FFII vs. Amazon Gift Ordering Patent

Elektroschock writes "The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure fights in court against Amazon.com's Gift ordering patent. It is about ordering gifts via email and phone communication. Amazon's gift ordering patent is seen as a danger for webdesigners and E-Commerce in Europe. It is derived from the well-known Amazon.com's 1-click patent. The flowers distributor Fleurop and Germany's Computer Acience Association "Gesellschaft fur Informatik" untertake similar legal action against Amazon's trivial patent. FFII's Hartmut Pilch said the fight against patents was not over. It is a cheap opportunity to get some exercise in patent litigation."

Comments

Am I the only one

[JessLeah]

...who parsed that as "Final Fantasy 2 vs. Amazon Gift Ordering Patent"?

Re:Am I the only one

[MikeXpop]

I also thought it was about Final Fantasy. My first thought was there was a method of purchasing things in that game that could be construed as prior art to one of Amazons patents. Too bad the real story is quite a bit more boring.

Re:Am I the only one

[Rosyna]

Yeah. Same here as soon as I read it the first thing I though was "Damn, can't wait until it's FFIV vs. Amazon. Cecil is going to kick some ass. Amazon is just a spoony little bard anyways."

Re:Am I the only one

[DrEldarion]

Actually I thought it was Final Fantasy 11 (ffll), since that is the next Final Fantasy, isn't it?

Actually, it's a current one. It's been out since 10/28/03 for the PC, and is going to be released soon for the PS2.

This patent is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely it is.

What next? Patenting the act of selling?

Quick!

[Sarojin]

Someone patent searching for '*' and '%', which between them will cover all other searches! ...

Profit!

Get over it

[obotics]

Can't people at least patent something that seems halfway visionary? Some of the things the lawyers are patenting these days are so ridiculously miniscule. Its like, I'm going to patent "clicking with the left mouse button here and then double-clicking over here." And then they give it a fancy "management buzzword" sort of name - and there you go you have the next great innovation that will syndicate back-end relationships, brand scalable metrics, and recontextualize vertical experiences.

Welcomed Activity

[GNaturist]

It is nice to see some activity against patents like this. It just seems that for all the frustration about software patents that there is so little action being taken to fight them.

Are you sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing on the ffii website about this. If they were entering into a courtcase, they might say something about it in the news section, don't ya think?

Re:Are you sure?

[Halo1]

Yes, it's correct. This is what was posted on a mailing list (one without public archives):


Opposition

the Foundation for a Free Informational Infrastructure, represented by the president Hartmut Pilch, Munich, represented by president Hartmut Pilch, opponent,

- Trustees: Attorneys Dr. Matthias Lenhardt, Olaf Koglin and Holger Scharfenberg, Kurfuerstendamm 46, 10747 Berlin -

against the granted patent

European Patent EP 0 927 945

Registration no 99105948.6

Patent owner: amazon.com Inc., USA

in the name and with the authorisation of the opponent we request

to fully revoke the patent.

Justification:

A. Opposition causes

The opposition is based on:

the subject is not not an invention in the sense of art 52 paragraph 1 of EPC
(Art. 100(a), Art 52 EPC) and does not involve an inventive step (Art 100(a),
Art 56 EPC), and that the subject matter extends beyond the content of
the application (Art 100(c) EPC, Art 123(2) EPC).

Oral proceedings are applied for

B. Justification in single steps

I. (Text by hartmut)

II.

Furthermore the opposition is justified by the justification of the
oppositions of

a) Fleurop Interflora European Business Company AG of

26.09.2003

For any case - especially in case that the oppoisition is
partially or fully revoked - those oppositions are made
fully the content of the opposition.

III.

Opposition by Fleurop-Interflora European Business Company AG

IV.

Opposition by Gesellschaft fuer Informatik e.V.

C. Formalities

EUR 610 (by cheque) have been handed in before deadline directly by the opponent.

The corporate monster machine

[Anonymous Coward]

..when so many corporations own patents on so many intangible things that a corporate dynasty like IBM can bring anyone in the world to their knees financially.

Even foreign governments.

Intellectual property in all of its various forms is being abused by the corporate world - both friends and foes of Linux and otherwise. The madness is the laws supporting this behavior continue to pass, bypassing the individual and wholeheartedly supporting the corporation.

Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds? There is a balance to be maintained, and our rights are not unlimited, but more and more across the entire globe the individual is lost.

Not to be funny but has anyone considered the implications of all these recent intellectual property rights and how it seems more and more that we're being pushed into the draconian future of Johnny Mnemonic and Shadowrun? The only way you get information is to steal it. The only way for another corporation to get information is to hire you to steal it.

