Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Sought For Amazon Marketplace

Posted by Hemos on 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*

35 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. All this craziness makes me think... by r_glen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Al Gore should have just patented the internet.

  2. I'm confused... by HaloZero · · 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
    1. Re:I'm confused... by ichimunki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you find this "patent" confusing, perhaps you could read it and then ask more specific questions based on the actual document in question? I think this will save us both some time. :)

      The scope is clearly presented in the patent, it's about online marketplaces-- but the claims of the patent are many and some are very specific, so consult your lawyer, not Random J. Monkey on Slashdot if you really need to know this. Other portals and retailers would not necessarily "be forced to shut down"-- first there is the possibility of prior art, in which case it's possible that the patent is not even valid; second there is the possibility of licensing the patent. Your last question is really the most astounding: what would patenting an idea do? Well, it gives you a patent on that idea. For more information on patents, please see www.uspto.gov.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In light of ichimunki's (aka "I'm better than you") post, please refrain from posting any questions that could elicit discussion, or promote knowledge sharing. Slashdot is a place for reposts and Linux ... not learning. Cut it out!

  3. Ebay? by greenhide · · 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 · · 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.
    2. Re:Ebay? by ClubStew · · Score: 2, Informative

      Prior art? Since when has prior art been checked by the USPTO? British Telecom with their hyperlinking, AltaVista with the search engine, and many other patents that have been granted all have very strong prior art. Even the recent EOLAs problem has prior art. The problem is that the USPTO doesn't 1) care and/or 2) has no idea what to look for. The judges and jurors in patent infringment cases are two stupid to know a bit from a byte so the patent holder usually wins because they have the patent that shouldn't have been granted in the first place.

      Prior art these days is a non-existent concept.

    3. Re:Ebay? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well: (Note before reading this the difference between a product - something you'd list in a catalogue where the actual unit that a buyer would receive is not listed and bought specifically (ie you'd buy a "Grotmaster 2000", not "the 87th Grotmaster 2000") - and a listing - a specific instance of a unit belonging to a product model being sold.)
      1. eBay isn't covered by claim 1, because eBay doesn't allow the selection of a product (the best you can do is search for listings with a common phrase. You can't say "Show me the Wotsit 7800, with a description and list of all the Wotsits 7800 being sold")
      2. eBay isn't covered by claim 2, because there's no single page on which all of the listings for a single product are shown.
      3. eBay isn't covered by claim 3, because eBay doesn't maintain a catalogue, merely a collection of listings (what's the difference? A catalogue shows products, a collection of listings is of specific physical items for sale)
      4. eBay isn't covered by claim 4, because eBay doesn't associate and store a specific product ID with each listing.
      5. eBay isn't covered by claim 5, because eBay does not suggest prices to sellers, does not ask for the physical condition of the item, and does not require the seller refer to a specific product.
      6. eBay is not covered by claim 6, because, while eBay has recently purchased Paypal and previously operated Billpoint, both are supplied as optional services, and Paypal does not in any way resemble the method explained here.
      7. eBay is not covered by claim 7, just as it is not for claim 3: further, eBay offers no forums specifically linked to products for the discussion of those products.
      8. eBay is not covered by claim 8: eBay does not have a pre-ordering system.
      9. eBay is not covered by claim 9: eBay does not have a pre-ordering system.
      10. eBay is not covered by claim 10: eBay does not have a pre-ordering system.
      11. eBay is not covered by claim 11: This describe's Amazon's "Recommendations" system. eBay has no such system.
      12. eBay is not covered by claim 12: The claim is as for claim 1 but changes the payment method: claim 1 fails to describe eBay because claim 1 requires the selection of a product. This, incidentally, is the only claim that gets close to describing eBay in that it's the only one with the word "auction" involved.
      13. Wow. Anyway, eBay isn't covered by claim 13 either - eBay doesn't allow the selection of a product. An end user would find a benefit here of the what Amazon is patenting over what eBay does in that the former gives you a Yes/No answer as to whether or not something is available in the marketplace. With eBay, you have to search, and hope that you chose the right search terms.
      14. eBay is not covered by claim 14, for the same reason as 13.
      15. eBay is not covered by claim 15, for the same reasons as for both 5 and 13.
      16. eBay is not covered by claim 16, for the same reasons as for both 6 and 13.
      17. eBay is not covered by claim 17, for the same reasons as for both 7 and 13.
      18. eBay is not covered by claim 18, for the same reasons as for both 8 and 13.

