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."

Comments

Self Defense?

[gbulmash]

Okay, Jeff Bezos claims he gets these patents defensively to prevent someone else from getting them and suing Amazon. But the effort he goes to in convincing the patent office they're even valid seems enormous.

And considering all the money spent on lawyers to go back and forth 5 times, answering the patent examiner's objections, could have bought off at least one senator, maybe two. Could have bought a handful of congressmen. Multiply his filing and lawyer fees by all the patents he's gobbled up like some braying pacman, and you've got enough lobbyist money to get some real patent reform, the lack of which is the reason behind his defensive patents.

Re:Self Defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he wanted that, he could just have written a public paper about hes "invention" (snail-mail it to himself to have a valid datestamp and all that), which would then would be plenty of evidence of prior art, and it would only cost him a stamp.

Re:Self Defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that this kind of crap is the real submarine patent. When they filed the accepted patent in 2004, the technology had already been in use for long over the 1 year limit! Worse, they probably added elements that were not there before, that they "invented" (read: looked to see what other companies were doing and added that) but even though it took them years to get a patent application that was accepted, the prior art date to beat is still when the first application was submitted, even if the original application had nothing at all to do with the current contents of the application.

Drug interactions? Thats as old as pharmacists. Telling me I've already ordered something? I've bought stuff from sites doing that since I was in college in the mid 90's (and hey, I still buy stuff from some of those sites, I guess when you care enough about your customers to save them from their own errors, people love that). But nobody thought it was groundbreaking enough back then to write a thesis paper about it, so that's not included in the prior art search.

The patent system is full of bullshit. It needs to be completely torn down and started over. Start with salaried employees who aren't paid commissions to accept inventions. On top of that, the USPTO provides a simple and easy to pursue process for overturning a patent that does not involve throwing lawyers at each other in court. If the patent is overturned, the USPTO pays the fees for the process. Next, if someone had a patent on an engine, and I built an engine out of solid gold, I would still infringe on that engine patent. Quit treating the tools used in the patents as something new and novel: Adding "the internet" or "a computer" to an existing process does not make a patent! Finally, if a patent isn't accepted, it's not accepted. None of this bullshit "oh, here's a blank form, just fill it out again with whatever you want and we'll back-date it to your original application" that we've seen abused over and over and over again. If they think they can fix it, they can submit a new patent showing that the technology has not been in use for over a year before the application date, and that there is still no other prior art.

Re:Self Defense?

[kilraid]

Someone can sue Amazon for other infringements. But they won't if Amazon can strike back with a bunch of patents the other company might be infringing. Or they will, and Amazon will use its patents to negotiate itself a more favorable deal.

Ambrose Bierce had it right

[PhilHibbs]

Appeal
v.t. In law, to put the dice into the box for another throw.

It's a sad day for Intellectual Property when...

[Anti Frozt]

Jeff Bezos has to start reminding his customers that he owns patents on them

Illustrates the problem perfectly

[A beautiful mind]

So it's like:
1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
4. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
5. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
6. Change another word and resubmit -> gets ACCEPTED.

Instead of:
1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a small fine.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a multiplying fine.
4,5,6,7...on the scheme of 3. etc.

Amazon is just flooding the USPO.

Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly

[jeepnut]

First off, I HIGHLY doubt that is how it happened. You're oversimplyfying the process. That is the problem with those who are incredibly defensive against software patents. I am not saying I am all for them. I am not necessarily convinced that the current process or mechanism right now for the them is perfect but I do think in some form, they should be present.

I find it sort of discouraging that so many intelligent people are on /., but somany oversimplyfy when it comes to patents in order to further a ridiculous conception of patents. To say that someone chances "one word" is a ridiculous assumption. Granted, sometimes on rare instances, that may be the case, but hardly the norm. If you don't like patents that is your opinion and a respected one at that. But don't make oversimplified decriptions of processes in place that you think you can easily solve.

The USPTO does the best it can in most regards, with the massive amounts of submissions it receives on a daily basis. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they receive millions of applications monthly. They handle all those applications to the best of their ability. Whether you want to admit it or not, what they do is pretty amazing even as flawed as it is.

I don't mean this to be flame-bait, but it seems that everytime a patent issue comes up on /. there are handfuls of people spouting the same thing. "It's too easy to get a patent", "Punish the big companies trying to patent what they have", "The system should be done away with because...". Then usually followed by a misconceived idea of how it actually works.