I grow more and more distressed at the world my son will grow up in, the conditions he will consider normal, the laws he will break just by trying to think.

Legitimate reason for patenting the obvious

[Sarojin]

I'm not defending Amazon or the patent process by any stretch of the imagination. I worked for an online calendaring company, and somehow got my name on the patent for the ability to search metadata online. Which of course was silly. I and the developers pointed out that it was silly and revolted against the filing of the patent.

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 unscrupulous 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, but scruples and business operate in different realities.

Why don't you copyright it?

[Dlugar]

As somebody else pointed out, software is the only "creation" that can be both copyrighted and patented. Doesn't this seem, well, a bit ridiculous?

If you want to prove to the court that you created prior art, why not just copyright the code? It's a lot cheaper, it shows prior art definitively, and it's not abusing the system by "patenting the obvious".

Dlugar

Re:Why don't you copyright it?

[BabyDave]

Yes, but if I register copyright on "code A to perform process B", and my opponent applies for a patent on process B 6 months down the line, then code A should in theory be proof that prior art for process B exists. Particularly since the registration process involves giving the copyright office a copy of much of the code in question (according to the US Copyright Office).

In reality of course, this relies on government departments working together flawlessly. And we all know how often that happens :P

Re:Why don't you copyright it?

[Halo1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the case of patents, isn't it the collection of processes that is usually patented rather than the code itself?

Yes, and that's why software patents are so completely different from other patents. Normally, you get a patent on the implementation of some solution to a problem (a machine, a way to perform a chemical reaction, the use a certain chemical against a particular organism, ...). You do not get patents on the generic process behind those innovations.

However, in software, the implementation of the solution is protected by copyright instead of by patents. The reasoning is that writing software is more like writing music or a story, than like constructing a light bulb or creating a new chemical substance. After all, you write/publish software like the former and unlike the latter.

So the implementation of both technical inventions and software are protected (by patents resp. copyright). The abstract reasonings that led to these end results should not be protectable in either case, because that harms innovation a lot more than it encourages it.

Software patents however do allow just that for software (and as such for basically anything, since you can do or steer pretty much everything using software).

I always wonder:

[Krapangor]

Some company patents an useful idea and lots of people and businesses jump out and claim that the patent is either trivial or there is prior art.
But if this is the case why is it then (a) useful opposed to triviality or (b) nobody though of patenting it before ?
The steam engine is e.g. not a very original idea of Watt: approaches like this where done before but for some strange reason nobody brothered to create it.
Take as a different non-patent example Einstein's theory of relativity: it's a rather simple conclusion from the fact that the speed of light is constant. You have just really calculate all formulas and then you are done and math undergrad can do this. But Einstein is considered to be one of the greatest scientists because of this discovery.
The point is: sometimes it needs a genius to see the obvious.
And why not rewarding the genius then ?

Avarice

[max born]

If Newton had invented calculus in the 21st century he would have patented it.

Re:Avarice

[mattdm]

Are you aware of the history of this? There actually *was* a whole huge "intellectual property" squabble. Calculus was actually invented by *Leibniz* mostly-independently at about the same time or slightly earlier. Newton neglected to publish his original work for twenty years -- apparently for fear of criticism. Leibniz also didn't publish right away, but when he did, a huge PR fight ensued -- which Newton basically won, given that most people think of Newton as the inventor these days -- even though the modern version owes much to Leibniz.

(A quick google search will turn up more; too lazy to link myself.)

You know...

[Kierthos]

I'm waiting (more like dreading) the /. post that says:

Your Rights Online: You don't have any.

Can't be too far off...

Kierthos

My Patent & More Costs

[calmdude]

I hereby patent the process of patenting.

Seriously, though, the major problem with the patent office is that their technically deficient, overworked clerks have neither the time nor the knowledge to properly evaluate submissions of technical patents. Even more scary are patents which are being passed on sections of DNA and other bioscience patents.

IMHO the cost of filing a patent should be proportional to the bullshit factor. I call this the Amazon ratio.

Those wacky lawyers

[Felinoid]

First they say you gotta pattent defensively
Then when the company has problems... what do we have? Oh looky PATENTS.

Defensive patents are what got us in this mess to start with.
One click shopping was a defensive patent.
Look and feel patents (Remeber the Macintosh look and feel patent?) were defensive.

The LZH patent was defensive...

Of course defensive patents just go to show there IS a problem to start with.

Wednesday in Berlin: parliamentary evening

[Holger Blasum]

Note the the legal action (attacking only one patent) is the only part of game. The emphasis is on politics.

