Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Patents Bad Service For Bad Customers
mikesd81 writes "Techdirt reports that Amazon has been awarded a patent for Generating Current Order Fulfillment Plans Based on Expected Future Orders. Essentially, if Amazon deems that you won't be a long time customer or ordering again soon, your order will take longer to be expedited."
This could be a blessing in disguise!
If another retailer takes forever and a day to ship your stuff, they open themselves up to a patent infringement suit!
This could be a boon for internet shoppers everywhere...
=Smidge=
As I said when this was posted on Techdirt, this system could encourage customers not to shop at amazon, because when you start shopping there the shipping takes longer. Appeasing a small group of users who make up the majority of purchases and irritating a larger group who make only occasional purchases is not the way to go.
Everything is subjective.
Self-fulfilling prophecy much? It works both ways, guys--if you slow my order because you don't think I will be a good customer, guess what, you can be pretty sure I won't.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
This is not only a dumb thing to patent, but also something that is a dumb idea in general.
A) How are you going to prove that another company delayed an order for that reason? How would you be able to prove anything in a court of law, so your patent wouldn't be infringed on?
B) Why, oh why, would anyone use this idea? Delaying the orders of non-longtime customers or customers that are not extremely active is the wrong way to do things. First impressions count, and one of the reasons that I am such a Newegg fanatic is because my first order came overnight via UPS ground, extremely well packaged to boot.
If Amazon implements something like this, I'm not going to shop there out of principle.
Why is this different than any other enterprise? Bigger customers generally get preferential treatment. If two customers call me and have network issues, and I have billed one of them $50,000 in the past year, while the other one bought one compact flash card from me two years ago, which one am I going to take care of first?
Now, as to why they thought that patenting it was a good idea, I don't have a clue.
And slow service will make me want to be a repeat customer?
Your idea of 'good' or 'bad' ideas doesn't really factor in to what patents are or aren't supposed to protect. They protect novel ideas.
Amazon wishes to patent this as a form of obstructive competition. (Which seems to be the only use for software and process patents). If they hold a monopoly, nobody else in the commercial optimization space can offer software or business process design that includes this particular expression of Pareto optimization without fear of Amazon's lawyers. It is ugly, but because our government rewards this sort of behavior, it would be against the shareholder's best interests NOT to pursue such patents. Now, if the consuming public provide a massive negative reaction to this behavior, then the shareholders would be rightfully demanding that Amazon and other companies not play the patent game. But we all know how thoughtful most consumers are.
Now, I hate business method patents in general, but this one appears to be sufficiently arcane as to not risk much litigation. The point being that it would be extremely difficult to prove infringement by another business, given that business practices are typically kept private.
Of course somebody probably has a patent on labeling isles in stores according to what products are found, and I know somebody had to at least try to patent the mall display that provides a map and legend system to locate stores. Those patents, if they exist, would be an easier target for an infringement suit.
Have we reached such a perfect state of justice that lawyers have nothing better to do than this? Isn't there an ambulance to chase somewhere?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As it seems that no one has read the damned patent - here is the concise version:
This has nothing to do with Amazon deciding that Joe Smith projects to be a lousy customer so lets not care about the order he just placed.
This is all about trying to determine the most profitable way to fill orders from multiple distribution centers, using projected future orders for those centers.
Of course, it's much cooler to be a sheep and follow the herd, isn't it?
Anybody who actually read that patent (obligatory of course not, this is slashdot) can see that the article has it totally wrong. First of all, Amazon -would- be stupid to patent what the article claims. It would be very bad for business, and whatever you may think of Amazon, they are extremely good at business. This patent describes a system for determining how to fulfill an order (not just in terms of when to ship, but also, where to ship from, how to ship, etc) based on a multitude of factors. These factors include future orders, but those future orders refer to the expectation of future orders for all customers. Statistics 101 (Amazon surely knows this): the future orders of one specific customer are very hard to model, but the future orders of all customers are pretty easy to model. The point is to optimize the fulfillment process for all customers. Yes, it -could- be possible for them to use these techniques to target specific customers, but I would think it much more likely that they would use this in the favor of new customers they are trying to hook, rather than older established customers. Netflix, anyone?
How can anybody here think they deserve to waste space by posting an opinion on something they haven't even taken the time to check out?
I think you (and most other posters) missed the point by oversimplifying it. I don't think this is a system that gives more frequent customers better treatment, and less-frequent ones worse. Here's why I think that - take a look at this:
Sample table from patent
The system allows them to prioritize delivery methods according to potential goodwill cost. Here's a simple example: Say Amazon has only two customers - you and me. We both frequently buy expensive stuff. I don't really care when it arrives, just so it arrives. You, on the other hand, complain if things arrive late. The system would allow Amazon to know that they should prioritize your shipments over mine.
Now, extend this to many, many customers with widely varying buying habits, and varying attitudes to early, on-time, and late deliveries. It's kind of cool, if you think about it. Say I buy stuff from Amazon very infrequently, but when I do, it's always *really* expensive, and I *hate* it when stuff arrives late. Then there's this other guy who buys less expensive stuff, but buys all the time, and *he* LOOOOOVES it when stuff shows up early, but doesn't much care if it's late. Then there's this chick who buys, on average, one book every month and never says anything positive if it's early, never complains if it's up to a week late, but rants and raves and swears to never buy again from Amazon when something's over a week late...
The system allows Amazon to prioritize shipment plans among their millions of customers, all with varying buying styles and delivery-time cares. They do it because it allows them to maximize their profits, which, it seems, most people on here don't like. But look at the effects - you get, not only *what* you want, but you get it within a timeframe that's acceptable to you!
That having been said, in a very simple sense, you and most others are right that it rewards "frequent customers," but in a limited way. The only way this system gives frequent customers preferential treatment is because frequent purchasers provide more information about buying habits and delivery-time cares to enable Amazon to prioritize. A more accurate statement would be: "This system will give preferential treatment to customers who spend the most money and complain the most if stuff is late and like it when stuff is early." Which makes sense.
Another thing to consider is that Amazon has a limited pool of shipping resources. This system is a method to accurately distribute those resources, but not just according to pure cost - it actually takes into consideration "goodwill cost!" For crying out loud, it takes into account your feelings!
This is an application of free-market principles to an internal resource distribution problem, and it's actually a clever solution. They increase their profit, and you get what you want. I don't see the down side to this. (Other than the patent.)