Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Sued Over Recommendation Patent

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stupid-patents-come-full-circle dept.

PaschalNee writes "Cendant is suing Amazon for their recommendation patent saying it infringes on a "System and Method for Providing Recommendation of Goods or Services Based on Recorded Purchasing History" patent they own. "

2 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I See Prior art. by back_pages · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Other forms of prior art:

    This is factually incorrect and moderated incorrectly. Rather than interesting, it is false.

    I trust you can use Google. I therefore presume you can operate the uspto website and find the patent in question. It consists of three independent claims, all of which require that the invention be implemented on a computer. What you have posted as "prior art" does not read on the claims. Your post is not interesting, it is factually incorrect.

  2. Re:Ordinarily I would object to this kind of paten by back_pages · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Actually, I don't really beleive it's the laws that need overhauled but the public in general. The public (or atleast the concept of) were at one time expected to know what they were talking about. However, these tools are clueless. They seem to be forgetting two very important terms when it comes to voicing a respectable opinion. "Having" and "the slightest idea what they're babbling about". (I'm sure we can slip 'not overly broad' in there somewhere too).

    You are such a tool. There is NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE IDEA OF "UNIQUE" IN PATENT LAW. The term is "novel" and in the context of patent law, it does not mean "unique". Further, the concept of "non-obvious" does not mean what you think it means when dealing with corporate patent attorneys.

    An no, you cannot slip "overly broad" in there, because this concept has NO BASIS IN LAW. That a patent should not be "overly broad" is a fantasy of public mediocrity. The Constitution, as it regards patents, was specifically written so that an inventor could have the broadest patent protection he can attain - a patent that is honestly "too broad" will be easily defeated in court. Also, see my above comments about having a clue.

    Granted, I haven't read the complaint or the terms of the patent

    ...or the laws that define what a patent is, or the case law that clarify what can or cannot be patented. I also strongly suspect you haven't read too much in the way of "informative stuff about patents", because you seem to be regurgitating untruths that I'm guessing you heard from someone else - who didn't have a clue. By the way, patents do not have "terms". See my previous comment about having a clue.

    Anyone have anymore information on the complaint?

    Yes, I do. I got it by READING THE PATENT, which is legally required to by published. It is accessible through the internet by a method similar to Google - I'll spare you the details. The patent has three independent claims, all of which are directed toward a method that requires a tangible embodiment on a computer. Nothing you have uttered forth has addressed that one glaring difference between the patent and "recommending items to customers" in general - and expresses a stark inadequacy in your understanding of the patent system.

    I'm not saying that this invention sounds like it'll change the world, but unless you show up at the doctor's office and tell him he's a clueless tool for not curing your cold (in which case you would be a dipshit in general), I think you have an ethical obligation to know what you're talking about before publicly declaring things like "these tools working in the patent system are clueless".

    I'm sure you're a fine person and competent at your job, but YOU look like a complete tool when you make comments like that and clearly don't know the first thing about the topic.