Eg this Wednesday you are invited to a Parliamentary Evening in Berlin. Other events at Paris, Brussels (FOSDEM),Leuven (yet another conference), Rome, Stockholm etc can be found via the calendar at the events page.

National mailing lists (meet your reps before European Parliament elections in June!) can be subscribed via aktiv.ffii.org.

Statutory Invention Registration alternative

[bubba35]

If you just want to defend yourself from being sued by the next pirate down the line, why not file for Statutory Invention Registration? You can't stop others from using your invention, but you can defend yourself from later getting sued for infringing what was really your invention. Plus, you follow an abbreviated examination process, so it is likely to be quicker and cheaper. As described in the Code of Federal Regulations, (37 CFR 1.297): (b) Each statutory invention registration published will include a statement relating to the attributes of a statutory invention registration. The statement will read as follows: "A statutory invention registration is not a patent. It has the defensive attributes of a patent but does not have the enforceable attributes of a patent. No article or advertisement or the like may use the term patent, or any term suggestive of a patent, when referring to a statutory invention registration. For more specific information on the rights associated with a statutory invention registration see 35 U.S.C. 157." Here is a link to 35 USC 157 from Findlaw.com: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=35&sec=157

WARNING: Parent is PLAGARIZED

[boobsea]

I could have swore I saw this very post a long time ago in another patent stort here.. so I went back to a few patent stories and what did I find?

The very same post

Not as obvious as it seems

[starling]

I just read the patent and the key part seems to be delivering gifts to people from people who don't know their full contact info. I'm guessing that it's Amazon's wish list and honor system where all the giver needs to know is the Amazon id of the recipient - their name/address etc. aren't revealed.

I'm not going to comment on whether that should be patentable, but at least it's not as trivial as it looks at first glance.

Re:Not as obvious as it seems

[starling]

Extracting the address from an email, web page etc is not in the first claim

Looks like it is to me :

"[...] determining whether the gift order includes sufficient information so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient;
when sufficient information is not provided in the gift order, obtaining delivery information from one or more information sources; and [...]"

I read that to mean that they use whatever information the giver specified (email, user id, whatever) to go out and determine the rest.

Agreed on your point about the basis for the opposition though, and FWIW I also don't like the idea that this should be patentable. After all, doesn't the post office do it all the time with partially addressed letters?

Re:Prior art

[servoled]

This patent does NOT cover simply ording gifts over the internet, this patent covers:

A method in a computer system for ordering a gift for delivery from a gift giver to a recipient, the method comprising:
receiving from the gift giver an indication that the gift is to be delivered to the recipient and an electronic mail address of the recipient; and
sending to a gift delivery computer system an indication of the gift and the received electronic mail address, wherein the gift delivery computer system coordinates delivery of the gift by
sending an electronic mail message addressed to the electronic mail address of the recipient requesting that the recipient provide delivery information including a postal address for the gift; and
upon receiving the delivery information, electronically initiating delivery of the gift in accordance with the received delivery information.

Please remember that the title means nothing, the abstract means nothing, and the description means nothing. The only part that gets legal protection is the claims.

Actual Patent from EPO

[servoled]

If anyone wants to take a look at the actual patent from the EPO, and not just the information which FFII has, go here. Also note that this a divisional application of EP902381 and has an effective filing date of March 17, 1999.

What a joke

[soccerisgod]

How pathetic: the GI (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik) is moaning about this specific patent because for some reason they don't like it, but on the other side they're pushing for software patentability in Europe. Do they intent to fight every single stupid patent instead of rooting for the unpatentability of software? Boy, they're in for quite a ride.

Re:What a joke

[Elektroschock]

The GI has a double tongue. Many members of GI protested against the GI presidial decision in favour of software patents. So they decided to start a media campaign, on the one hand busting an riddiculous patent on the other hand aplluding to the EU-commissions legislation.

FFII was among the toughest critics of GI (German only).

patent defense

[moviepig.com]

The patent system's value isn't primarily about fairness. Rather, it's about using greed (capitalism's crowbar) to tap society's creativity. The goal is simply to motivate inventors within every social stratum they frequent. Without the patent system, only a well-heeled few would pursue new ideas ...and innovation would correspondingly decelerate. (I suspect the typical corporate confiscation of employees' ideas merely assures that there won't be many.) With that goal in mind, patent-duration ought to reflect both the relevant technology's current speed of turnover as well as the minimum protection time needed for a patent to be amply rewarding. Make the duration too long, and the flow of ideas tangles and clogs. Make it too short, and the flow dries up. (Indeed, for far too long, 17 years duration has been far too long.) But wholesale gutting of the patent system would squeeze off innovation ...which BTW is perhaps this society's best, cleanest, and most renewable natural resource.