Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Patents User Viewing Histories
Chris Cleveland writes "Yet another astounding patent from the USPTO. I was browsing the patent database, and discovered that Amazon received a patent today on using customer viewing histories to generate recommendations. If a customer views product A, and then later views product B, and you use that to infer a relationship between A and B, then you've infringed on this patent. This patent is a continuation of an earlier patent (#6,317,722) on using shopping carts to generate recommendations. When will this stupidity end?"
It won't end until amazon patents getting absurd patents. Then its over.
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -Voltaire
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
this has been going on for years. These same ideas are used in amaroK, on Audioscrobbler, all over the place. How can they patent something that's been in use for a long time and is probably already patented?
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
The problem is that the algorithm is obvious to anyone who understands the process, and the process is too well known to be subject to a patent. (Even so, that patent would have expired sometime well before the USPTO was created.)
I suppose if Amazon can't put well run stores out of business by taking all their customers away, they can patent the concept of good retail instead...
-JMP
"When will this stupidity end?"
Never..
What happened to prior art?
LordBodak's journal.
I'm kinda on your side, except that I think software patents would make more sense if they only lasted 4 or 5 years. On a patent like this, where someone would have surely done it in short order if they hadn't done it first, a 20 year patent is rather silly.
When you realise that democracy is just a veneer over a system where big business writes the rules and calls the shots.
When this knowledge makes you get out of your complacent "everything for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds" attitude and makes you start organising.
When the revolution comes.
When will this stupidity end?
When everyone stops buying from Amazon.
I claim ownership and patent to the entire process of human indigation of all ridiculous patents that are OBVIOUSLY based on prior fscking art.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Why damn "automation" as if it were nothing? All Henry Ford did was automate the construction of automobiles. All James Watt did was automate the production of power.
The onus is on you (well, on anyone who wants to challenge the patent), then, to provide that prior art.
It will be difficult, I imagine, because Amazon is one of the pioneers of ecommerce, so much of what they have done has been original within the context of the Internet. Many technologies used by Amazon were mimicked by other online retailers, so it ought to be no surprise that there were various examples of it implemented while the patent was pending.
Patents are usually discussed in the context of someone "stealing" an idea from the long suffering lone inventor that devoted his life to creating this one brilliant idea, blah blah blah.
But in the majority of cases in software, patents effect independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement.
Why should society reward that? What benefit does it bring? It doesn't help bring more, better, or cheaper products to market. Those all come from competition, not arbitrary monopolies. The programmer that filed the patent didn't work any harder because a patent might be available, solving the problem was his job and he had to do it anyway. Getting a patent is uncorrelated to any positive attributes, and just serves to allow either money or wasted effort to be extorted from generally unsuspecting and innocent people or companies.
Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. Its basically mugging someone.
- JC
"Prior Art" is something that you use to defend yourself when you're being sued for infringement. The USPTO doesn't really take it into consideration during the process of granting a patent.
(Although they should.)
When will this stupidity end?
When you manage to coerce your elected representatives into.. I dunno... representing you?
A patent on something that almost everyone who has ever written a website marketing anything already does.
y'know, if they're asleep at the wheel anyway, it may at last be time to submit patent proposal #7,545,763: A system in which a central authority examines claims by inventors, selects which ones are original, and then protects said inventors from others copying their artifice.
Wow, "Communist Troll" got modded up. Somebody's drinking the Stalin Kool-Aid too hard today...
You are, of course, right...
But let me pose this question.
Why should a business practice that has been around for thousands of years be deserving of a patent simply because the retailer in question operates a different type of store? Mom & Pop shops have been making suggestions to customers based on past shopping habits forever.
Why does attaching the word "Internet" suddenly make this a new and novel idea?
It may seem stupid from a programmer's point of view. This is technology that several people currently use, and it's someone a half-decent programmer can easily implement.
However, look at it from Amazon's point of view. They're trying to make their business as unique as possible, and if it takes a few of these patents for them to keep their edge over their competitors, why not?
A lot of school's don't teach this side of technology to their students. Sure we learn how to implement ideas, but rarely do we realize that something we've developed can be patented and protected. I'm not defending them or anything, but just giving their point of view. They're smart for doing it, but it's damn annoying that we have to put up with it.
I don't know which possibility I find more disturbing: that Amazon would choose to enforce this idiocy, or that the move was made in the interest of preventing somebody else from doing so.
When did you lose your ideallism?
The belief that you know a thing is a most perfect way to prevent learning.
A. One, against BN.com
... software patent?
why doesn't slashdot print a story for every google or transmeta or
U2 has an album called "How to build an atomic bomb". Not a smart purchase if big brother is watching.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I would think that once patent lawyers stop making more money than the patent holders, both on creating and defending/enforcing unreasonable patents, these types of scenarios would be greatly diminished.
I've done the math, I know the odds, but I'm still disappointed when I don't win the lottery.
I suppose when I started making 6 figures...
But seriously, there are so many real problems in the world that people will pay you real money to solve. Patents are just part of the process by which humans solve problems -- and get paid for it!
Because the process is the same whether a computer or a person does it. If everyone is buying Gucci shoes, and you tell a customer that Gucci shoes are popular, why is involving a computer in the process "novel" when the process is exactly the same? Gucci_counter++; if Gucci_counter>popularity_threshhold then say "Gucci is popular, buy now!"
If the computer did something DIFFERENT then clearly something novel would be taking place. But because everyone who buys a PSP later buys a memory stick, you tell your next customer that most people buy a memory stick with their PSP, and they should too. But should a computer tell them this, based on the EXACT SAME PROCESS, they better be shelling out the big bucks to Amazon!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Because automating a process always makes it "new and novel". People can have babies pretty easily (usually), but you can bet your arse that if I figure out a way to automate it using machinery, I'm going to patent it (that way the Matrix will owe me money).
More concretely, another poster mentioned that all Ford really did was automate the manufacturing process for cars. Are you diminishing his contribution to the industry? Are you suggesting his work wasn't a contribution?
"Stumble before you crawl"
I am not sure who told you that but you are dead wrong. The patent office makes a search of the prior art and if your invention is anticipated by the prior art, or is obvious inview of it, you get rejected.
Searching for prior art is the primary function of a patent examiner
I bought "Vanishing Point" when it first came out in DVD. Bought it on Amazon since I had them email me to let me know when it came out. Vanishing Point is a movie from the 70's that has Barry Newman as a damaged soul -a spiritually and mentally drained man driving a souped up car in 24 hours from Denver to San Francisco breaking all the speed laws along the way until he has every police car and helicopter on his tail. They can't catch him as he pops uppers and has flash backs to the turning points in his life. You feel for Kowalski and you feel his pain. You are stunned when in the end he steps on the gas and drives his car into the road block made of two huge bulldozers. A stunning unexpected ending and one that makes you think about what you just saw. A movie that makes you think and examine your own philosophy of life. A cult movie. So now why does Amazon always want to show me that idiotic Vin Diesel movie Fast and Furious? Ahhhhhh --- no! Sure both movies have fast cars but that doesn't make them the same! That's Amazon's way of figuring out what I like. Nice try but they are wrong. Needless to say I don't trust their recommendations.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
The guy at my neighborhood hardware store knows more about my buying habits that I do. In fact, when I needed some shingles to patch around a skylight, he knew (before I told him "Uh, brown?") which shingles I needed. He had kept some from my last order, 5 years ago, just in case I ever needed some.