      Claims 19-23 are similarly combinations of previous claims and therefore are inapplicable to eBay for the same reasons as those previous claims are inapplicable.

      24 is an application of Amazon Marketplace to retail merchants. It, and 25-30 (which are combinations of previous claims) doesn't describe eBay because it's describing Amazon's product based marketplace system.

      31 describes the "Have one to sell? Sell yours now!" button on Amazon product pages. Again, it doesn't apply to eBay because eBay doesn't have product pages, it has listings. 32-36 are all variations of 31 and fail to apply to eBay for the same reason.

      37 again describes a product based selling system. I'm not entirely sure this isn't merely clarifying what's been said before, it's fairly opaque. What is absolutely clear is that it, and 38-41 (which are based on 37) still do not apply to eBay as

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. Isn't this an obvious patent? by AWhistler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I remember a few years ago a relative or friend of mine telling me about how you could search for book titles, etc, and how great it was. I was underwhelmed, and I asked, "does it let you read excerpts from the book like I can if I walked into a real bookstore?" The answer was no of course.

    Well, now the answer seems to be yes. And they can patent this?

  5. Patent Silliness by terrencefw · · 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 happyfrogcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Say you have a local "farmers market" where people can buy or sell to each other. The table I display my goods on might have a patent on it's design. The scale I use to weigh things might also. And the calculator I use to add up your total. However, the market itself does not have a patent. It's just a place where we go.

      Now if Bezos wants to patent some "calculators" and "designs for tables" that I can use online to assist in the free trade of goods, why not? When you buy furniture or a calculator do you look at it and say "Oh no, this has patent number 817182199191. We can't buy this, I'd feel used and abused by The System." Of course not.

      Sure, some patents are glaringly obvious, have prior art, and should not be granted. But not all patents are bad. Patents are not really intended to stiffle innovation and invention. Several improvements on an existing idea can be patentable. Look at the patents on the .gif file format. Without it, .png probably would not have been developed. And who doesn't like .png!?

    2. Re:Patent Silliness by Carl · · 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!

    3. Re:Patent Silliness by ratamacue · · 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.)

  6. Methods, not concepts! by cperciva · · 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
    1. Re:Methods, not concepts! by r_glen · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...but we should critique it for the right reasons."

      We can't, that would put us in violation of Amazon's 'review' patent.

    2. Re:Methods, not concepts! by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Patents do not cover *concepts*; patents cover *methods*.

      THANK you.

      It's bad enough that Slashdot readers often confuse the issue when commenting on patent stories; we don't need the moderators making things worse by perpetuating the misconception right in the text of the story posting.

      Hemos is getting to be nearly as bad as Michael at tacking on personal opinions to story submissions. I really wish the mods would let the submissions stand on their own merits.

  7. But think about this "cool" feature by Burb · · 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.

    --

  8. Re:is it that simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Maybe you've been asleep since 1999 but the USPTO grants just about any patent that goes through their door. Don't believe me? What about the patent for swinging on a swing that took over a YEAR to revoke.
    Here is a link to a weblog that mentioned it.
    http://www.dalager.com/weblog/archives/000022 .html

  9. Hmm by Ianoo · · 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?

  10. Once again... by Gerad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    we observe a company taking a completely intuitive idea, adding "...with a computer" to the end of it, and sending it off to the patent office!

    --
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
  11. Duty to Shareholders by TrueWest175 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before everyone attacks Amazon, understand that they are not the problem.

    Like it or not, companies have a duty to maximize their value, which includes pursuing and enforcing patents. If they don't, management can be viewed as negligent by the shareholders and be held accountable and/or liable.

    Standing up at the shareholder's meeting and stating that you don't pursue patents because you don't agree with the system would be a quick way to be escorted out the door.

    --


    laugh hard, it's a long way to the bank
    1. Re:Duty to Shareholders by gaspyy · · 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.

