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.
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
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 JeffI 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.
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...
I believe Barnes & Noble ships worldwide.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
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.
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
5) The courts decides that to overrule the patent officers judgement you need that high level of proof of X Y Z.
The same test of X Y Z used by the courts to overrule a patent is used by the patent examiners when they try to reject patents. If you want court cases try any of the follwoing:
In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974)
In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970)
Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
or any number of other cases where an examiner was reversed because the rejection made did not live up to the requirements which the courts have set.
Part of the trouble is that the laws are written such that a patent applicant is entitled to a patent unless it can be shown that he/she is not, similar to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, unless it can be proven by the standards layed out by the courts that the patent appplication is either non-novel or obvious, the patent must be granted. The patent office is not allowed to simply call something obvious or say that it has been done before to reject the patent. They must come up with solid evidence which proves that it has been done or is obvious. If the courts do not agree with the evidence given or do not agree with the methodology used in the proof they will reverse the examiner and require the patent to be issued unless new evidence can be shown.
If you want to know the exact requirements and read about the numerous court cases which have layed out these requirements I suggest reading the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure Chapter 2100.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".