He also knows that if I look at sandpaper, I may need some other sandpaper or mineral spirits or screws or glue or something else. He knows what "something else" is by seeing what I've looked at on my trip through his store.
I hope he doesn't get sued for infringing their patent. I might need to patch my roof again soon.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Once the human race destroys itself. It's looking to be sooner every day...
When the corporate takeover of the government ends. The USPTO is acting in the interest of the technology industry, not the public. Same with the FDA. The FDA sees pharmaceutical companies as clients -- it doesn't even know it's supposed to be a regulatory agency. OSHA is basically asleep. Until public campaigns are financed by public dollars, the situation will only get worse.
other types of intellectual property
What kind of property did you say? 'Intellectual' property is a contradiction in terms. You can't own an idea. Although you are free to try.
I think it's just sour grapes from those people that didn't think of
Patenting an obvious idea like this does not serve the public good in any way and neither amazon.com nor Bezos as any 'right' to it whatsoever. Can anyone seriously argue that Amazon would not have developed the system if they knew they coudn't patent it? Bullshit. This is not like a pharmaceutical corp looking for a return on the investment of billions in drug research. Recommendations based on past purchases is not some kind of 'invention'. It is just a marketing idea for frack sake.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
You see, the colonists hated the royalty because they were money without work, and the royalty hated the coonist because they had money buy no culture. The colonist for some reason thought that money made them equal.
So Even though the English crown had funding the Americas, at no small expense, the colonist just wanted to be rid of them. So george, who was a major in America under british rule, and with the platantion inherieted from his father, got a group of equally greedy people together to fight the british. Greed is definitely a good thing.
But when they got the country, they did not trust democracy. The president was elected by the elite of the elite. Only the elite could vote. Men of the wrong color and women, though possible human, could not vote. Too little has changed.
The freedom to persue happiness was a freedom to persue unfettered profit.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It's called How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, but thanks for playing,
I'm sorry but YOU'RE dead wrong.
I know that the rules read that way on paper, but it doesn't take too much intelligence to look at the patents that they've been granting lately to realize that "the rules" mean very, very little to a patent examiner.
There may be plenty of reasons to knock this patent. The fact that it automates something isn't one of them.
Hello, non-obvious clause. Nice to meet you...wait, where are you going? Come back here!
Did Henry Ford or James Watt patent their ideas, which, even today, are far more innovative than one-click or customer history?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> I suppose when I started making 6 figures...
Minimum wage is a couple hundred short of being six figures too.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Oops, make that *five* figures. Majored in math, not artithmetic or standup comedy. so shoot me.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Don't you see, that's the genius of it! Played forward, it's ordinary Bono and such. But backwards...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Some patents filed are pretty general and can be summed up in a few words like "using customer viewing histories to generate recommendations." This particular patent, however, is not all that general and is actually very detailed, yet broad.
It details not only the weighting system used to generate the recommendations (recently purchased + highly rated = higher weight), in the same category, but in other store areas as well. It weights differently based upon whether an item is placed in the cart, searched for, placed on the wish list, bid on in online auction(?), purchased as a gift, or merely favorably reviewed.
So, Amazon is basically saving their customer's viewing/browsing tendencies as data. Now, they've patented the usage of this data to generate more sales. It seems like a good idea to me.
and now back to the fallout shelter...
No, of course I wouldn't be so silly as to claim that Henry Ford's work wasn't a contribution to society. His pioneering of the assembly line was, to the best of my knowledge, a new and novel approach to the production of goods.
I will, however, claim that he didn't "automate" jack shit. He didn't have machines doing the work that people used to do, he simply arranged things so that one person did the same thing over and over, all day long.
I'll also claim that your argument is irrelevant. Any way you spin it, taking an established practice and simply implementing it in the programming language of your choice is not "new", "novel", or "innovative". It's simply shifting old ideas to a new platform. Yes, it's important work, and needs to be done, but it's not deserving of a patent.
sadly, that would only make it worse.
Then only the biggest of the big companies could patent everything.
Is this something to be proud of..?
I wasn't talking about this patent specifically. OP basically said that automating something shouldn't be patentable. That is wrong.
Well, I prosecute patents on a daily basis (probably about 50 every year) and therefore feel I have a leg to stand on when I speak about this. I can tell you that you have a very distorted view of the process. My statement os 100% correct and I stand by it. You pick out one or two cases with which you do not agree and then make generalizations and assumptions about the process which are just plain wrong.
It is because of the spread of disinformation like that in your OP that people fail to see what is broken in the system and not think about constructive solutions.
With all these patents floating around, how, exactly, does one write an e-commerce site these days?
On one hand, it might be argued that innovation is dead in this particular genre, and that anyone who needs this patented functionality should purchase a product that is licensed to use it. There is no need for developers to continually write new ways of doing the same things. Don't reinvent the wheel.
On the other hand, if competition is so good, why are these kinds of things patentable at all? By all means, write your own e-commerce site from scratch. There's no way any company would actually stoop to suing you for fees for things like 1-click additions and wishlists and clickable help icons.
So, seriously, how the hell can I develop a *usable* e-commerce site without breaking 50 patents owned by 40 companies? Is it possible? Or will I need to set aside a quarter million dollars to pay all of the different licensing fees?
Dammit, I meant to post that anonymously!
a method of obtaining patents for software innovations
Amazon will be safe from you, because your patent requires someone to innovate in order to break it.
If lawyers were allowed only 5 court-recinded patent registrations, then were either prohibited from registration, or required to complete a lawschool recertification, the number of frivilous patents would drop precipitously. If the examiners were held liable for negligence when proven in a court challenge, that would also go a long way. And if patents required a working model or prototype, they'd be a lot less fuzzy, easier to reject. A lot more would go to the copyright office, or the shredder.
--
make install -not war
I'm not too sure about this, but I think it might have been 'invented' in the 18th century--before the patent office existed. By invented, I mean discovered, since it's mathematics (which, by the way, is not patentable).
See Bayes theorem.
Is this the end of web usage mining? This patent really concerns me, as right now I'm in the midst of a university research project that deals with this very subject. There are lots of research papers out there right now that deal with creating recommendations based on user session history. What I really don't like is the apparent vagueness of the whole thing. There a lots of references to a "method" or the "invention" which seem very broad. There are literally hundreds of possible models and techniques that could be used to implement a recommender system based on user session history, from clustering, to neural networks, etc. This patent doesn't specify anything that is an actual specific "invention" much less something that hasn't already been presented in the literature for quite some time. It seems like this all-encompasing patent might very well spell doom for the whole field of web usage mining.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
OK, fine. I'll bite. You're the expert.
Please explain to me how the process of "making product suggestions based on the prior purchasing habits of the customer" is not covered by prior art.
I will, however, claim that he didn't "automate" jack shit. He didn't have machines doing the work that people used to do, he simply arranged things so that one person did the same thing over and over, all day long.
But that's what automation is. Each person was an unthinking cog in a machine that uses humans as parts. If it wasn't automation, then the assembly line workers could not have been replaced by robots.
