Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Patents Getting Numbers Off a Check
theodp writes "After two rejections, Amazon was granted a patent Tuesday for the Extraction of bank routing number from information entered by a user, which covers the process of obtaining a routing and checking account number
from information entered by a user from the face of a check. The patent application was filed in the week preceding Amazon's Call for Patent Reform."
a patent for the act of accepting money from customers...
The idiocy continues...
a patent for passing stupid patents. That'll show em.
LOOP1: MOV CX,2 LOOP LOOP1
I suppose the claim references the Internet, in which case this would probably be a moot point. IANAL and all that, but in the 1970s, I recall seeing in magazine inserts preprinted checks that could be used to donate to a charity (something like Save The Children, IIRC). You had to write the routing transit number and account information at the bottom, sign, and mail.
From what I can tell, Bezos' statements can be summarized as "Don't hate the player, hate the game"--the same line that all the big players use--but it seems that AMZN in particular has gone far off the wrong end of the stupid-patent-o-meter way more than anyone else. (I have no actual data to back up this claim.)
I have heard that IBM alone files 10 patent applications a day. And yet it's Amazon that is the poster child for frivilous patents. I like to think a responsible tech industry giant like Amazon should be able to amass a defensive patent arsenal without stooping as low as they have.
... or is the USPO just really stupid?
I vote for the latter.
"Derp de derp."
Man, I *seriously* need to start patenting all the shit I come up with. Not because I want to sue people, but because one of these days I'm going to *get* sued.
I can't believe this is patentable. I do this stuff in my UI code all the time. It's a basic part of the "be liberal in what you accept" philosophy. Accept whatever is easiest for the user to type (or cut and paste), then pluck out what you need.
Here's stuff I've done in programs, I'm sure anybody writing UI code has come up with this kind of stuff:
* extract USA zip code from an address by searching for numbers backwards from the end and comparing result against the USPS database
* extract dollar amounts from text by searching for numbers and dollar signs
* extract email ID's from cut/pasted or forwarded emails by searching for headers: newline or start of string, string, colon before a double newline
* extract eBay item numbers from emails based on length of digit string
* extract URLs from emails based on heuristics (there is even a perl module to do this)
Yeah, I've never had to code something to find check routing numbers, but damn, this would be the first thing I'd come up with! Tell me some identifiable property of the data, and I'll come up with a way to pluck it out. A couple regexes and a function to calculate the checksum or whatever it is.
Cripes. This is no longer funny. All self-employed programmers, start patenting your shit!!!!
I mean, your inventions!! I think Bezos has already patented defecation!!!
Anyone want to co-author a patent with me on extracting the area code from a phone number? I'm sure it will take many years and millions of dollars of research so would be the perfect candidate for patent protection. If successful, next will be seperating the number from the street name in an address. Really tricky stuff.
So if Amazon applies for a patent before 2005-07-06 (next year), your post can not be used as prior art.
The one-year requirement leads to rediculous situations where some immoral person scours the literature and applies for patents based on what (s)he finds, then uses the granted patent to extract royalties from the original authors.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Also, doesn't prior art have to be published in some place that people researching in that field would look? For example, in a trade journal for the relevant field. Simply being on the 'net I believe doesn't make it prior art. So maybe the one year rule doesn't even need to be used for stuff taken off the net which isn't widely circulated otherwise.
. . . because *i've* already filed for it:
"A Novel Method Of Enhancing Consumer Privacy, By Preferentially Purchasing At Local Community Establishments, Using Uniquely Serialized Pieces Of Paper Currency Bearing Detailed Engraved Portraits Of Deceased National Leaders".
Soon to be followed by:
"A Method For Consumers To Alter Shopping Behavior, For The Purpose Of Undermining The Market-Strength Of Philosophically Objectionable Corporations".
First, they acquire a new patent for getting people's checking account and routing numbers over the internet by having the {customer|user] enter them.
Then, they launch a call for "Patent Reform".
I'm assuming their version of patent reform would be "Everyone else has to give up their bad patents, but we get to keep them."
This sig space intentionally left blank.
It certainly sounds ridiculous on the face of it. But, in this current system, it'd be foolish for a company to not try and patent everything they can, even if they have no intention of enforcing it, before the competition does.
Then if you've accidentally infringed on someone else's silly patent, you can trade rights instead of having to cough up money.
