Slashdot Mirror
The Grinch Who Patented Christmas
theodp writes "The USPTO has reversed its earlier rejection and notified Amazon that the patent application for CEO Jeff Bezos' invention, Coordinating Delivery of a Gift, has been examined and is allowed for issuance as a patent. BTW, Amazon was represented before the USPTO by Perkins Coie, who also supplied Bezos with legal muscle in his personal fight against zoning laws that threatened to curb the size of his Medina mansion (reg.) before the City of Medina eventually gave up on regulating the size of homes (reg.)."
A patent on coordinating the erection of a tree for holiday purposes...
But if the required information can be found from other sources (as the patent describes) then the gift giver has supplied sufficient information.
So the patent doesn't apply to any possible situation.
were actually about his Santa-killing spiked chimney.
Yet another way for cam girls to get presents without exposing their address.
I've actually patented the opening of gifts. So take that, Bezos!
Things are heating up!
The concept of taking an order and then figuring out the address has been common in business practices for years. It is called get the cash then figure out how to meet the delivery. I ring them to get working on a major order, I then call back to confirm delivery instructions. I do this with hardware, or computer gear, or flowers. Flowers are typically a gift, so that would cover the prior art idea.
Most computer systems have the ability to modify the delivery address after the original input. Wouldn't this be prior art?
Seller: "Where's it going?"
Undercover patent police: "Melbourne"
Seller: "That's in Australia isn't it?"
UPP: "I'm really not sure..."
Seller: "Okay, I'll just check on the map..."
UPP: "Got you, you evil evil patent infringer."
Username: 67pnmoil
Password: 67pnmoil
Dinomite.net
It would be cool for a group of developmental psychologists to get together, do a really brilliant job organizing what they already know about the best techniques for raising children and training day care personnel, and then set up a company to patent them all Once their research eventually made it to the front page of nature, people would want to use it, but discover that they could only do it if they made their day care into a franchise. It might help get people's attention, especially if the day care patents are far more legally sound then this garbage, plus it might make some developmental psychologists and their financial backers very rich.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Why dont we try to patent "Protecting Intellectual Property from Theft"... They'd probably let it go through, too...
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
What the hell does the size of Bezos' home have to do with a patent? That's right, NOTHING! We have something in this country called liberty and if Bezos owns land and wants to build a house that uses 99.9% of it, he should be able to build it. City councils dictating to folks about the style and size of private homes is over the line. Safety standards and building codes are fine within reason.
Oh, and the patent sucks, Bezos is a jerk...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
So, when will we stop issuing patents for using a computer to do EXACTLY the same thing that was previously done without it?
Now, if we'll let Jeff patent using a computer for exactly what was done without it, the 1995 publication of doing exaclty the same thing in the electronic world should act as prior art. From rfc1801
VERY innovative JeffDon't get me wrong. I haven't got shares in YuleCo, and I can't afford a one-day end-user licence, so I couldn't have a legal party. I'd briefly considered buying from one of the budget competitors like XmasTym, or a spinoff from a non-specialist like Coca-Crissmas, but the idea of doing it on the cheap was just depressing. I wouldn't have been able to use much of the traditional stuff, and if you can't have all of it, why have any? (XmasTym had the rights to Egg Nog. But Egg Nog's disgusting.) Those other firms keep trying to create their own alternatives to proprietary classics like reindeer and snowmen, but they never take off. I'll never forget Annie's underwhelmed response to the JingleMas Holiday Gecko.
The EFF doesnt have the resources to do that. Niether do most small business's, thats a very large part of the problem. Large companies patents thousands of things every year.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
So, after reading the patent, as I understand it, I am allowed to look up a Zip Code for my personal enjoyment, but if I do it for a web client sending a package to someone, I have to licence the right to look up the freeken zip code !!!
Un Friggen Believable..
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
I hate the patent crazyness as much as anyone. But why so many stories about Amazon's patents in particular? Amazon is a relative lightweight in the patent scene. IBM walks to the patent office with a stack of patents every single week. I'm sure you can find plenty to pick on in their applications.
Not to mention that Amazon is often on the receiving end of patent aggression. If you look at Amazon's most recent 10Q, you'll see that Amazon is currently the defendent in five patent infringement lawsuits.
Pinpoint, inc. is suing Amazon for patent infringement related to site personalization.
Soverain Software is suing Amazon for patent infringement of four of their patents, including a "Digital Sales System" and "Digital Active Advertising."
IPXL holdings is suing Amazon for infringement of a patent titled "Electronic Fund Transfer or Transaction System."
BTG International is suing Amazon for infringement of a patent titled "Attaching Navigational History Information to Universal Resource Locator Links on a World Wide Web Page."