Nobody will press your government to "bring you to justice", but Amazon is free to bring a civil suit against you in your country, and my guess is they have more money than you. So, even if they might possibly lose, they almost certainly will win because you simply do not have the cash to win. You lose. We all lose. It's not much different an than organized crime game.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Why all the fuss? Maybe because people like my mother (totally computer illiterate) came up with the same concept merely by wishing it existed, and because it's a relatively trivial concept (which should cause it to fail the obvious test, which I mention again later on).
Without even looking at the patent, I imagine it covers this basic idea:
Person A looks at Product 1, Product 2, and Product 3.
Person B looks at Product 2, Product 3, and Product 4.
Person C looks at Product 2 and Product 3.
Along comes Person D, who looks at Product 3. The program then goes and dredges up the viewing history of everyone that looked at Product 3 and noticed that (in this contrived example) all of them also looked at Product 2. It therefore offers Product 2 as a suggestion.
Now obviously with a much larger dataset some statistical analysis will need to be done to try to determine relavence, but that of course would be unpatentable since it's plain old math.
Seriously, this concept is ridiculous in its simplicity and obviousness, and when laid out this way, it should be crystal clear that it is in fact not a new concept at all, but has been in use, either consciously or subconsciously, for probably about as long as the concept of commerce has been around.
So what are they actually left with to patent? An idea that has been around for as long as commerce? Obviously not. Math? Again, obviously not. What exactly was patented? The idea that a machine can do that for us? How is that not obvious given the past 20-30 years, and the rapid push to have computers do everything for us?
Looks like MercExchange does and despite eBay not licensing their patents, others have.
Imagine ... soon it will be illegal to watch your customers as they move about your store -- because -- you know -- you could be watching what they're looking at, make inferences about what they're interested in, walk up to them, and *gasp* *shudder* proceed to walk all over Amazon's IP.
agree, the software world is too fast moving, 20 year long patents stifle more than they benefit, particularly 'submarine' patents... .GIF .JPG...
ah, then say that the patent is a subsidation for the small fry and bar the large company from it. Then just charge about 1K-2K for a patent, make some money, and pull for the little guy to boot.
Exactly ... except here, the computer doing it isn't ground-breaking or amazingly cool. It's just done on a grander scale than what can be accomplished by hand. And about you examples - nobody said stupid patents were a recent thing
I am Spartacus
Ok. Ok. I agree and sympathize with outrageous patents, but sometimes it sure seems like /. just needs one of these 'Patents B Wicked" every week or so to stoke the fires.
Point number one -- 1! the FIRST! Numero UNO! -- is this:
A computer-implemented method of using online browsing activities of users to identify related products, comprising:
So, then, why are so many people suggesting that Amazon has patented suggestive selling at the brick-and-mortar level?
I get it! I see the parallels! But I think folks are giving Amazon too much credit and the USPTO to little short-sightedness on this one.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
No, that's not automation, it's redistribution of duties.
Sure, it made automation a simpler task to accomplish down the road, but it wasn't automation.
By your line of reasoning, anybody with a job at less than an executive level is "unthinking". That's not a fair assesment. I, for one, have had my share of "mindless" jobs, especially in my youth, but I have never considered myself to be "unthinking".
Wasn't Amazon actually the first to come up with this system? If not, head over to the internet archive and show us the prior art! Everything is obvious once someone has shown it to you.
How we know is more important than what we know.
So if I patent thinking, you won't mind being lobotomized to avoid infringing my patent. After all, it would just be sour grapes to object. Yes?
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Yeah! And a fax machine is just an envelope that goes through the telephone!
How we know is more important than what we know.
Can't we get some sanity back?
No. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to flying off my roof...
Similar to the upcoming US election results
But anyway, thanks for backing up my central message that the US is not run by the people and for the people but instead by big business for their own purposes, which is why they get to patent and turn into property knowledge and ideas which (as Thomas Jefferson said) should be free to us all.
I actually have a direct example of prior art that pre-dates this patent by over 2 years. Back in 1999, whilst working with Broadvision in both the UK and US, I was involved in a number of projects that implemented the exact method described in the patent.
Getting this absurd patent overthrown would be absolute child's play for anyone familiar with mapping taxonomy systems to observation logging and user ratings, which were common practice for anyone using systems such as Broadvision back in the late 90s.
Intellectual property is a common term -- a blueprint for example.
And what does the "public good" have to do with anything? This isn't China and it is called capitalism.
And besides the obvious virtual part of this patent, sales staff have been doing it for a while now.
Its called sales, and you can find out lots of other great tactics at your local library, and now apparently the patent office is a repository of knowledge, so you may want to check there as well.
Maybe I should patent using the patent database to lookup known facts and mathematical formulas. Its definately looking like a trend that is on the increase.
So, if Amazon files a stupid patent A, and then later files another stupid patent B, USPTO can recommend Amazon to file yet another stupid patent C.
has become.
They will eventually patent something that infringes on other patents (if they haven't already, I'm just waiting for conflicting patents to make it to the news.)
The lawyers will have a field day picking over the carcass of the ignorant six year old who allowed the patent.
The whole whorish system is busted and had been since Reagan made the patent office 'a profit centre.'
Proof that his Alzeimer's was already advanced by the time he was elected.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
At the time the patent was filed, it was extremely uncommon for systems to make automatic recommendations based solely on the behavior of users. When I did my work at Alexa Internet (which was acquired by Amazon) in the late 90s, I had to solve a number of issues which had not been dealt with, both from an engineering perspective and from a quality of results perspective -- few companies, and no academic researchers that I am aware of -- had both the amount of data and the technical talent required to process it in order to test and refine recommendation systems based on transactional information.
My work in this area became Amazon's "customers who shopped for X also shopped for Y feature." Greg Linden, the first name on this patent, is now doing interesting recommendation work with his site Findory.
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu / blog / pics.
we see these patents causing havoc at our local stores. "Amazon patents methods of shopping cart navigation." Everyone will have to walk around with those little blue hand-baskets.
"Lame" - Galaxar
They're trying to make their business as unique as possible, and if it takes a few of these patents for them to keep their edge over their competitors, why not?
The patent system does not exist to be exploited. Come up with another name for it and I'll buy you a soda.
As you said--"currently in use, easily implement:" not patentable.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
Prior art, as defined by the patent office, is previous patents. Oh and obvious things like rocks and wheels. So if it hasn't been patented yet, and the examiner doesn't use one in his daily life, you can patent.
That's great for physical things, but it doens't really work for intangibles like software and business practices.
It also doesn't work where you're starting the patenting process after you start the technology process. I'm sure, back in the 1700s when they created patents, someone tried to patent attaching a horse to a buggy, but the examiners understood horses and buggies enough to disallow that.
Until 10 years ago or so, software or business practices weren't patented. Software was copyrighted and business practices were trade secrets. The examiners understand neither software nor business practices, but we're letting them rule on the right to patent them.
-markr If one just keeps walking, everything will be all right. - Kierkegaard
Ah..., I see. I agree that automating something can at times be a valid patent, as your example with Ford and Watt.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Welcome to the real world and the economic engine that is capitalism.
The world you live in has nothing to do with capitalism anymore.
Capitalism was, MAYBE, present during 1950-60's, but what people are experiencing now is something so deformed it needs a new name.
