Slashdot Mirror


Bezos Patents Information Exchange

theodp writes "Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was handed a patent Tuesday for Information exchange between users of different web pages. Tough to tell what exactly it might cover ('various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention'), although RSS Newsreaders, TrackBacks, and Google News come to mind. Elements of Bezos' invention may evoke a sense of deja vu in those who used Third Voice or the Annotation Engine."

15 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Holy... by FireballX301 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ABSTRACT OF THE PATENT:

    A method and system for allowing users of different web pages to exchange information. The information exchange system identifies groups of related web pages and maintains a database of user-supplied information for each group of related web pages. When a user accesses a web page, the information exchange often displays in a separate area the information associated with the group of related web pages. Also, the information exchange system allows the user to enter information that will be displayed to other users who access related web pages.

    Note the prevalence of 'user-supplied'. From my interpretation, it's just a system that allows users to provide information about a category of 'related' web pages, and for that to show up.

    Sounds suspiciously like Wikipedia to me.

    1. Re:Holy... by Paleomacus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, the information exchange system allows the user to enter information that will be displayed to other users who access related web pages.

      Sounds like he patented Slashdot and any kind of forum system.

    2. Re:Holy... by ravind · · Score: 4, Informative
      There's a very good article here about what getting a patent actually means.

      To quote:
      "the question is not whether you will be able to obtain a patent, a patent most certaily will be able to be obtained. In fact, by some estimates well over 90% of all patent applications ripen into some form of an issued United States patent."

      And from another example:
      The fact that a patent can be obtained or has been obtained does not mean that a valuable asset has been obtained, and this "invention" is a wonderfully vibrant example of that. There must always be consideration given to whether the protection that is or could be obtained is worthwhile to obtain in light of the intended use.

      So if Bezos wants to waste his money on lawyers, good for him.

    3. Re:Holy... by natrius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So if Bezos wants to waste his money on lawyers, good for him.

      Bezos has the money to spend on patents. College students in a garage developing Amazon++ don't. The threat of legal action shuts them down. That's why patents shouldn't be granted like that. A suit for anything else would get thrown out as frivolous. Once you have a patent, you have to spend money to get it invalidated. Uncool, and unconstitutional. Instead of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts," it hinders it.

    4. Re:Holy... by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know what country YOU live in, but here in the good ol' USA the patent holder can charge any amount for licensing the patent. They can charge per year. They can charge per user. They can charge per unit. MPEG was considering charging mpeg4 encoders per minute of encoded video. They can charge nothing and let anyone use it. They can charge nothing and let NOBODY use it.

      In terms of court trials over infringing on some silly patent, if you're found to be knowingly infringing you're out triple the normal damages. Oh, and if you want to get a silly patent struck down? It STILL takes a court battle to get a judgement proving that your invention doesn't infringe, or that the patent is invalid, and if you lose, it pretty much demonstrates that you knew about the patent and infringed it.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  2. Maybe I should apply for a patent... by The_Rippa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you patent the concept of getting idiotic and vague patents on computer concepts?

    Oh wait, too much prior art.

  3. How about... by Joff_NZ · · Score: 4, Funny

    I patent kicking Jeff Bezos in the nuts.. oh no, wait, I'd want anyone to be free to do that in an unrestricted, royalty free fashion....

    --
    The revolution will not be televised. It won't be on a friggin blog either
    1. Re:How about... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suggest you GPL your invention.

      That way, whenever anybody in the world kicks somebody in the nuts, they also have to kick Jeff as well.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. Bezos is a PR Whore by hoka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I followed Bezos freshmen year for an research writing class since I was researching Tech Patent law. I can safely say that Bezos is just a pure PR whore when it comes to patents, his current patents have various issues and are very over-generalized. I've yet to fully read through this one but it appears no different. When he originally took heat he started a group to "revolutionize" the tech patent industry, where people who find prior art to bad patents would be rewarded. Of course he put up Amazons patents up for prize money, and when people started to come in with information as prior art, he claimed that they were "too different" and shut down completely. The contact information and phone number has been obsolete/cut off for years.