Cendant Publishing is suing Amazon for infringement of a patent related to recommendations.
If you despise patent aggression, Amazon is not your poster child for patent abuse. Not even close. Amazon is taking a lot more than it's dishing out.
Disclaimer: I work for Amazon, but of course do not speak for them.
Hey, the Stalin defense isn't as bad as Amazon's One Click Patent, therefore the Stalin defense is good in every possible way!
The real issue is there is no real penalty for patenting aleady used things. I think for each and every "instance" of prior art, there should be a fine of $500. If there are numerouse instances, then I think the patent holder should be guilty of fraud and thrown into jail...
B: Amazon (or at least it's founders) were involved in a failed orginazation that offered rewards to root out bad patents.
Amazon used work done by this organization to obtain yet another bad patent. I gotta admire the chutzpah and sheer size of their nads myself. It in the chutzpah department it even outdoes MS pulling IE for the Mac because "we can't compete with Apple on their own platform" or even "MS will now offer antivirus and spyware protection....".
What I would like to see is legislation that would prevent abusive companies like Amazon from launching such Denial of Service attacks on the USPTO, our economy and us as tax payers. Such abusive companies are filing thousands of ridiculous patent applications and counting on statistics to have a few of their riduculous patent applications slip through and get approved as well as to have initially rejected patent applications reversed. In the end those silly patents will get overturned and rejected, but it will cost us all a lot of time and tax payers' money.
There should be a law mandating that if a legal entity files more than a certain number of patent applications within a certain period of time (say, more than 5 within 30 days) and either more than a certain number of patent applications filed by that same legal entity within a longer period of time had been rejected (say, more than 5 rejected in the last 180 days) or the percentage of all the rejected patent applications ever filed by that legal entity exceeds a certain percentage (say, more than 25% rejected), then such a legal entity is only allowed to file no more than a certain number of patent applications per month (say, no more than 3 per month).
I look at this patent and it is so absurdly unoriginal that it should warrant rejection. Given that this patent was accepted, it amazes me that the concept of a Forum/Messageboard hasn't been patented already. And that's just one idea.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Maybe I'm too out of the loop, but does anyone have a list of big, generic, all-purpose online bookstores with good quality? With a global reach of course, since I'm not in the USA.
At the bottom of this article, nicely sums up my view of things. :)
What we need is either less corruption, or more chance to participate in it.
Not many people can compete with amazon on the scale that it does business. I believe that its secret is its supply and distribution chain. The can offer things for a lot cheaper than retail (compare best buy online with amazon one day) as well as have it out the door immediately. For instance, I ordered a digital camera for $180 that was retailing for $300. The order was shipped from Kentucky (guess they have more than one distribution center) and arrived at my house 2 days later. Shipping with two shippers involved was only $20. Amazon had it at their wharehouse docks on Sunday, before Fedex and UPS could pick up the order.
So, to summarize, Amazon is pretty cheap and gets their stuff shipped fast. Why wouldn't I keep buying from them? I agree that they didn't have much of a business plan when they started, but the factory production line styled assembly of people's orders was fairly innovative at the time and allowed the company to scale fairly well. Remember that a lot of dotcoms just didn't scale well and were never designed to get the kind of traffic in orders and sales that they ended up getting. It should be no suprise that they all failed where amazon succeeded because Bezos saw the growth possibilities and planned accordingly.
For what it's worth, amazon should have gone out of business a long time ago, but thanks to some questionable investing, they had enough liquidity to stay afloat in the red for the what, 2 or 3 years that it took for them to hone their business model into something that actually works and is profitable. Many dotcoms just didn't have the budgeting expertise necessary to keep themselves afloat to make their ideas work. They all blew their wad early and the Vulture Captitalists all started circling.
So, I wouldn't go and say that amazon did the same thing that all the other startups did and, even if I am wrong and they did, they were successful eventually which is something that none of those failed startups can ever claim.
zosxavius photography
The patent office could define obviousness anyway it chooses that fits the necessary criteria of 'invention' (i.e. something new) and 'not obvious to a practictioner in the field'.
Completely incorrect. The basic requirements set for something to be patented are set in 35 USC 101 (the types of things which can be patented), 35 USC 102 (novelty), 35 USC 103 (obviousness) and 35 USC 112 (requirements for disclosure). These are federal laws which were written by congress and approved by whoever the president was at the time.
The Judicial Branch of the government has the sole power to interpret the law. So whenever a case does reach the courts regarding patents the courts decision help define what constitues "obvious".