Just go browsing around for porn and childrens books, or other such non related material. I don't think they do sell porn, but I think you can understand my point. The way I browse for items anyway my data is completely useless.
Oh you are interested in "The Cat in the Hat", other customers who were interested in this also were interested in "Backdoor Bandits 5"
The fact that it automates something isn't one of them.
The problem is that in so many cases that we hear about, it is. VisiCalc simply performed the exact same calculations an accountant did by hand (or on a calculator). This is not ground breaking, this is just doing math faster.
I'm not arguing that "automation" is grounds for automatic dismissal of a patent, after all, Photoshop's lightening process isn't the same as increasing the exposure on some piece of film. But that doesn't mean it should be grounds for automatic approval of a patent, as the patent office seems so fond of doing.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
You don't believe that accomplishing the same thing faster isn't worthy of a patent? Before Visicalc, an account would create a large spreadsheet by hand. Then his boss would say, "what if we sold 3000 units instead of 2800" and the accountant would have to recalculate everything. With a spreadsheet, he enters in one figure and everything is re-calculated in an instant. Why isn't that useful and novel?
Think of the legal system as like Professional Wrestling.
When the bell rings, the big company lawyer steps in to shake hands, grapple, and decide if he's facing another professional heavyweight.
If so, they go seventeen rounds, make money, and provide entertainment.
When you go to work for a company and they hand you a contract full of boilerplate taking ownership of any idea you have now or ever afterward, it's one of those events.
When a company gets one of these obvious patents, it's another of those events.
IF NOBODY FIGHTS BACK, the big company wins by default.
THAT is our legal system. They claim whatever they can imagine -- and wait to see if there is a comparably entertaining and well paid legal team on the other side.
If you sign their first draft employment agreement, you lose.
If you don't fight their patent, you lose.
What y'all are missing is the fact that the referee does NOT work to protect you in this kind of event.
The referee is there to keep the entertainment going.
The big companies expect to win some of their absurd essays in taking everything, because nobody objects.
The Patent Examiner is part of the show, folks, part of the illusion that keeps people watching the show instead of saying, hey, this is just a big bully stomping people. Oh, no, it's a refereed match.
mathematics (which, by the way, is not patentable).
The difference between applied mathematics and software is functionally semantic. You can't patent an alogrithm, but you can patent an algorithm.
The difference is that the mathematical community is self-policing. Everybody knows the status of prior art, and while infringement allegations aren't uncommon, they're settled with good old-fashioned hostility, oneupsmanship, and secrecy bordering on paranoia. A friend once remarked that the competition was so fierce because the stakes are so little.
Off-topic, I hear in the new movie, Willy Wonka takes Slugworth to court, alleging encroachment of certain delicious chocolates and wonderful toys.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
Those of us in the field, on the ground, so to speak, will decide whether the USPTO is on crack or not for a particular patent. We will ignore stupid patents approved by idiot government officials, and pay attention to the ones that make sense. This way, the industry can progress at an efficient pace, and we will send a message that the government doesn't own us.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
What similar items do customers ultimately buy after viewing this item?
Explore Similar Items: 8 in DVD, 1 in Video, and 1 in Computer & Video Games
...suggestion section on Amazon.
(Which has a striking resemblence to what is described in the patent.)
The first thing I thought was "Damn, that's a great idea. Why doesn't everybody have this?"
That's exactly it. "Why doesn't everybody have this?".
If the idea is so *obvious* why haven't other e-tailers implemented it already and by doing so won my business away from their competitors?
Did some prior Amazon patent cockblock the world from deploying this "obvious" tool or is Amazon actually innovating in ways that others aren't and producing usuable value-added services while others arent?
I can't think of this in the same way as other "bad patents" which always seem to prey on technologies that have almost entirely developed, implemented and marketed by someone other than the patent holder.
Unlike quick buck bastards of the world, Amazon is acually developing and using this IP to their and my advantage *before* most everyone else. With that said, I can't blame or condemn them for this.
Blockbuster was printing "If you liked this, you might also enjoy" on the back of their video tapes years before Amazon existed, which I'm sure was based on the same kind of statistical data. Amazon has no claim here!
Did anyone bother to ask the customers what they want?
The quickest way around bs patents such as these, is to do it, but change it just enough.
...
You are allowed to record the history
You are allowed to datamine your records to come up with recommendations.
Put a middle tier in the middle of the algorithm and you've made it more flexible (you can store information from the cart, history, users personal info, etc..) all combined at the same time in some funky calculation to come up with recommendations for products.
Therefore by adding a middle tier to abstract the viewers history from the recommendation, you've subverted the patent and you have a more robust piece of software.
Just because there is a patent does not mean the patent outlines the best way to implement the problem at hand.
Tomorrow on slashdot
new patent for
Disclamer:
Did not rtfa/p ()(*$@! reading patents, your better off if you don't know)
I wonder wether I would be able to patent the process by which the human mind arrives at a solution to a problem, and also the process by which it comes up with new ideas.
-pc.
http://www.cmi.ac.in/~prakash
I had the opposite experience: when I saw it I thought -- hey this is what occured to me last month.
See you
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
I remember reading about a patent that allows a system to infer what songs you might like based on how your preferences overlap ("triangulate") with others who like similar songs. It does not analyze the song is itself, just the graph (network) of preferences of zillions of people.
If one uses that algorithm on products, does it still violate Amazon's patent?
Table-ized A.I.
Your enemy gets the stupid patents, you ignore them, then they sue the crap out of you and your business goes under. (Or, incurs millions of dollars in costs in a multi-year legal battle to prove the patent(s) are invalid).
It's a lose-lose situation. The best thing we can do is organize and fight for reform of the patent system. Software patents fuck everything up and have no useful characteristics for society whatsoever. All they do is give huge corporations an anti-competitive weapon. They do nothing whatsoever to promote progress or innovation.
I was browsing the patent database
How many people in slashdot have this listed as their favourite pastime?
...patent the process of applying for patent :p
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
It's a patent on connectionist networks...
Lovely!
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
It's already in the public domain in many fashions. This is the issue.
When I walk into my neighborhood Ford dealership and ask the salesman about car A, then car B, the salesman says - "hey, you might be interested in this car over here" knowing a bit from my past choices what I like. This is freakin' common sense.
Now if I do this on a website I'm infringing?
Ironic that CommunistTroll gets modded "Insightful" and you get modded "Funny".
Slashdot sucks. *sigh*
My other first post is car post.
First off, patents are not innately evil. Whether we like or not, there is a sound economic argument defending the purpose of patents; to promote R&D and innovation by offering financial protection and rewards for the investment of time and resources necessary to innovate.
Remember, on the one hand, patents can discourage competition when large companies patent items that prevent small companies from legitimately competing with them, and this is bad. But on the other hand, small companies can both enter and capture a new market and sustain themselves against assault from larger companies with exponentially greater resources, merely because of owning an innovative patent; this is good. Without protecting their intellectual property through the all-important barriers-to-entry of owning a patent, most small companies would never make it out of the gate.
Also, as much as most forward-thinking companies would like to change the way of the world, the fact generally remains that they still need to play by the same rules of the game as everyone else (i.e. the competition) while they are still the rules. If they fail to do so, they probably won't last long waiting for another company to come in, receive the relevant patent, and sue the pants off the new-world company. This might not be the idealistic approach, but it seems to be fairly realistic.
