Patent Sought For Amazon Marketplace

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*

Comments

All this craziness makes me think...

[r_glen]

Al Gore should have just patented the internet.

Hmm

[Ianoo]

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?

Duty to Shareholders

[TrueWest175]

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.

Diamond v. Diehr did not legalize software patents

[brlewis]

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

[Ron Bennett]

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:Patent Silliness

[happyfrogcow]

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!?

Newsflash!

[NumLk]

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...