The patent office as part of the executive branch has no power to interpret the law as it chooses as must follow the interpretations given by the courts.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
I've also been walking the floors of the EP the last few weeks and have had the pleasure of speaking at various conferences where the likes of Francisco Mignorance (who both drafted part of the proposed legislation and now lobbies for it on behalf of the BSA), and Simon Gentry (who's C4C pretends to be on behalf of "creative people" but is actually a pure PR play) also took part.
The pro-patent lobby in Europe is very well funded, organised, and appears to control much of the legislative process itself.
For example, at the last SME roundtable discussion there were three representatives of real technology SMEs, a handful of MEP's assistants, and over 12 lobbyists, claiming to be small firms, but after the meeting, leaving together with Gentry. One of those occasions when I wish I'd had a camera phone.
I've uploaded a short statement that is aimed at MEPs and their assistants. We'll be distributing this to assistants. Anyone who wants to help (early Monday morning, Brussels) please drop me a line.
We've also made a satirical site that attacks the big business interests behind the push for software patents.
Finally, there is a demo in Strasbourg on Tuesday morning, and the FFII is organising busses from most of Europe.
If you can spare the time, put on a suit and tie and get yourself to Strasbourg for 8.00am on Tuesday.
A large and visible demo will help focus MEP's minds. They will probably vote on Wednesday and unless a near-miracle happens, by the end of the week we will be facing the US situation in Europe.
My blog
OK, I read the text of the patent. It is complete and utter hogwash. It's another one of those 'something+computer' or 'something+Internet' schemes. I know I've called for stupid patent action before, just to make a point, but maybe it's time for something more drastic. Let's take every non-computer, non-Internet patent in the USPTO database, liberally sprinkle the words "computer" and "Internet" in the body of the text, then submit them for patent.
There is prior art here. In fact, it's basically what UPS, FedEx, Airborn Express does already if there's a problem with a delivery. It's basically how the Post Office handles undeliverables. They contact the recipient based on additional information in their database, including home phone, business phone or e-mail.
Just look at the opener to the "invention's" background: The Internet comprises a vast number of computers that are interconnected for the purpose of exchanging information. Various protocols, such as the HyperText Transfer Protocol ("HTTP"), have been defined to aid in this exchange of information." You gotta be kidding me! Remember when you were in grade school, and there was always that one kid who opened his report with "Webster's defines 'x' as...'? That's what this sounds like to me. You know what Bezos and crew invented? They invented a way to transmit bullshit over the Internet.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I disagree, here's why
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(a) he invention WAS KNOWN OR USED by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or"
"A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically DISCLOSED OR DESCRIBED a"
These are subjective things 'known' 'used' 'disclosed' 'described' determined first by a patent examiner. The judicial branch only becomes involved later, when they are faced with the situation where the patent officer has already effectively accepted that it is not "KNOWN OR USED" or "DISCLOSED OR DESCRIBED " and are taking a challenge.
So the Judicial branch make their interpretation in the context that the patent officer has done his job.
If I'm wrong then please point me to US case law where the patent office has refused a patent because it is 'known' or 'used' and the courts have then set an interpretation that overrules them.
Which makes him worth 4.95 billion times more than Mother Teresa, right?
Because net worth is how to measure how important you are, and not how well you can game the system, right? Everyone who's rich deserves it, and everyone who's poor, too. Right?
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
Get a copy of the Book Burro Greasemonkey script for Firefox.
What does it do? All those Amazon links people put on their web pages still work, and you can still use Amazon product search. But it will give you a price comparison right in the browser (a little floating window on top of the Amazon page), together with links to order from other on-line book sellers.
There are other Greasemonkey user scripts that look up the book in your local library and do all sorts of other nice price comparison things for you.
Let me put to you a reasoning why when the courts determine high burdens of proof in patent challenges that they are actually strengthening the patent officers right to make a judgement call.
1) The patent law includes subjective elements and objective elements.
2) The patent officer decides on those subjective elements.
3) He decides to issue the patent based on his judgement.
4) Someone challenges the patent.
5) The courts decides that to overrule the patent officers judgement you need that high level of proof of X Y Z.
It's not that the court decided that patent officer needed that high level of proof X Y Z to refuse to issue the patent. It's that the courts have backed his judgement by default unless a high burden of proof is provided to overturn it!
The stricter the conditions X Y Z, the more the court is strengthening the right of the patent officer to make that initial judgement!
Again, if you disagree, can you bring me a case law example where the courts IN THE CONTEXT THE PATENT EXAMINER FACES have ruled that to refuse the patent that same high burden of proof of prior art and non obviousness.
Either a court challenge to a refused patent, or where the Judge specifically references an incorrect judgement call on behalf of the patent officer would do it.