Nevertheless, the crux of the issue still remains; the USPTO needs to undergo substantial reform to focus their issuance of new patents on appropriate items.
Because it is something obvious to someone versed in the art.
But didn't VisiCalc "merely" automate something that accounts did for a long time. Doesn't a spell checker "merely" automate something that people do anyway? When a computer copies a file from one disk to another, isn't it "merely" doing something that could be done by hand? When you use Photoshop to brighten a picture aren't you "merely" automating something you can do in a darkroom?
and because these processes are just an automation of a system that already exists, the software automation shouldn't be patentable... copyrighted for sure, but not patentable.
Doing Math with a machine would be something novel and worthy of a patent. Writing a piece of software doing a different subset of simple arithmetics on an existing machine is not.
Linux is not Windows
It's time to file a superpatent which contains a method
to generate any patent with given stupidity level!
(oops. Delete this please or I'll loose millions!)
I have YET to purchase a single thing from Amason. Their prices (especially on nerd-type books) aren't that good anyway. I get mine from Nerdbooks.com. The services is always very good, and prices are outstanding.
Prices aside, I will NOT support a company that continues to rape the meaning of the word "innovation" by patenting rediculously obvious methods.
Come on now, ever ordered food at McDonalds and been offered "fries with that". You can't patent this!! So, what's the deal now - everything that can be done in real life, then done again on the computer can be patented?
We used to have to write letters, now we type them. Why not patent the process of pushing a key on a keyboard?
Christopher Latham Sholes patented the typewriter in 1868 (reference) - though dead, his family could get very very rich soon, as long as the USPTO can keeps this act going.
"Only victims make excuses" - Bob Dunwoody
Only victims make excuses
"Would you like fries with that?"
Um, Stalin != Communist.
Stalin == State Capitalist.
Read more.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Because they are not patenting a method to do it faster. They are patenting the ability to link together purchasing habits and make recommendations.
In any case making such a process faster is trivial nowadays. It just takes one programmer with some free time to implement it. And because of this simple fact, such an "invention" does not deserve a patent. It does not bring substantial technological advancement and does not solve any problem that was complex to solve before it's existance. After all that's what computers are for... automating tasks. Back when the Visicalc didn't exist it was quite different... they didn't really have a tool to achieve that goal.
diegoT
Please explain to me how the process of "making product suggestions based on the prior purchasing habits of the customer" is not covered by prior art.
This patent is much more detailed then simply 'making product suggestions based on the prior purchasing habits of the customer'. It covers things the user looked at, things other users looked at after looking at the thing the user is currently looking at, and a few other things. From the summary, "relationships can be determined between items for which little or no purchase history data exists". And "In a third implementation, the recommendations are generated by monitoring the products viewed by the user during the current browsing session, and using these as the "items of known interest." The resulting list of recommended items (products) is presented to the user during the same browsing session".
So, while I still don't think the patent is a good idea, it does seem to be specific enough to be called unique.
fundamentally, those are the same thing.
There are only two cases where communism can work. One is coerced managed economy. A despot is probably a requirement. example: USSR
The other is a purely voluntary communism. A despot may also be necessary, but it's ok because there's no coersion. example: linux*
Only one of those has succeeded in any way.
*part of the success of linux (and other GPL communist projects) is surely due to the fact that freeloaders cannot diminish the project. Everyone is free to contribute or not, but there will always be a net improvement. Real communism cannot claim that advantage: freeloaders consume real resources which diminishes the community wealth.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
When some company patents not buying their product!
Their prices on books may not be that great, but they have some absolutely great deals on electronics and housewares. Consistently some of the best available online. Also, their customer service has been nothing short of absolutely amazing to me.
this ridiculous patent, may we also suggest one-click shopping?
-- This void intentionally left null.
Why is this novel? Because it is applied to shopping? Or making a profit?
Def'n of correlation
Granted, Amazon was doing it first, but Apple's iTunes is probably the single largest infringer of this "patent"... It does all of those things. Perhaps Apple will try and get it overturned?
www.play.com have had this for ages (possibly years).
Big deal.
Look, the public pay for the patent beyond the filing fee - we restrict ourselves voluntarily and we also pay for the enforcement of the patent. So, what do we get in return with this patent? Would Amazon not have done it? No. Would they have been able to keep it secret? No.
So we got bugger all.
It covers things the user looked at, things other users looked at after looking at the thing the user is currently looking at, and a few other things.
Yeah. Exactly the sort of things that the owners of "Mom & Pop" joints have been watching for almost a thousand years.
Whooptie freakin' do....
Taking a computer and using it to do old things is NOT a new idea...
You want a fuckin' patent? Do me a favor and come up with an original idea, eh? Or do you lack the brainpower for that?
I have to concur about their service. I recently mistyped the address on an order for a book that I wanted delivered to an office where I was doing some work at the time. The delivery failed ofcourse. They didn't ask me anything, just told me the address was incorrect and refunded me the full amount INCLUDING postage. Amazon might not be the greatest place on earth but to me that was better service then I'm used to.
:-(
I mostly deal with Amazon.co.uk, and I over the past few years found that their prices are almost always among the lowest I can find. One thing that bugs me is that they haven't set up shop in The Netherlands yet so no free shipping for me
beauty is only a light switch away
If a method/action has been used in real life for hundreds of years then you are free to patent that method/action in the context of computing with purely theoretical speculation. So for example:
"A method of encoding information or data into structurally organised units, visually represented by a set of symbols which can be laid out to form a mentally recognisable concept. Such a method would is not limited to one set of symbols or organisational rules. Storage of encoded information can be achieved through the use of look-up tables to produce a short binary code for each symbol. In addition to the aforementioned method of symbol layout or 'text', the use of space between symbols will denote separation of symbol units henceforth known as 'words' and additional symbols to support the separation of related 'words' into logically coherent blocks or 'sentences'. Symbols or 'characters' will be given phonetic properties to aid audible transmission."
I think you should all be aware that my patent passed this morning, please cease and desist.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The original purpose of patents was to protect inventions and thus provide incentives to innovate. This would improve productivity, as what is the point of working if someone is going to steal your idea? Patents were a good idea at the time, and for many things still are a good idea.
... I accept some and not others). The actual idea, however? Has K-Mart patented the layout of their shelves? No! And they'd probably be laughed at if they even tried. So what's with this "business methods" nonsense? Just another way for businesses to be inefficient.
Software patents are an example of the protectionist mentality that seems to abound in many first-world countries. Business: "We can't compete with country X, we're going to have to fire people." Government: "Uh oh, can't have that, here's lots of money." or "We'll tax the imports so much that you can charge more and get away with it." Such behaviour is the opposite of the original purpose of patents. Further, it's bad for the consumer as (for example) US sugar is a lot more expensive than Australian sugar. If we were truly productive we wouldn't need a Free Trade Agreement - international competition would be the norm. Most of our primary industries would probably relocate to third-world countries, I don't deny that, but there are plenty of tertiary (services) industry jobs out there and that is where the first world should focus. Instead, we protect our "rights" to be inefficient and to take money from our own pockets to put into the pockets of the corporations. It's crazy!
