Slashdot Mirror
Reminding Customers Patented by Amazon
theodp writes "When your little Hogwart checks out the latest Harry Potter book at Amazon, he or she may be reminded that they've already ordered the book. It's all part of CEO Jeff Bezos latest patent for the Contextual presentation of information about related orders during browsing of an electronic catalog, which also covers warning customers about drug interactions ('you previously purchased Drug ABC'). The USPTO allowed the patent after four years and five rejections."
In the last amendment, they didn't just change a couple of words, they also canceled 5 claims following a recomendation from the patent office.
It's more of a negotiation than a time-after-time rejection. If you read the docs, you'll find Amazon getting coached by the PTO staff as to how they cn form their claims to be accepted ("removing this claim, and re-phrasing that claim, will change this application to an allowable one").
7 years now. That's how long it's been since I've purchased anything from Amazon.
7 years Jeff. 7 years of lost revenue that has gone to other companies because of your stubborn insistence on doing crap like this.
My boycott shall continue.
May I suggest some of Amazon's competition?
Barnes and Noble
Buy.com
New Egg
Ebay
Bryan
Has anyone told WebMD about this? They've been able to do drug interaction screening for YEARS.
Yes, Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is, indeed, Harry's school. Additionally, a hogwart is a type lily. It can be found, among other places, at Kew Gardens. So, "little hogwart" might be an affectionate sobriquet (like "little pumpkin") a parent might use to refer to their child.
Urban Legend. Mailing yourself is useless.
I am John Hurt.
Mailing it to yourself IS useless, but if you present it in a public forum (like a trade magazine) it does serve as prior art and would prevent someone else from doing it. Companies who claim to be using patents defensively clearly aren't communicating those desires to their legal departments because there are very easy and cheap ways to get prior art out there so that no one can claim patentability over it.
Stupid patents like that are the reason why I boycot amazon.
I'm sure Amazon is not the only company to have stupid patents. Even so, how has Amazon used any of the patents offensively? The only time I can think of was when Amazon sued B&N over the one-click patent. Unfortunately, AFAIK the details of the settlement weren't disclosed and B&N didn't seem too affected by it. Also, they haven't sued anyone over a patent since. In fact, I believe Amazon has been more on the receiving end of patent lawsuits than the giving end.
Besides, Bezos said he's in favor of shortening patent lengths to 3-5 years. It would be kind of nice to have a large company on the side of patent reform, don't you think? If they want to register stupid patents in a defensive manner, so be it. A knee-jerk reaction of disliking Amazon simply because they are a company with stupid patents is not a very well thought out decision. Amazon's actions should speak louder than the patents they hold.
My 2 cents...
Slackware
Another option (besides publication) is to submit a Statutory Invention Registration
From 35 U.S.C. 157:
A statutory invention registration published pursuant to this section shall have all of the attributes specified for patents in this title except those specified in section 183 and sections 271 through 289 of this title. A statutory invention registration shall not have any of the attributes specified for patents in any other provision of law other than this title. A statutory invention registration published pursuant to this section shall give appropriate notice to the public, pursuant to regulations which the Director shall issue, of the preceding provisions of this subsection. The invention with respect to which a statutory invention certificate is published is not a patented invention for purposes of section 292 of this title.
Basically it's a patent application without the examination part (and obviously you don't get a patent). It's probably a little better than publishing because:
1) the USPTO is more likely to be aware of an SIR than a specific article in a magazine, etc...
2) the disclosure required for an SIR is more than what most people include in an average-sized article
Sure, it has a cost. But it's still cheaper than acutally applying for a patent. And it's better "defense" than simple publication.