Realize its not perfect, but don't assume it's not needed. And also realize that a rule affecting a business will affect an individual inventor. So don't think you can "punish" and "correct" the situation without in some adversely affecting the innocent inventor. Everything has a pro and con. If you want to talk about the con fine, but at least acknowledge the pros.

Why Stupid patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

You going to back up your claims about about why it is stupid? Or are you appealing to the lesser mods around here who mod anyone up who derides big corporations and fits into /. groupthink?

What happened to the yesteryear of well thought /. posts? This place has caught the DailyKos/LGF emotion over thinking meme. It's no wonder Maddox and Kottke are thinking that blogs are starting to suck ass.

Re:Is there no prior art on this at all??

[automaticus]

Atleast in europe they can't patent things like that! (Hopefully :)

Not Defending this, But

[putko]

I'm not defending Amazon's patents on things that seem obvious (once you start running a service business over the web) --- but they offered a bounty for prior art on "One Click" (TM), in an attempt to establish if their claims had merit. This was done with O'Reilly -- the book publisher.

It seemed to me, based on the results they got, that it actually was somewhat novel. It hadn't been done before.

This one is a bit similar: it seems obvious. But really, I think the problem here is that most ordering systems totally suck, and this is a version that sucks slightly less. So it seems obvious and intuitive. But that doesn't meant that anyone ever tried to do it properly.

It is a bit like a well-designed product; it is easy to use. But a lot of effort and attempts to make it usable went into it. If you take the time to compare it to the sucky stuff that came before, then you'll probably think it is more novel.

Thank you Amazon

[unoengborg]

Even though the software patent law in EU was thrown out a while ago, it doesn't mean that doesn't mean that question of software patents will be gone for ever. This was probably just one battle in a long war for software patents.

The more trival and stupid patents that gets granted in the US the easier it will be to show that software patents are bad, whenever the patent law issue pops up its ugly head the next time.

While american idustry spends their money on patent lawyers and courts, other parts of the world where software or process patents are not allowed can spend their money on product development, giving them a competitive edge.

Re:That's why I boycot Amazon

[drsquare]

Amazon are a good company, and should be supported. They provide a quality service and good prices. I couldn't care less about the patent business, I'm not interested in the legal and technical background to the places I shop. I'm a customer not a lawyer.

Do you thoroughly investigate the business practices of everyone you do business with? If you don't shop at places where they don't do everything completely ethically and above board, you're going to have to be self sufficient.

The only reason Amazon gets so much flack is because on Slashdot it's fashionable to bash big corporations, unless it's the flavour of the month (i.e. Google, Apple, BBC)

Re:7 Years and Running...

[drsquare]

I'm sure that all the millions of dollars they lost due to your boycott are more than offset by the sales gained through all these useful things like reminders and one-click buying.

And I find it really hilarious how you can boycott Amazon for their shady practices, then recommend Ebay as an alternative. Ebay make Amazon look like Jesus and his disciples.

Their reality or your reality?

[doc modulo]

What Amazon's case is leading up to is that you can't run a business where you think up new things to get more customers who pay better or other ways to improve business, because pretty soon every smart business technique will be patented if you use any software at all (and don't they all?). They'll use "but it's in software" as an excuse but they're still patenting business methods.

In fact, patenting software is also bad, but since that bad thing has been allowed, it's a good way of getting the other bad thing allowed via this back door.

You think being able to start a business, selling something and making money is something that should be ok for you to do? Not in "their" reality. In their reality any competitor is something bad and needs to be destroyed in any way possible. After all, what's better for profit than having no competitors right? right!

In their reality, the big corporations are the emperors of the business world now and especially in this political climate it looks like it's going to stay this way. They see a world where there will be no more extra competitors incoming anymore and they will be the ones offering most of the goods and services that the people need, the ones they don't need we'll make them want, simple.

HEY, if we make a couple of acquisitions we might be the only company left in the country, won't that be nice? No competition at all, just like "The Company" in the movie "Aliens" although we'll have to somehow make the rest of the world heel to our reality as well, for even more easy profit!

This is the feeling I get when I read news out of the, shall we say, "corporate empires of America". Will it really turn out this way or do you have your own reality of how you see the world, of how you see the world changing in the future? A lot of you do but is your reality as strong as "their" reality? And are you busy making your reality happen or are you just focusing on pointing out the flaws in their plan (which means the only reality under discussion is still THEIR REALITY (there's no such thing as bad publicity eh Mr. Cruise?)).