I can actually understand this patent, though. There are worse ones out there (and don't even get me started on the extension of copyright). In this case, Amazon has come up with a way to encourage you to buy more stuff, by basically doing targeted advertising. It's really rather clever, and the algorithm they use probably should be patented (assuming you accept the idea of software patents
I'm sure tweaking the system and getting it to work with large amounts of data was not trivial.
But does this make it worth a patent?
The idea behind patents was to give people an incentive to share their inventions by granting a temporary monopoly on their implementation.
But is sharing this invention in the form of a patent worth anything? If you had to implement the system after another company filed an application with an identical text, would it have substancially reduced the work you had to put into it?
So implementing something with a computer cannot be original if it exits in the real world? Wouldn't that make AI un-patentable because people are prior art?
You asked for someone to 'Please explain to me how the process of "making product suggestions based on the prior purchasing habits of the customer" is not covered by prior art'. I answered that 'making product suggestions based on the prior purchasing habits of the customer' is not what this patent is about, so your point is irrelevant.
Please, come up with an argument that addresses the topic, and don't attack me just because you made a mistake in your first post. Or do you lack the brainpower for that?
When the U.S. has a revolution.
Lets face it, most of our apparatchiks in office give a flying fuck for what most of us stand for or believe in.
Our current government is so irredeemably corrupt, that fixing it would take much more effort and be more complex than simply replacing the 'system' with something more logical and fair.
However, due to the inherent apathy, laziness, and stupidity of the general U.S. population, it will be 2-3 generations before the populace finally wakes up and realizes the situation at hand and takes action. The only silver lining to this cloud will be that the corporate and plutocratic scions responsible for these actions will pay for their overbearing greed with their lives, giving at least a couple of generations a government worth being proud of.
OK, so what is the patent about?
Enlighten me, please...
So all we have to do is convince Amazon to patent stupidity?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's about recording users moving through the site and using that usage data to suggest products.
It is not about 'making product suggestions based on the prior purchasing habits of the customer', as you claimed.
It is about making product suggestions based on the prior purchasing and browsing habits of the customer and prior purchasing and browsing habits of other customers. It weights these recommendations and displays them to the user.
This still may not be 'original', but a case could be made that it's unique if the weighting system is sufficiently complex.
Basically, this is a patent on a case-based reasoning application. Its uniqueness is in the specification of the similarity function. However, any case-based reasoning application has to specify a good similarity function, or it won't do its job.
So, did they get a patent on case-based reasoning? That seems ridiculous to me.
Did they then get a patent on a similarity function? What is innovative about that? They have a problem domain and must provide a good function to rate cases in that domain. It is the domain that determines what makes a good function. Give a bunch of programmers and/or mathematicians the job of finding a similarity function for this domain, and what Amazon patented is what they will quickly come up with. So, in this case obviousness should invalidate the patent.
Also, if they got a patent on a similarity function, then anyone who uses a slightly different similarity function should be safe. But, of course, Amazon will claim that they now own the whole approach of case-based reasoning for recommending products.
It is not difficult to make something unique by adding details, such as a specific similarity function. However, uniqueness is no guarantee for non-obviousness.
Oh, I see.
It's not so much the purchasing habits as it is the browsing habits...
Wow, that's innovative! Can you imagine what the world would be like today if retailers had though up such an idea 20 or 30 years ago?
Yawn.....
No. Aside from missing my attempt at levity, your analogy is wrong. Online retailers don't just shove things into your shopping cart because they think you might want it...they ask, and they suggest, and you indicate your interest by adding the suggested item(s) to your cart. This is nothing like your Sam/Norm analogy.
How many people have been into a music store, bought a CD, and had somebody say, "Oh, you'd like [enter band here]? You should really check them out."
The person has associated the music you're buying with something else of the same taste.
If this can't be patented in real life, why should it be patented in software?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Would you people fuckin' wake up just for a second and realize that an old idea is an old idea, even if you happen to throw a computer into the mix?
FFS, using a computer to do things that human brains have seen as obvious for hundreds of years does not magically make something "innovative".
I'm not saying this patent is a good idea. Not at all. I'm saying you didn't read the article, made an incorrect claim and are now trying to cover by telling 'us people' to 'fuckin' wake up'.
Grow up.
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Seems the way to get around this by the wording of the patent is to rely on data from this and other sessions, not just one. Now this of course is less targeted because you might be searching for something completely different one day to the next. Either way I think this is total crap.
Back at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution someone had patented driving machines with belts and wheels... or gears... or the ball bearing... or nuts and bolts... chances are we would still be walking everywhere and electricity would be someting crazy people created using jars of acid...
The kind of obvious stuff that is being patented today is the equivilent of the nuts and bolts kind of stuff back then...
[The Universe] has gone offline.
It's called Corporatism which is a form of Fascism in which large corporations call the shots. In our form of capitalism money doesn't just talk, it swears and curses louder than anyone can imagine. It buys democracy and justice and walks all over any form of decency or common egalitarianism. And it is only going to get worse.
Am I going to get sued when, inferring that since I like Musical Artist A, and my friend likes musical artist A, and also likes musical artist B, that I should give artist B a chance?
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
OP basically said that automating something shouldn't be patentable. That is wrong.
If it's a simple transcription (copying!) of the manual process it shouldn't be patentable.
To pretend that a computer, a tool for encoding intellectual work, mystically makes something special is nonsense.
And that's ignoring the completely unproven idea that software patents and government interference in the citizen's business is needed to encourage "software innovation".
---
I love the free market zealots who think monopoly is a good thing.
YASP [Yet Another Stupid Patent]
The "cost" of filing a patent is much greater than that. I would estimate that the total cost of securing a software patent soup-to-nuts is about $15,000 to $20,000 (that is a low estimate). However,the patent office only gets between $1,000 and $2,000 of this in filing fees. The rest is attorneys' fees. If the patent office raises its fees it will make it much more difficult for small inventors to apply for patents. The large corporations will happily agree to higher fees since its just a drop in the bucket to them and it shuts out the small inventor who competes with them.
/., I don't think anyone from Congress hangs around here.
But the problem is more fundamental than that. For decades, Congress has "diverted" funds from the patent office. That is, much of what the patent office collects in fees is taken away and thrown into the general budget for things like social security and other agencies. Many argue this constitutes an unconstitutional tax on inventors that goes to pay services unrelated to the original reason for the tax. Every year Congress says it will correct the situation but nothing gets done. Like I said before, the real players have no incentive to improve the quality of examination at the patent office.
The other problem, of course, is the pathetic way the USPTO is run. They have wasted billions of dollars in bungled atttempts at automation over the past 10 years. The system is a bunch of cobbled-up outdated technologies which, if you ask anyone who uses them on a daily basis, dont work. However, the higher ups pretend that they do and declare that due to all the automation no more examiners are needed. Generally speaking, the top job at the USPTO is given to a career politician who wouldn't know a patent if it bit him in the arse. They use the job as a springboard to a better office and leave the USPTO in worse shape than they found it. It is a disgrace.
So, if you are really interested in improving the system, write your congressperson and complain about the situation at the USPTO but you should not blame the examiners (BTW, I am NOT and examiner). As much as I love
USPTO Patent Application number 42
Author: AmazonTitle of invention: Life
Abstract:
"Implementing a persistent self aware conciousness in biological entities."