But I have to put it to you that its just the US patent office refusing to do its job.
That 'invention' is clearly already *known* and *used* so he should not have been given the patent.
A company I used to work with applied for this same patent on 4/19/99. The amazon patent was filed on 7/12/02.
P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=frogmagic &OS=frogmagic&RS=frogmagic
See http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
So Jeff Bezos just patented calling the recipient to ask his mailing address or looking it up in the phone book.
I can see the phishing scams now.
"LandShark.com wishes to arrange delivery of a candygram gift to you. Please provide full delivery address and a time when someone will be available to answer the door..."
Obscure SNL "Land Shark" reference explained here:
What is a LandShark?
Trick-or-Treating LandShark
Jaws II
Jaws III
This: $25M estate is for sale. The guy who owned it was receiving $100M+ in compensation from the company he founded. ($ + stock) (he sold encyclopedia door-to-door as his last job before he founded the insurance company). He and another dozen+ suits were taking huge loans out of the company to load up on shares of stock. They bought a company which insured trailers (as in mobile home trailers - tornado magnets) and the company financially bounced pretty hard and most of them were tossed. They are now being pursued for repayment but are claiming they have no way to pay and will not declare bankruptcy.
...everything.
The funny thing is, they would have kept the money had the stock paid off but they don't believe they owe anything because the stock didn't pay off. The best part is Hilbert (said estate above) claims he's spent all of his money and has nothing more than a handful of millions left - as an aside: a substantial number of donations were made before the financial issues - hospital wings, orchestra, athletic facilities, etc. Mysteriously, his wife seems to have two substantial estates across the street from each other in Florida, etc. The Hilbert family attorney claims she's permitted to have her own financial status and it's no one else's business. read that: they've stashed the money in her name.
Who is she? The second Mrs. Hilbert. She was the stripper at Mr. Hilbert's son's bachelor party. I'm not kidding. The only thing she shouldn't have taken off during her routine is the bag she had on her head. Have you heard the phrase, "Uglier than a mud fence?"
Oh, they've had two auctions to unload everything they left behind because it wouldn't fit when they moved into the biggest house they could afford around here - 9'000 ft^2 - $5M. Auction #2 The real estate sign advertises "55'000 ft^2 under roof!" The basketball court mentioned in the cited story is a to-scale replica of Indiana University's, down to the championship banners, scoreboards,
Yeah. This is interesting, to be off topic for a second. Communism basically has a lot of bad PR. It makes sense that no ordinary politician fights for communism. Firstly, communism is very anti-government. Imagine an ad in the paper that goes "We have a free position as leader of a communist state. Good pay but short-term. We're having trouble filling this position due to the fact that you'll lose your job if you're successful. If you're an altruistic politician please contact us."
Joseph Stalin wanted to keep his job. Politicians are the worst people you could put to work for communism if you view everything in that context. Politicians seek power and money and communism is really about the opposite of that.
What the United States and other countries should really be opposing is *facist states*. I basically think communist states turn into facist states because they're run by politicians.
If I could experiment, I'd set up a board of people from various layers of society. People with no criminal record and perhaps educated in the proper fields. Serving on the board would be mandatory, but hopefully most people would want to influence the future of their country, so this would be viewed as positive. Lists would be kept of eligible people, filtered out by a rule set specified by law. Maybe the board could have a fixed number of elected representatives, but not too many, as politics is all about populism and after seeing democracy in action for a while, I don't sincerely believe that people know what, or who, are best for them.
You can only patent new things. If you can come up with a business method that isn't used yet, you may be able to patent it.
Doesn't FedEx do this already? I mean. Its basicaly trying to guess where a package goes when the address is incomplete. Come to think of it a lot of other software packages do this as well. So what's different about what Amazon does?
Specks
Batteries not included
>I'm sorry, does Bezos actually have a clue about doing things
Bezos net worth in 2003 was $4.95 billion dollars.
Here is the OP quote, including the half you deleted:
>I'm sorry, does Bezos actually have a clue about doing things, or is all he knows how to game the patent and legal system?
The sheer size of Bezos's net worth isn't relevant to the question, which was concerned with its origin.
In most circles, getting a parcel delivered on time and to the right address is considered a good thing.
And is preventing others from doing likewise also considered a good thing?
Success in retail depends on identifying potential customers, serving them well, building brand loyalty and encouraging future sales, while keeping your costs under control.
Amazon does this better than almost anyone. Study: Online Shoppers Consider More Than Price
The legal system will be of little help to you, if you haven't mastered the fundamentals.
And is preventing others from doing likewise also considered a good thing?
You could, of course, purchase a license from Amazon or find a better solution on your own.