Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Sued for Patent Infringement
theodp writes "Amazon's 10-K SEC filing discloses that the e-tailer has been sued for infringing on Soverain Software patents for Network Sales Systems (5,715,314 & 5,909,492) and Internet Server Access Control and Monitoring Systems (5,708,780), aka the Open Market patents, aka the Divine cashectomy patents, which Soverain obtained in the wake of Divine's bankruptcy sale."
Amazon is at the top of list list for silly patents.
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
1. A network-based sales system, comprising:
...and don't say "you must be new here" :)
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
at least one merchant computer; and at least one payment computer;
How could they possibly know that Amazon has exactly this setup?
2. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message and said access message each comprises a universal resource locator.
This sounds exactly like one-click to me.
Amazon's one-click patent was filed September 12, 1997; whereas this was filed October 24, 1994. How could the one-click patent be filed if it was alreay there?
4. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said access message comprises a buyer network address.
5. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 4, wherein:
said product can be transmitted from one computer to another; and
said merchant computer causes said product to be sent to said user by transmitting said product to said buyer network address only.
What?!? Said product is transferred to the buyer network address only? I never shipped any of those books I bought from Amazon to an IP address!
15. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 14, wherein:
said payment message comprises a payment amount; and
said payment computer is programmed to ensure that said user account has sufficient funds or credit to cover said payment amount.
Surely this already existed. I doubt every time someone swiped an American Express card before October 24, 1994, a human being was called to look up an account balance in a paper ledger.
39. A method of operating a shopping cart computer in a computer network comprising at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products, at least one shopping cart computer, and a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer
Funny, I figured you just needed a program to do a shopping cart, instead of a whole computer! Here we have a buyer computer, merchant computer, payment computer, and a shopping cart computer. Wow.
I'd look at the other patents, but I'm getting dizzy....
that's a dumb as the Aussie who re-patented the wheel
As an Aussie I would like to point out that said patent was filed with the specific intention of how mindless and overly general patents will be approved even though there's a bazillion trillion reasons why they should be thrown out with much hilarity.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
I wonder how that case has been turning out....
- A
I don't know about other online retailers, but I was using CDConnection before there was even a world wide web to browse on, back in 1991 or 1992 (they've been around since 1990).
They had a telnet-based system that used something very much like the shopping carts of today, although I can't remember if it was actually called a "shopping cart."
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
hi. sorry. this is pure FUD.
i'm a neuropsychology student with both clinical and research experience.
neural plasticity refers to the brain's ability to change in reaction to major events. plasticity is a good thing, as it allows us to recover from lesions, disabilities, etc, with remarkable success. neural plasticity is what allows a blind person to read quickly with their fingertips (there are changes to the sensorimotor and occipital lobes that recruit neurons otherwise unneeded). neural plasticity is nothing to be afraid of, and really has nothing to do with antidepressants.
ssri's, maoi's, and the other assorted antidepressants are not really "altering the way the neural system works," so much as aiding the system recover from an imbalance. ssri's increase levels of seratonin, which is the endogenous (already in your system) hormone that gives you "happy" feelings. this allows depressed individuals to regain control over their lives and enjoy them. ssri's aren't and shouldn't be prescribed for individuals that aren't depressed, but there really isn't any permenant change that they effect. the only major effect ssri's will have on a depressed teenager is that it will increase their chances of recovery from their depression.
no need to be afraid of antidepressants. they're not "changing" you, unless depression is intrinsic to your self-view.
jbr.
jacob rothstein reed college
Scientology's OT-III story wasn't really removed, just modded down to -1. And in return, Slashdot did a story with links to most critical sites. T'was a famous victory...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Do any of you actually understand the patent system, and why and how it was designed? It is there to PROMOTE innovation by providing a limited monopoly to the inventor. However a patent is supposed to be original, non-obvious, etc.
In addition, patents used to be effectively restricted to manufacturing practices - i.e. turning raw materials into finished good. This worked, and worked well, and was necessary to promote innovation given the typical expense of a manufacturing process.
It is only through a really odd interpretation of a court decision that the USPTO decided that software is patentable (they denied a patent because one part of the manufacturing process required a bit software, the court ruled that that bit of software wasn't enough to make it unpatentable, and suddenly the PTO decides that must mean ALL software is patentable - who knows what they were smoking/inhaling/shooting up at the time) . And who knows why they decided busines methods should be patentable - I'm not aware of any basis in law or case law for that.
On top of that, the USPTO is neither inclined nor qualified to actually determine if a patent if original and non-obvious. They are a revenue center for other programs. I believe that started during the Clinton era, and last time a checked (several years ago) patent fees were contributing over $300M a year to other government programs.
Bad policy, combined with a perceived cash cow. It isn't going to change easily. What politician is going to willingly put that "invisible" funding at risk?
We need to go back to the actual legislative basis of patents rather than some half-assed interpretation of case law. Good luck on how to get there though.
The heights of genius are only measurable by the depths of stupidity
That and it's not Linux.