Brief Description Of Invention:
hmm, maybe i could get away with patenting that!This invention specifies the process whereby a biological entity (in the desired embodiement a Human) uses a plurality of neurons aranged into a complex localised neural network (in the desired embodiement a brain) to implement a state of biological self-aware conciousness...
When will it be over? It will be over when the United States has to declare bankruptcy due to stupid policies such as the ones that give rise to bogus patents.
LOL, did it.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
I've never looked at nerdbooks.com, but Amazon's prices regularly beat any other major book retailer (both local and online). Plus, the free shipping on orders over $25 makes it even better.
Funny, but true. And since they only ask about the fries if you're getting a sandwich, it's contectual.
Of course, this does not invalidate the patent, as Amazon is doing this _on the internet_, which makes it completely novel.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
When will it end?
Hmmm. People use the address bar to type in Amazon.com - therefore we now patent the use of browsers, keyboards, and monitors.
But wait! In order to effectively type our patented brand into our patented browser using our patented technology, users have to send electrical nerve signals from their brain to their fingertips, to cause muscular movement. All of these cells are supported by a system that continuously pulls oxygen from the blood, and transports waste carbon dioxide to the lungs.
Therefor we request a patent on all biomechanical movement, electricity, and oxygen.
We also patent the millions of years of evolution including all single-celled organisms that were the starting point of the development of the Amazon.com brand.
God? You're next.
Single? Canadian? We can help. Visit http://www.l
"I was browsing the patent database, and..."
;o
m l)
Everything you read can and will be used against you.
I don't know the rest of the Miranda rights, only that part.
(e.g., Better off not reading these bad things. https://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/essays/2002/2ip4.ht
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
I wonder how the patent would affect netflix? They use prior history to recommend movies. What are netflix's options?
Go into any store (we'll use electronics as an example).
Look at a small television.
Look at some RCA cables.
Watch as salespeople try to sell you a huge plasma tv and/or component cables.
[ profit? ]
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
It would seem that the entire field of machine learning is prior art...
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
that I already patented the process of patenting the process of meta-patenting.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Crapitalism?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Comment removed based on user account deletion
by X.25 (255792) on Wednesday June 29, @12:14AM (#12938756)
Welcome to the real world and the economic engine that is capitalism.
The world you live in has nothing to do with capitalism anymore.
Capitalism was, MAYBE, present during 1950-60's, but what people are experiencing now is something so deformed it needs a new name.
Nah, the old word plutocracy works perfectly well.
I'd like a pony.
Seriously, though, the system is so borked right now that pretty much any suggestion of WHAT to do to fix the problem would be a step in the right direction. The problem is HOW to get the powers that be to enact those steps, as they are all profiting off of the problem and wouldn't profit off of the solution.
My current favorite idea is to convince the rich and powerful that greed is destroying their quality of life. I know this flies in the face of free market ideology, but greed and competition destroy intrinsic motivation. Satisfying intrinsic motivation is inherently more enjoyable than satisfy extrinsic motivations such as profit.
Excess profit also isolates individuals from real connection with other human beings. The rich and powerful have few real friends, only temporary allies. They have no trust and can show no weakness. For most people this is an inherently stressful situation.
Doing away with excessive levels of reward, and bringing rewards more in line with actual contribution to society would help. No one needs to earn thousands of times more than anyone else to be motivated. A few dozen to a hundred times more is plenty for any sane, rational individual to experience maximum motivation. Society creates the rules that define value, and we supposedly create those rules to maximize benefit to us all.
The rules we have now seem to maximize benefit to a few, while the rest of us have been fooled into thinking that their interests are our interests. Even if they were, our current system doesn't even maximize value to most of the rich and powerful. They lack real human connection and many of them would be more satisfied persuing other forms of gratification if the profit motive were not so hideously over emphasized.
What we have now is a system that maximizes value to sociopaths and psychopaths who lack any sense of empathy and desire no real connection with others.
Psychopathitalism would be a good term.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
My meet-cute-girl-in-bookstore process...
I am browsing in the bookstore. I see a really cute girl pick up a book that I have read. So I walk over and say, "If you like that book, I think you will like this one".
Fortunately this is a patent, not a copyright. It will expire in ~20 years. (I can never recall the rules, but it is 17-20 years depending on a bunch of factors) Most of us are likely to live that long. There is no long history of increasing the length of patent terms over time to keep things patented.
Compare that to copyright. They will last longer than any of us have any hope of living. Everytime they are about to expire they increase the terms, so even things that are "close" to the end of their term are unlikely to get out in our lifetime.
This might or might not be bogus, but at least it will expire and be used by everyone in 20 years.
I'm about to patent "doing
Infringer! You reverse-engineered my process for "doing stuff with things".
I'll see you in court.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This "insanity" will end when China is the new world super-power. A federated Europe will claim second spot in the economic pecking order. The US will have to settle for third with us poor Canadians trying to leach a meager existence doing trade with the former champ.
Not that I would think of trusting China or Europe to be our saviours in all things related to policy! But on this one point, I don't see China rushing to endorse the kind of patent madness ruling the western hemisphere at the moment. Do you?
It took me two weeks to get them to redeem a gift certificate. In California, gift certificates/gift cards do not expire, regardless of the expiration date printed on them. So, I was trying to use a gift certificate at Amazon.com. Instead of giving any sort of error message at all, it would silently fail to credit my account. i tried Safari, Firefox, IE, Mozilla, Opera.. ruled out the browser. Tried another computer. same issue. I finally emailed them with a very detailed account of what I was trying to do and what the results were.
I got a canned response telling me how to enter a gift certificate. Since that didn't answer the question, I wrote back again. I got the same canned response. I replied expressing my concern over the lack of understanding of the issue. The reply? More useless drivel. I replied back to them yet again with a detailed explanation and insisted that they escalate the issue. I finally got a reply back asking for the entire gift certificate number so they could apply it manually. I gave them that. They replied saying that it had expired. I pointed out the California law. Finally, i got a reply saying that they had added the amount to my account.
This entire process took a couple of weeks.
i then ordered the DVD (concert video by the band Nightwish) - and they said it'd be delivered in 7-10 days. 7-10 days almost passed, and I got a shipping delay email. Rinse, lather, repeat for approx. 2 *months* - when i inquired about cancelling the order and getting a refund, I was told that they would have to issue me a gift certificate! Ugh.
Many many weeks later, the DVD was delivered.. only to be lost by the local UPS Store branch. I ended up ordering it *again* from cdconnection.com and I had it in 3 days.
Amazon sent me a double order once. They refused to take the second order back claiming I ordered it twice. Basic web technology should have prevented this. In fact there was no indication of order completion, no email acknowledgement.
No their customer service is not always good.
Plus they put insulting things in books I order saying the book isnot up to their standards. Then the go on to send me information on books they thik are related to this sub-standard book, and most of them are truly substandard. Illustrates their database of knowledge is based on book titles and not book content.
Exactly what happens when you use info from user searches and not true user feedback...
