Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Seeks Personal Search History Patent
theodp writes "The USPTO has published Amazon.com's patent application for Persistently storing and serving event data, which describes a9.com's personal search history feature and lists a9.com CEO Udi Manber as an inventor. Interestingly, claim 48 describes a user interface that responds to a user's request to "delete" his search history by rendering it "undisplayable" to him, but still leaving it accessible for other uses. When filed back in 2003, Amazon asked the USPTO not to publish the application, but rescinded that request last May, presumably in anticipation of its filing for an international patent."
I think that's illegal in the UK, at least.
Thanks, Amazon, for showing the world why the U.S. patent system is the best. Especially for software related 'inventions' and 'innovations'.
I'm submitting this comment via the soon-to-be-patented 1-click 'submit' button. Which allows to 'submit' things, in only 1 click! Wow!
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
Interestingly, claim 48 describes a user interface that responds to a user's request to "delete" his search history by rendering it "undisplayable" to him, but still leaving it accessible for other uses
So now you can patent changing bits in a database...
Prior Art:
chmod 044
God these guys are getting desperate for stupid patents.
I stopped shopping at Amazon around 1999, when they "unilaterally changed" (permanently violated) their privacy policy to share my personal data "with anyone we damn well please", after I'd given it to them. I "updated" all my data to fakes, kept my account, and have tracked their agressive descent into personal copyright violation ever since. I use my "anonymized" account to shop there, then buy direct.
--
make install -not war
That is simply false. Searching for and applying non-patent literature is a matter of routine. Many supervisors require a list of relevant non-patent literature from their examiners regardless of whether or not it was used to reject claims.
Which does not touch the stuff that was never patented.
This also is simply false. In addition to a database of issued patents, there is also a database of published applications, including those which were eventually abandoned. In case you were referring to "stuff" for which an application was never submitted, that generally falls into two categories: stuff that isn't patentable under 35 USC 101 and stuff that was known and used before anybody thought about patenting it. The non-patentable stuff under 101 is often found in text books, journal papers, and other non-patent literature sources routinely used by the examiners. The other stuff is intrinsically more difficult - finding adequate disclosure of some commercial software that you've never heard of, with solid dates, is always going to be tough.
Also, a patent does not necessarily have to use much industry-standard language. You can make up your own terms for things. So searching might not even do that much good.
Technically this is true, but 35 USC 112, second paragraph, does draw a line in this regard. Additionally, the USPTO separates the patent examiners into rather small groups (usually 8-15 examiners) in specific technologies. This helps deal with obfuscated applications. The 35 USC 112 and the USPTO also grant the examiners authority to declare an application as basically incomprehensible and full of terminology so different from that normally used in that technology that the application is summarily rejected. That is NOT fun for an agent/attorney, because you run the risk of losing the filing date, must supply a complete replacement application, run the risk of having the replacement rejected for containing new information (rather than just a replacement), and unless you're a partner in the law firm, it's really not that funny around the water cooler.
Patent examiners cannot afford the time to do extensive searching outside of their own database. The patent office is a velvet sweatshop and a revenue center for the Executive Branch....
With all due respect, you haven't convinced me that you're qualified to make these kinds of statements.
Powell's World of Books (powells.com) has an EXCELLENT technical selection, takes up it's own building down the street from the main store. Sure it's a little bit more $ for the book (but not much), but they are much nicer people...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
This is illegal in Austria. On request an organization has to delete any data of the requesting person. And the laws means deleting, not hiding. I think other countries will have similar laws. So it's a) pointless as an international patent and b) simply unethical.
In the present example, if Amazon gets a patent from this application , they are not getting patent protection on "Personal Search History", they are getting patent protection on the claims as patented. Also, for anyone to infringe upon an Amazon patent, each and every limitation of an independent claim has to be present in the device that is supposedly infringing.
If you then find it's not granted, well, presumably that's because the patent officials found that your idea didn't meet one of the required criteria, in which case the chances are it was so obvious that revealing it hasn't hurt you anyway...
Theoretically this is true, but having more prior art is useful since rejection under 35 USC 102(b) or even 35 USC 102(a) or (e) is stronger and more easily upheld by the patent appeals board and other courts than a rejection under 35 USC 103(a). For those who don't know the distinction, 35 USC 102(a), (b) and (e) require that each and every limitation of the pending claim be taught by the reference. 35 USC 103(a) is a rejection based on an obvious combination of references, obvious design choice, etc. and is harder to have upheld by the Board or the courts.
Similar to the upcoming US election results