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

Is there no prior art on this at all??

[jurt1235]

Relations in database do this kind of things all the time, and warn users about the consequences (usually blocking it completely).

That's why I boycot Amazon

[koi88]

Stupid patents like that are the reason why I boycot amazon.
I use ist to look for books or movies, I read the reviews, then I buy somewhere else.
Sorry if anybody here works for Amazon. It's nothing personal.

A simple question is warranted

[AutopsyReport]

So what changed their mind the sixth time?

You would think that after five rejections, the patent office would lend significantly less weight to the credibility of the patent, and presumably would not approve it.

What about Brick and Mortar?

[ehaggis]

I know this is a common argument, but what if we applied the same patent rules to Brick and Mortar? Can we restrict people and businesses from using common business practices and logic? I.e. I patent "How may I help you?" as a lead question. Now no one can use that line. I know it is ridiculous.

I am in favor of people protecting their unique inventions and developments, but securing patents for the obvious and mundane is a typical symptom of US litigious culture.

US competitors should use them.

[Colin Smith]

Just in a global competitiveness sort of way. The US has shipped most of it's manufacturing abroad, is busy shipping it's IT sector abroad. Allowing the patenting of business processes is I admit rather a bizarre way of pushing the rest of business out of the country but hey, most of the world is poor and could do with the trade.

So it only makes sense that everyone outside the US should help Amazon lock down the US markets by buying stuff from them. They're also pretty cheap for books.

Re:Self Defense?

[alvinrod]

Why not just release the "concept" or whatever you'd call it into the public domain? This way everyone can use it and no one can sue Amazon over it. I can understand wanting to patent a new engine or a radically different type of CPU that no one's ever though of before, but trying to slap a patent something that seems obvious and has more than likely been done a thousand times over since the beginning of time is a little ridiculous.

Re:Self Defense?

[A beautiful mind]

Heh. Parent is probably karma whoring by plagarism. It's nice to know that he even copied my typo (USPO vs. USPTO).

Drug Interactions

[pklong]

"which also covers warning customers about drug interactions" I just can't wait for the first fatality if anyone implements this. You just know what would happen "But the system usually warns me" followed by "I'm taking you to court" soon after something isn't flagged up or an unusual conflict occurs.

what's wrong with this picture?

[Tominva1045]

..which also covers warning customers about drug interactions.

Hospitals and clinics have had drug interaction warning software for years. It warns doctors about the same thing. In order for Jeffy's idea to be meaningful, a patient would have to have lied to his doctor(s) in order to get permission to gain access to the controlled substance(s).

If a patient is going to lie to gain access to potential harmful drugs, how much effect do you think Jeffy's javascript OK dialog is going to have?

Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly

[servoled]

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.

Technically it goes more like this:

1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
---Applicant Pays $790 for continued examination---
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
4. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
---Applicant Pays $790 for continued examination---
5. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
6. Change another word and resubmit -> gets ACCEPTED.