So, does this mean that my local bakery can't toast my bagel and put cream cheese on it when they see me come through the door. Will I have to wait in line, place my order and then wait until the other orders are fullfilled before my bagel begins to toast? Will they not be able to suggest that I try the new cranberry and cinnamon bagel they just made, what about the strawberry flavored cream cheese? Am I forever stuck with a plain bagel, plain cream cheese? I wish somebody would help clear this up for me, I am worried.
when as soon as a stupid patent is introduced, everyone starts delevolipn apps that infringe the patents and using them in a mass movement style action.
..... so I guess I am breaking the US law if I use that piece of software later on ...
....
Not necessary companies, but a waste amount of individuals.
I am not a patent lawyer and makes me wonder how a company comes after me if I start making software for devices that are US patents thing and sell them outside the US, or use them on online sites with servers outside the US.
Press button for 5 secs, view buyer history.....
I am really a happy Amazon customer and that patent does not personally bother me,... on the other hand I made a banner server once that serves ads based on what pages you visited on a site (product pages)
Patent laws are just plain stupid
"With a spreadsheet, he enters in one figure and everything is re-calculated in an instant. Why isn't that useful and novel?"
Usefull, yes. Novel, no. You seems to be arguing using a falacy here, not everything that is usefull is novel.
Rethinking email
>The proprietor knows you and your purchasing history.
Maybe, but he probably does not know your BROWSING history which Amazon's patent is based on.
" Because automating a process always makes it "new and novel"."
No, it doesn't. The most you can do is automate something using a novel idea, so you could patent the way that your baby maker machine works (so anybody else could develop a different baby maker machine and patent it also). But you can't patent the proces just because it was automated. It is not new.
Rethinking email
The first spreadsheet program ever was, by definition, the first program of its kind. If that isn't novel, then nothing is.
So basically, you think that there should never be a software patent. I think that is an extreme position to take. I agree with those who think that some patent applications are trying to patent the most trivial of "advances". But I don't believe creating an entire genre of software (the spreadsheet) is trivial.
I have never, nor will I ever buy ANYTHING from Amazon. I tell my friends and family not to buy anything from them, either, and am happy to find them alternative sources for the things they would otherwise buy from that "place". I won't accept gifts that I know were purchased from Amazon, and I am happy to tell anyone at every turn to stay the hell away from them.
However, most people who claim to hate/dislike stupid patents like this aren't willing to suffer a little and give up their Amazon habit, nor take up the mantle of doing all they can to send a message, the ONLY message people like Bezos will understand: a dent in his wallet.
To me, that is the same as complicity; hypocrisy at its worst. It's like being a politician. Rail about it in public, but enjoy the coosh of it in private.
If you buy from Amazon or do nothing to discourage others from buying from them, then don't bother telling me how much you dislike stupid patents. I won't believe you, because it is hypocritical BS.
Lastly, don't give me that "it's defensive patenting" crap, either. That's the most disingenuos pile of dung ever to hit the stall floor. Abuse of a system to prevent abuse of said system is about the lamest thing imaginable. Ever heard of "two wrongs don't make a right"? Using a lame patent to try and beat back a suit over another lame patent is not a deterrent and, as Amazon has already demonstrated, they intend to use their portfolio for more than simple deterrence anyway.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Free over $25. Where've I seen that before? Oh, right, on the order I just placed at the end of last week. ;)
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
Hmm. www.nerdbooks.com doesn't catalog used books on obsolete systems. Amazon does, even if it's through their affiliate used bookstores. Anyone have a useful alternative to Amazon in that case?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.
-Frank Zappa
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
I have YET to purchase a single thing from Amason. Their prices (especially on nerd-type books) aren't that good anyway. I get mine from Nerdbooks.com [nerdbooks.com]. The services is always very good, and prices are outstanding.
Though I've ordered a few things from Amazon, I haven't ordered anything from Amason either. Most of the tyme I prefer to get my books from B&N, Barnes and Noble. I like to be able to hold and read a book before I buy it.
Prices aside, I will NOT support a company that continues to rape the meaning of the word "innovation" by patenting rediculously obvious methods.
You mean Microsoft?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Hmm. www.nerdbooks.com doesn't catalog used books on obsolete systems. Amazon does, even if it's through their affiliate used bookstores. Anyone have a useful alternative to Amazon in that case?
For old and used books, Powell Books is good. Bookcrossings is also a good place to check though it's not a bookstore.
What is BookCrossing?
bookcrossing
Falconn. the practice of leaving a book in a public place to be picked up and read by others, who then do likewise.
Should there be a Law?
If the patent office worked, businesses couldnt steam roller little guys all the time.
Actually it was Sarnoff and his RCA that ripped off the television from Philo Farnsworth, tv's inventor.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The same is true for amazon that holds for *AA. As long as people continue to pay Amazon to continue this behavior, they will. I've done just fine buying hardware from other vendors.
The best part is that I'm not supporting the patent lunacy. You are.
Thanks! Now I know about nerdbooks.com too!
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
Shipping for a single book is $5 on nerdbooks.com while shipping is free on Amazon on orders over $25- and most of the nerd books appear to be over $25. So any savings you might get on certain books will be undercut by the shipping costs. I've been buying from Amazon for over 6 years and have never had any service problems. I agree that patenting something like that is silly, but have you taken a look at some of the patents in the US over the last few years? It's insane.
You don't seem to understand what everyone is saying.
Photoshop graphics effects: Novel. Nothing you did in a darkroom would ever approximate, simulate, or otherwise operate anything close to what photoshop does. They may or may not be "obvious" (for instance, making a photo brighter on a scale of 0 to 255 is obviously done by addition), but they are definitely novel.
Programming languages were novel at the time. Structured descriptions of what the computer was to do in a language closer to english than assembly or simply entering in the opcodes in binary by hand, that was new.
But guess what! Assuming that math can be novel again (which I still insist that unless you invent a totally new field of math, it's the same old, same old), that novelity wore off when the programming language inventor "invented" var x=y+2;. You claim that visicalc makes it novel because its "B2=A1+2" instead of x and y, yet variable names have been in use in algebra for hundreds of years. Substituting A1 for an unknown number is no more novel than substituting x for an unknown number.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
One of the ways to take it back to the original idea is to bar software patents altogether. The industry got along fine for YEARS without having to resort to it. While companies like ID may be proud over their new engine, use agreements prohibit anti-competitive acts like reverse engineering - at least legally.
But of course the USPTO won't reverse it's position on this, cause it obviously sucks money out of the little guys and produces more taxes from the big guys. So how do you solve it? Minimum requirements perhaps. Slap a compiled code size on what it takes to get a patent and then maybe stupidity over that 50k server process in the background won't bug the rest of the people in the world who're trying to make it better. The patents themselves would have to be algorythym-based, not process-based. The difference being that if I can patent a summary of my code in 5 sentences or less (process), I own the software market. But if I have to ensure my compiled size is large enough (complex algorythym) AND the source code is what's being patented, then it's harder for corps to bar the market to the rest of the small guys, like what happened with force-feedback. The alternative to that is for USPTO to only grant patents to individuals and not corporate or company names. That would help ease the whole "I worked on x for y hours, only got paid z, while the company is making 4000*z off my work". Unfortunately, that's not realistic either. Keeping corps happy is the govt's top priority, so it'll never happen.
> Maybe it is a good idea ... to break a patent ...
Not in the case of Amazon's patents, because Amazon REALLY invented statistics...