  12. Diamond v. Diehr did not legalize software patents by brlewis · · 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.
  13. Acacia's Patents Outlaws Streaming Video/Audio by Ron+Bennett · · 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!

    1. Re:Acacia's Patents Outlaws Streaming Video/Audio by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Informative
      Acacia isn't the only company on the prowl...

      Indeed. This San Diego company claims nothing less than the patent on internet commerce. They started by suing dozens of small businesses with the apparent goal of getting a $5000 settlement.

      Tim Beere, owner of DeBrand Fine Chocolates, refused to settle and started a group whose purpose is to fight this. It looks like they're making headway, but it would be nice to see some of the bigger players in e-commerce kick in to crush this thing. So far, it's a bunch of small players refusing to be extorted who are bearing the brunt of the battle.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  14. Newsflash! by NumLk · · Score: 5, Funny
    Amazon has just announced that they have successfully patented the patent process. An Amazon spokesperson commented "This vindicates that we are a great, innovative company which no other can ever dream of competiting with."

    In other news, SCO has sued Amazon, for threatening to use patent litigation for profit. SCO claims they've patented the use of lawsuits as the only form of revenue.

    Amazon sues SCO, claiming they can't patent lawsuits as a profit driver, since they own the patent patent.

    Film at 11...

    --
    Children in the backseats don't cause accidents. Accidents in the back seats cause children.
  15. store.com by grub · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe the owners of store.com should sue Amazon for using their trademark in their patent application.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  16. Re:is it that simple? by henrygb · · Score: 2, Funny

    It was not just "swinging on a swing", it was "sideways swinging on a swing". A worthy technical innovation over boring forwards and backwards swing swinging, deserving of monopoly protection for 20 years.

  17. Jeez... by Mephie · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And this is partly why I refuse to buy anything from Amazon.com. It really kills me that we periodically see these "Stupid Patent" stories from Amazon.com yet people are still constantly linking to amazon to buy in their comments.

    For god's sake, pay an extra few bucks to avoid supporting this crap. Get off your duff and visit a local bookstore.

    --
    Buy the President
  18. Well..... by devphaeton · · Score: 2, Funny

    #1) The Look Inside Das Buch feature is a neat thing, but it hasn't been perfected yet. It hits a lot of false positives and the searchable text is full of typos (probably from the scanning process)

    #2) I'm surprised they haven't opened themselves up to about oh, say 126Million plagarism lawsuits/copyright infringement litigations

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  19. aside from the obvious by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The worst side-effect of these bogus patents will be the general dilution of the all patents as a perceived means of protecting intellectual property.

    Every time a company tried to claim IP ownership of some obviously derivative or mundane process, it discredits the system as a whole and makes it worthless.

    Patents will be perceived as useful to the protection of IP as an MBA is indicative of business acumen.

  20. Patent has nothing do with searchable text by corbettw · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not sure why the poster mentioned Amazon's searchable text, all the comment has done is serve to confuse a great many of the slashbots who have posted (not that that's hard).

    This patent appears to cover Amazon's Z-Shops, not eBay's auction system, not text searching of books, and not just a business method. It covers a way to, in essence, share catalog information among small merchants in a marketplace. Having had a small online retail shop in the past, I can tell you that this is a great idea, and I wish Yahoo! Stores had had it back when I still had a shop.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  21. RTFPA by hacksoncode · · Score: 4, Informative
    Has anyone actually RTFPA?

    What is claimed here is a very specific system for creating a catalog of preexisting items (i.e. a "list of everything") so that people can, instead of writing up a description of their item, find it in the big catalog and say "I have one of these, anyone interested".

    Perhaps there's prior art for this (though I don't know of anything that's very similar), but it's certainly not a patent application for "selling stuff over the internet".

    Geez... Give the guys some credit for thinking of a cool bit of technology (even if perhaps they aren't the first to think of this one... I reserve judgment on that)...

  22. He did take initiative in creating the Internet by brlewis · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you had any clue what Gore actually said, you would see that he was obviously referring to his service in congress, not technical inventions. He did take initiative in opening the university/military/government network to create what we now know as the Internet. If not for Gore, you wouldn't be able to flaunt your ignorance on Slashdot the way you just did.

  23. Dang it! by moltar77 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I knew I should have patented capitalism!