  5. In other news ... by lheal · · Score: 4, Funny
    • Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning has been granted a patent on the transfer of an object from one person to another (with or without a gap in time during which the object is in the possession of neither person).
    • Cyclist Lance Armstrong has been granted three (3) patents:
      1. Transportation of a human being via self-propelled vehicle with multiple circular suspension devices
      2. Winning the Tour de France
      3. Raising money by selling inexpensive but unique items of adornment
    • Mohatma Gandhi has been granted a patent for thwarting the plans of far-flung empires and changing the course of history by doing nothing
    • The editors of Slashdot have been granted a patent on the use of web site to disseminate the same information several times a week
    (Sorry about that last one).
    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  6. Re:All you have to do is prove Prior Art by bleckywelcky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know the patent is complete bullshit when they start adding in things like:

    various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention

    Especially when the patent itself is already vague. If you were the first to design and build a piston-driven internal combustion engine, and you want to cover different sized pistons, different numbers of pistons, and different piston formations (V, I, radial, etc) ... then fine.

    But when your patent is already vague, ie 'a different method for doing something that tons of people already do' and then you add 'various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention' you're basically asking the patent office to give you the right to rip everyone else off.

    You know what I think the patent office needs to do? Suspend granting any more software patents until they can get their ass in shape. Maybe _no_ software patents is the answer, maybe _some_ software patents is the answer, I don't know. All I know is that the current system is complete bullshit, rubbish, etc and needs to be put on hiatus until we can properly figure out what the hell is going on and what constitutes ingenuity in software.

  7. This is what the patent really covers by SquarePants · · Score: 4, Informative

    Reading Patents 101:

    There are 3 independent claims, 1, 9 and 16. They are reproduced below. Forget about all of the flowery language in the description. The claims are what determines what the patent holder can prevent others from doing. If Bezos & Co. decides to enforce this patent, they would have to prove that the accused infringer is practicing EVERY ELEMENT of at least one of the claims. I will leave it to others to comment on how difficult that would be.

    The claims are:

    1. A method in a computer system for exchanging information between users of web sites, the method comprising:

    providing a mapping between a first web site and a second web site;
    when a first user accesses the first web site,
    providing a web page of the first web site;
    receiving information from the first user; and
    storing the received information based on the provided mapping; and
    when a second user accesses the second web site,
    providing a web page of the second web site;
    retrieving the stored information based on the provided mapping; and
    providing a display of the retrieved information so that the first and second users can exchange information.

    9. A method in a computer system for controlling the exchange of information between users of web pages, the method comprising:

    receiving an indication of a web page from a first user computer;
    retrieving the web page from a first web server;
    sending the retrieved web page to the first user computer;
    retrieving information associated with the web page, the retrieved information having been previously received from second user computer when accessing a web page of a second web server; and
    sending the retrieved information to the first user computer.

    16. A method in a computer system for accessing information associated with a web page, the method comprising:

    sending a request for a first web page; and
    in response to sending the request,
    receiving the first web page; and
    receiving information associated with the first web page, the information being previously entered by a user when accessing a second web page, the information having been entered separately from the second web page.

  8. Boycott the USPTO, not Amazon by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Amazon, Microsoft, and many others stack up their patents like cold war super powers building up weapons. The idea is that so long as you don't fall too far behing in the arms race you can hold your position.

    To an extent, the people locked in the game are almost, but not quite, the victims. You can't reasonably say fsckit I'm not playing the patent game any longer - the others would be onto you like a pack of hungry street dogs attacking a weakened comrade. The USPTO loves the fact that they're processing heaps of patents and generating nice revenue. It makes them look powerful and important. Like the arms race, the only people that won out of it were the arms suppliers - not the recers themselves.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Boycott the USPTO, not Amazon by symbolic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To an extent, the people locked in the game are almost, but not quite, the victims

      It seems more likely that the scope of victimization extends far beyond just the companies involved. A patentholder could exercise any and or all of its claims at any point, and at any terms, leaving those on the other side in a somewhat tenuous state. I see this as a way to raise the barrier of entry quite substantially. Once, all it took was a good idea and some programming skill, Now, almost certainly, one will need adequate legal counsel as well, which for many, simply isn't an option.

      The USPTO loves the fact that they're processing heaps of patents and generating nice revenue.

      That's about all it's generating. This madness certainly isn't helping is stated purpose, which is to foster innovation.

      Like the arms race, the only people that won out of it were the arms suppliers

      Don't forget the lawyers. They're masters at the art of bottom-feeding and scavenging off others' misfortune.

  9. The Burden of Proof is on Examiner ... by drphil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just an aside:
    I took a two hour patent tutorial today on Patent Prosecution. One thing I didn't realize is that the burden of proof is on the Examiner to prove why an application shouldn't be a patent - not on the inventor to prove why it should be a patent. The laws govening why something shouldn't be a patent are actually quite simple - however interpretation of these laws have kept patent lawyers happy for many years.