Take a leaf out of their strategy book: don't waste all your energy on countering their propaganda and instead focus on spreading YOUR ideas into the world, self-replicating memes via the internet work well and don't take much effort except using your brain to come up with the concepts and vectors. Spreading something good instead of reinforcing the bad will improve how you enjoy life as well as how others enjoy it. The main theme of your life will not be negative but positive.

It sounds cloudy but it makes psychological sense.

You could, for example, take the recent rejection of software patents in the EU as something positive. The businesses in Europe will be able to do anything they want to do and in doing so will out-profit USA businesses, especially in an internet world. They'll be able to use any software they want and still sell in the USA, they'll be able to use any business method and still be able to sell in the USA, they'll be able to patent any weird idea in the USA and block out US businesses from competing with them.

Pretty soon, the corporate "emperors" will be left with invisible business suits and somehow "arrange" for the laws to be changed.

That's just a concept, a reality I hastily described during the typing of this post, it could do with some more positivity. Do you like it or would you like to construct one of your own? Be my guest but make it visionary and positive. It'll spread with a little "marketing" and if it's concepts are powerful enough.

How about the concept of changing voting behaviour? Whatever it is that's in your head, start typing.

You don't have a reality of your own? You've been watching a lot of TV haven't you? I pity a lot of North Americans, I wish for something better for them.

Anyway, I want every response to this post to have arguments against OR for this view of mine maybe coupled with how you see things, and not just any argument, it can't be some bullshit argument that just makes you FEEL good even though it doesn't make sense. It has to be a logical argument!

Good luck in making it happen guys!

"Defense" where defense destroy any competition

[FreeUser]

Okay, Jeff Bezos claims he gets these patents defensively to prevent someone else from getting them and suing Amazon. But the effort he goes to in convincing the patent office they're even valid seems enormous.

He didn't use his rediculous "one-click" patent defensively against Barnes and Noble, unless your definition of defense includes either "a good offense" (which is effectively just doublespeak for negating the difference between two antonyms) or "no competition whatsoever," which is today's business monopolist's notion of "a free market."

Either way, Bezos is a despicable, disingenous, antisocial jerk who is working the system to the detriment of the internet, technologists, and the free market.

Bitch where it counts!

[meburke]

All the clever comments on slashdot don't help much. Why not give the USPTO the feedback it needs when it does something dumb? Send the link to this article to: usptoinfo@uspto.gov They might then get the idea that there are consequences for stupid decisions.

Re:Bitch where it counts!

[back_pages]

All the clever comments on slashdot don't help much. Why not give the USPTO the feedback it needs when it does something dumb? Send the link to this article to: usptoinfo@uspto.gov They might then get the idea that there are consequences for stupid decisions.

What good is that going to do if the "bitching" is based in fantasy land and misunderstanding? On numerous occasions I have posted informative material on the US patent system. I can count on one hand the times someone has said, "Wow, you're right, I really had no idea how the patent system works." I couldn't begin to count how many times some moron replied with, "Well, you know what? I don't NEED to know how the system works, I just know it's DUMB because everyone at the USPTO is an IDIOT."

WTF good is taking that to the USPTO going to do? What someone NEEDS to do is write a concise guide, directed at the knowledge- and skill-set of the Slashdot crowd, that will explain how and why these seemingly stupid patents get issued. THEN take your complaints to the USPTO, because they won't be baseless drivel at that point.

I happen to have a BS in CS and a BS in mathematics with a focus on computability and abstract algebra, but my career is in intellectual property. I straddle the line between the Slashdot crowd and the patent system. I'm not THE expert, but I do have considerable expertise on how the US patent system works. I do what I can by posting as much informative material as my (inherently limited) patience allows, but I don't have the time, energy, or resources to educate the entire Slashdot community. If somebody's interested (or if someone already has something in the works), I'd be happy to help out.

(Disclaimer: I'm trying to be productive and addressing the larger Slashdot community - no offense intended to meburke.)

Re:Is there no prior art on this at all??

[NoOneInParticular]

The really horrifying thing is that it's not even as innocent as what you sketch. What happens is that 3+2 gets patented by A, 2+3 by B and 3-(-2) by C, and whenever you compute 5 in any way, A, B, as well as C will come pounding on your door for money because it's a trivial permutation of *their* idea.

And about birthdays, why the hell did you bring up that idea? Now it surely will be patented.