IMNSHO, software patents should be eliminated entirely, and copyrights should only cover published works (i.e. source - you know, like books for which copyrights were origionally intended). What's left is trade secrets.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Ok, so they filed for the patent on 2 March 2000 ... how far back were they actually using the method?
I ask because I -swear- that in the mid-90's I was able to use the exact same information to register an account on AOL. Perhaps AOL didn't use the information for -electronic- withdrawal but just printed checks using the info. If so, then ok, there are some differences but seriously not enough to make this valid.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
I agree with Bezos' statements the effect of "hate the game, not the player". The patent system is a legal construct that happens to be broken. By exploiting it legally, you eventually force our inept legislature to do something to fix it. Similar to the tort reform problem, or MS security holes. If it gets exploited enough, eventaully even our elected officials won't be able to ignore it. Amazon has shown they wouldn't be adverse to a fix with their recent initiative for patent reform.
Learn something every day. Surely there's some safeguard that prevents the scenario you describe of people lifting research from journals and patenting it? Does a patent application not require the applicant to represent him/her/corporate self as an inventor?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Does a patent application not require the applicant to represent him/her/corporate self as an inventor?
Co-invention is pretty common, radio, airplanes, etc. all were invented by different people within a few years without each others' knowledge.
But you're quite right to ask the question - especially in the software field a year is plenty of time to lift an idea, implement it and file a patent application.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Maybe I should just patent a process for feeding instructions to a cpu from RAM to obtain an intended result (computer program) and solve the whole problem. Every time anyone anywhere turns on a computer, I'll get royalties. :)
This software patent crap is absolutely idiotic!
I shouldn't be so facetious. It is coming to that. That day will arrive and soon. It is surprising that someone hasn't thought of this and tried it already.
I just remember reading somewhere that a patent could not be applied for if the idea was published over a year before the application date, which implied to me that if the idea was published within a year, that publication could not be used as prior art.
I remember thinking at the time that someone could read a publication and immediately apply for a patent on it.
There was nothing in the article I read that suggested that they couldn't do it.
However, there may be other safeguards that I don't know about.
For example, the applicant may have to show prior art him(her)self that predates the published prior art.
But, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a patent lawyer, so I don't know.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
. . . this comment as "Off-Topic":
/. community because of their strong feelings about the patents issue, with some feeling that software patents are carried to absurdity.
Gee, why do you suppose that timothy even published the original article on slashdot?
Hint:
"from the rational-actor-dept . . . The patent application was filed in the week preceding Amazon's Call for Patent Reform"
For the powers-of-deduction-challenged modder:
the article is of interest to the
NOW do you see why the post isn't OT?
It's called "s-a-t-i-r-e".
If it's too "deep" for your comprehension, then ask someone to explain it to you.
In other words, they were shopping for a patent examiner who wasn't watching what his rubber stamp was hitting???
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
In law, the patent title has no effect on the scope of a patent. Instead, the scope of a patent is determined by its claims (read in light of the specification).
In this case, the title of Amazon's patent is "Extraction of bank routing number from information entered by a user ". That doesnt mean that anyone who extracts a bank routing number from information entered by a user infringes the patent. Similarly, I could file a patent with a title of "COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION", and it doesnt mean anyone would be prevented from using a computer program to process information.
The claims determine the scope of a patent. Claim 1 of the Amazon patent is the broadest in scope, and is as follows:
1. A method of acquiring a routing number for a bank associated with a bank account from the information displayed on a check of the account holder, the method comprising:
(a) receiving from a user a character string corresponding to a MICR line on a check of the account holder;
(b) for each of a set of starting digits located within the character string: (i) identifying a contiguous string of digits beginning at the starting digit, and (ii) determining whether the contiguous string of digits satisfies a checksum test associated with bank routing numbers, to identify a contiguous string of digits that corresponds to a candidate bank routing number; and
(c) storing the candidate bank routing number;
whereby the candidate bank routing number is determined without the use of an automated check reader.
To infringe this claim, one would need to complete every element. For instance, if one did not test the inputted string against a checksum test, the claim would not be infringed. Similarly, if one does not identify a "candiate bank", the claim is not infringed. [this is not legal advice, just educational information].
I would bet that most methods utilizing check numbers lack one of the above identified limitations.
I think I found a prior art that can be used against enforcement of this patent. Text below:
...Please send your account number and routing number to this email address, and the money will be wired in tomorrow.
Hello,
Please allow me to introduce my self. I am Natanba Colunga, and my husband was until recently the president of the Central African Republic...
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.