
Is the patent office asleep at the wheel?
I'd think the USPTO is asleep at the wheel in the figurative sense, but the Australian patent office is asleep at the wheel in the literal sense. In fact, the Australian patent office was so asleep that it granted a patent on the wheel.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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
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.
I invite everybody reading this article to read and understand the patent abstract, claims, and description. If you're serious about patent reform, you should be able to read and understand patents.
/. readers...
If only the USPTO could reach the high standards you set for
"Method and apparatus for the protection of methods, procedures, systems, and apparatuses by grant of exclusive rights by a governing body having executive authority over such rights" (Grant of Patent)
"Method and procedure for the dismantling of civilized society by exclusive diversion with legistative processes" (making people so busy defending themselves against lawsuits to do anything productive)
"Method and apparatus for the production of intellectual property and information by means of the exercise of a passive or active electromechanical or electronic relay or switch causing the dissipation of energy in various ceramic, plastic, semiconductor, or organic elements, causing the semi-permanent organization of atomic or subatomic particles on a dielectric, metallic, organic, semiconductor, ceramic, or plasticine substrate, also causing the luminescence of phosphorescent or electronic optoelectrical or optoelectronic elements." (use of computer)
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
And given that we haven't seen Amazon moving to enforce any of the very basic patents they have been accumulating, I'd guess that these are defensive patents.
They licensed one-click to Apple.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
If we must be forced by our government to accept software patents, should they not be appropriate for the environment they live in? The world of computing moves much faster than the ordinary world.
The life of a software patent should be good only for 1 year, then the method falls into public domain as it is likely becoming obsolete.
Z. http://www.play.net Your games, my job. C'est la vie!
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.
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).
If only the USPTO could reach the high standards you set for /. readers...
Sadly, Atleast USPTO workers can read/interpret patent applications...
If you're going to mod me down for not being funny, make sure you mod me down (-1: Ha-Ha-Funny) and not (-1: Ironic-Funny)
(NOTE: While the parent's post was funny and in good fun, I think it needs to be mentioned that while USPTO workers are stupid, we should be chagrined for not even achieving USPTO worker's level of stupidity. Hence, my sad joke, depressing irony, and attempt to win you over with a sad joke (second paragraph))
Oh yeah, we're fucked... Know any good jokes?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce