Patent Sought For Amazon Marketplace

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Sought For Amazon Marketplace

Posted by Hemos on Monday October 27, 2003 @04:06AM from the such-a-cool-service dept.

theodp writes "On the same day CEO Jeff Bezos launched Amazon's Search Inside the Book feature, a 'completely new way for people to find the books they want,' the USPTO published Bezos' patent application for User interfaces and methods for facilitating user-to-user sales. Ironically, searching for 'Amazon' won't turn up Bezos' patent application--the claims are illustrated with example web pages for the hypothetical 'Store.com', as seen through the eyes of 'Sally Small', 'Larry Large', and 'Barry Buyer.' References are made to other patent applications, presumably Amazon's, that describe a way to efficiently create links to bank accounts, the use of product viewing and purchase histories to identify related products, an electronic catalog search engine, the use of a browse tree for navigating a catalog by category, a wish list service, and a service for allowing users to post product reviews for viewing by others." I've used Amazon Marketplace to buy a fair number of things - it's too bad such a cool service has to be "patented", because you know, the concept of people selling to other people is obviously a new one. *sigh*

13 of 182 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I'm confused... by HaloZero · 2003-10-27 04:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

...by this particular 'patent'.

Say Bezos were granted this patent (probable) - what scope would it have? Would other online user-to-user portals and retailers be forced to shut down? eBay, Half.com (part of eBay), as examples. What exactly would patenting this particular 'idea' do?

--
Informatus Technologicus
Ebay? by greenhide · 2003-10-27 04:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

If Amazon has successfully secured this as a patent, does this mean that EBay could be sued for patent infringement even though it was the first major online auction player?

Actually, I am sort of hoping for this because it would make ebay's thousands (millions?) of buyers/sellers suddenly aware of the problems of patents and trademark law in software. Also, ebay is a big enough player that hopefully this patent would get knocked down.

--
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
1. Re:Ebay? by Groote+Ka · 2003-10-27 04:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  If Amazon has successfully secured this as a patent, does this mean that EBay could be sued for patent infringement even though it was the first major online auction player?
  Yes, if...
  I would not be surprised when Ebay would be prior art to this patent application.
  As more and more US applications are being published since the US law has changed, I see even more rubbish than when they only published granted patents. And this is just one example of many, IMHO as a patent specialist.
  Furthermore, the first claims is a peculiar one, especially this part:
  whereby the seller may create a marketplace listing for the product without supplying an identifier of the product
  
  What you're selling?
  
  Something
  
  Sure, but what
  
  I'm not going to say, I'm going to stick with my patent
  
  In other words: seems like your won't infringe. Bezos waisted too much money on attorney fees, it seems to me at first sight.
Patent Silliness by terrencefw · 2003-10-27 04:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

What they are patenting here is really a business method, not a piece of software. Patenting business mathods is legal in the USA, but not Europe, thank goodness!
It's amusing to note that the business method of patenting obvious ideas then using the patent to extort money from innocent individuals has yet to be patented. (I think I've just found the missing step before "Profit!!!!").

--
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
1. Re:Patent Silliness by Carl · 2003-10-27 04:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Patenting business mathods is legal in the USA, but not Europe, thank goodness!
  Although that statement is true, that does not mean that the European Patent Office hasn't granted patents on business methods!
  See for example the following Amazon patent on Gift Ordering.
  This is the reason big (American) companies, Bolkenstein and the JURI committee are so actively lobbying to get patent law "harmonized" in all of Europe. At the moment some national judges correctly throw out any patent claims based on these illegally granted patents against smaller businesses, but not all European national judges know that the current European Patent Act disallows the European Patent Office from granting these papers. Some fall for official looking patent papers with a nice EU Patent Office stamp on them! Which way do you think the big companies, who hold almost these illegally granted patents, want the law to be harmonized...
  Please follow the European patent discussion through http://swpat.ffii.org/. We might have "won the last battle", "the war" is still ongoing!
2. Re:Patent Silliness by ratamacue · 2003-10-27 04:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Not only is it silly, it's destructive. Patent law in the states is destroying free competition, holding the market hostage for the benefit of an elite few. The US government has created a ridiculously complex, ambiguous, and highly exploitable system of law where the crooks are the winners, and the fair players are the losers.
  
  US patent law is a failure of government, one which caused many more and worse problems than it intended to solve in the first place. Guess who's paying for this failure? (Hint: It sure ain't government.)
Methods, not concepts! by cperciva · 2003-10-27 04:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

because you know, the concept of people selling to other people is obviously a new one

Patents do not cover *concepts*; patents cover *methods*. This patent does not concern the concept of people selling to other people; it covers a method of people selling to other people.

Now, I'm inclined to say that the patent is still likely to be bogus, but we should critique it for the right reasons.

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
But think about this "cool" feature by Burb · 2003-10-27 04:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

If it's "cool", perhaps it was something different and non-obvious. Perhaps it was innovative. Using the phrase cool and then comparing it to something as mundane as buying and selling stuff rather undermines the argument.
Perhaps (IANAL) it is patentable.
Honestly this is not intended as a troll.

--
Hmm by Ianoo · 2003-10-27 04:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

IANAL, but unless the patent office intend on showing their stupidity yet again, I doubt they'll be granted anything before about claim 20. It is totally normal for patent applications to make stupid claims early on and then get more specific, with the company or individual applying fully expecting not to get the earlier claims (and breaking out the champagne if they actually did).

Even if they got claim 1, it's not like they could enforce it against anyone, due to prior art. I'm pretty certain that Amazon weren't the first company to sell things over the Internet. Unless, of course, they "do a Unisys" and start going round attacking small online businesses who don't have a hope of defending themselves, while leaving the eBays of the world well alone because they obviously have the resources to strike the patent down in court.

Of course, I have to wonder why these companies continue to apply for such stupid patents. It is because the stupid patent laws mean that often they get patents on much more than they're entitled to, and they know it. This is not good for business in the long term, but since when have businesses thought about anything in the long term?
Diamond v. Diehr did not legalize software patents by brlewis · 2003-10-27 04:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
In 1981 the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared a certain patent valid despite the fact that software was a part of the system patented. Justices ruled that if the system as a whole was patentable, the inclusion of non-patentable material (in this case software) as part of the system did not make the entire system unpatentable.

The opinion contained a whole section to assert that patents on software (automatically invalid) could not be made valid by drafting the application to make them look like a "system" with trivial non-software portions. Nonetheless, after this opinion, the USPTO started approving all sorts of patents that were essentially patents on software.

Further confusing the situation, a lower court decision, In re. Allapat, contradicted the Supreme Court's precedent and declared software patentable.

Question for lawyers: Whom do we blame for US software patents?
1. The Supreme Court for not correcting Allapat or taking on any other software patent case since 1981? They are asked to hear ten times as many cases as they can actually hear. Perhaps software patents aren't high up on the list of injustices hurting society.
2. Justice Rich for the In Re. Allapat decision? Is he expected to actually read Diamond v. Diehr himself, or are the lawyers arguing the case responsible for making sure he understands it?
3. The lawyers arguing Allapat? Maybe they thought Diehr was so obvious it didn't require explaining.
Acacia's Patents Outlaws Streaming Video/Audio by Ron+Bennett · 2003-10-27 04:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Speaking of crazy patents...

Acacia claims numerous patents covering the use of streaming media, such as video files and audio/MP3s, including original content, and is currently targeting the adult industry with thousands of patent infringement legal notices and lawsuits.

Note this issue has nothing to do with copyrights whatsoever...this affects all use of any streaming media by anyone.

Acacia has chosen to target the adult industry first, since they are an easy legal target, but make no mistake, Acacia is targeting everyone who uses, or even merely links, to any streaming media content, including individuals.

Acacia Reaching To Affiliate Sites 10-24-2003
Patent holder unplugs porn network
Hustler, Vivid, Wicked Sign Acacia Patent Licenses

See more details regarding Acacia's crazy and legally abusive "business method" patents: http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_main. htm

Acacia isn't the only company on the prowl...if Acacia is sucessful, there's a whole swarm of other entities that have zillions of other questionable "business method" patents ready to pounce on both industry and individuals alike with their patent infringement claims and manditory licensing for widely used "open" computer formats that they didn't even develop!
Re:Duty to Shareholders by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 04:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

The whole mythology of "Duty to Shareholders" is nothing but a front to remove CEOs from their responsibility to manage business ethically. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything these days. Fuck that. It's just more proof that America is losing its long-range foresight and is slowly going down the shitter.
Re:Duty to Shareholders by gaspyy · 2003-10-27 05:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've heard this argument a million times.
Terms like "maximize value", "increase revenue", "pursue", "enforce", "leverage", "competitive advantage" are all fine but what about "MORAL"?

Why isn't anyone ansking "is it moral to do this?"

I'm the co-owner of an East European multimedia software company, founded in '97. We have contracts with some really big companies. We have to stay competitive, keep the old clients, get new ones, convince them of how much quality we can offer, how trustworthy we are... And for every decision I ask myself "Is it moral?" I don't want to screw my customer, I genuinely want to be a win-win. Furthermore, I don't want to hate the face I see in the mirror.

Yeah, I probably won't be buying a Porsche this year, but I am proud of the work my team is doing and I have a clear conscience.

Old-fashioned? Cliched? Maybe. But a business CAN be run without fucking everyone for the sake of increased revenue.