Slashdot Mirror
Regifting Not Just A Seinfeld Gag -- It's Patented
theodp writes "While the jury's still out on Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' gifting patent, the USPTO has given thumbs-up to a patent for regifting. The electronic regifting patent, which cites a Seinfeld episode and Bezos' pending patent application as prior art, was awarded to an individual who also holds a patent for exchanging online gifts."
This makes perfect sense. "Buy" something on Amazon for someone but don't have it delivered. Send them an "e-card" with a link to their "gift". If they like it, they can have it delivered (shipping is already paid by buyer), if they don't then they can use the item's cost and shipping costs as credit towards whatever item they'd really like. Makes sense to me.
A patent like this actually being granted... dearest Lord in Heaven... rain fire from the sky and end this madness.
I absolutely would not believe that such a basic, obvious concept would be granted twenty years of patent protection if I didn't see it with my own eyes.
If Thomas Edison was around today, he wouldn't have to patent the light bulb. He could patent light itself, and could then sue those who allowed the sun to shine into their homes.
Really. Honestly. What's next? What other totally obvious, ridiculous things can the USPTO issue patents on? How about a patent on punching an extra hole in a waist belt to avoid having to buy a new one? How about twenty years of protection for the idea of catching fireflies in a jar?
I think the US Patent system was a wonderful thing and has really helped to make the USA a technological leader in many areas, but the system appears to be flat-out broken. It's flopping around helplessly like a squirrel injured by a passing car, spewing insane patents all over the place. Patent experts know how badly broken it is and they're exploiting it to no end. This latest insanity is just a single snowflake sitting on the top of the tip of the iceberg.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Your question indicates a severe misunderstanding of the patent system. Please go to uspto.gov and actually learn about the system before making complaints. The problem is not that you can still get a patent for a novel invention for which prior art exists as inspiration or a base on which the newer invention builds. The problem is that the foundation for patents (a clause in the US Constitution) is built on an unproven assumption that would seem, in reality, to be faulty. If the idea is to promote the arts and sciences, I can think of nothing more deleterious to that process than the idea of granting "ownership" of bits and pieces of the arts and sciences to individuals just because they thought of them first.
I have been thinking about theese patents fo awhile now. Copyrights and patents seams like a way to make something obvious and commonly used profitable. The question one must ask oneself is just why governments is so keen to accept patents as an end-all solution to keeping markets up in their never ending incline in profit. I think especially the US has confused development of products and goods with making money easily.
Because development = money they have gotten it backwards and think that money = development wich is infact quite the opposite IRL.
If there are shortcuts to money companies will use them instead of putting money on R&D. If you can get a patent on an obvious solution to a common problem you will be the gatekeeper to that problem. Imagine the state of the economy today if someone had patented the internet, the electricity or the cars?
Development would stand still and prices would have been up the roof.
The key to balance between progress and the ability to profit from progress is short timespan of governental subsided monopoly. I.E someone given a patent should have a short limited time to cash in on the patent. Thus making the development and implementation of patents the goal instead of like today, finding the patent with the most "users" and then just collect money.
Patents as stupid as theese isnt nothing but a nuicence until they are extended for 10 years. If it only held up for a couple of years it wouldnt matter. The timeframe that copyright and patents stands is what must be changed. Patents should not be something you pile and then just sit back. The original idea about patents is NOTHING like what we see today.
HTTP/1.1 400