Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Gift Ordering Patent Revoked In EU
Elektroschock writes "The Amazon gift ordering patent was revoked by the European Patent Office. In a press release they write: 'The so-called 'Gift Order Patent' has been revoked by the EPO in an opposition proceeding today after a hearing involving three opposing parties and the patent proprietor, Amazon Inc. The patent relates to a method for purchasing goods over the Internet to be sent as gifts.' Santa did not have to lodge opposition against the patent. The opponents were Fleurop, the FFII and the German computer science society. What strikes me is that so many parties were infringing upon the patent, and yet you need very few organizations to file an opposition. Why are not more patents opposed?"
I think it's fairly obvious why so few patents are challenged. It requires an investment of time and money which isn't worth it if you can fly under the radar. And even when you do choose to make that investment there's never any guarantee that the decision will go your way.
What strikes me is that so many parties were infringing upon the patent, and yet you need very few organisations to file an opposition. Why are not more patents opposed?
Well, Everyone is sure that Someone will do it. Anyone could have done it, but Noone did it in the end. Someone was angry because it's Everyone's job. Everyone thought that Anyone could have done it, but Noone realized that Noone will end up doing it. In the end, Everyone was angry at Someone because Noone did what Anyone could've done.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Maybe the patent offices all over the world should take notice and improve their procedures? Some patents are actually not that bad, but some are too broad or for things already invented. Since the patent office workers not always have the knowledge necessary to figure out what a patent really is about they often grant patents instead of doing a more thorough analysis by using experts. And then there are patents written in a language that can't be penetrated by anyone else than advanced lawyers.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It's expensive.
You may not win.
And it's not just you that benefits. If I oppose a patent and get it removed, then not only can I use that patent but so can everybody else.
The problem is that the EPO still grants software and business method patents even though they aren't allowed and aren't currently enforceable, presumably for the cash. This means that if the (primarily US-based) business interests ever do manage to sneak Software Patents past the EU Parliament, all the previously granted patents would come into effect.
I don't see how this is novel at all. It's the same as calling up the flourist and asking them to deliver flowers to somebody. Except that this is on the internet. Taking a normal everyday task, and attaching "On The Internet" to it should not make it patent worthy. The number of stupid patents that have been created since the internet came about is amazing. I mean, how could sending a gift to somebody be patentable in the first place.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Patents are [i]supposed[/i] to make people innovate. Spot the difference.
Why this thing isn't challenged.. It has been answered by others already. But there is another aspect which some don't seem to like touching but since I don't really care on stepping on long toes I'll add my 2 cents anyway. A very important aspect is that the EU isn't as anal with regards to patents as the US is. This has been proven time and time again in the past. The best recent example I can come up with is SCO. Where the US actually spend years to come up with some kind of court ruling (its still being questioned/charged/whatever) it got almost instantly laughed out of court in the EU (in fact; SCO was warned that if they'd pull a stunt like that they'd be facing charges of contempt of the court).
No offense to Americans but all the offense I can come up with to the stupid, totally out of control, dimwitted patent bureau's over there. While the intend, to protect people's ideas and rights, is a decent one they seem totally unable to recognize that the whole thing has derailed and doesn't even manage to protect that basic idea. Right now all its being used for is to gain more money by simply patenting whatever stupid things people can think of.
In the States certain stupid things seem to get treated seriously even in court (think SCO), in the EU its being laughed out of court when challenged and proven to be as stupid as it seems. 'nough said. No need to challenge; let the idiots do that themselves in court (why waste money challenging if the idiots will get the bill presented (as SCO has) when they're being proven wrong in court?).
"Because patents pretty much force people to innovate."
Approximately the same way banning the use of anything new force people to innovate. How about we outright ban the use of technology? By that theory, that should really get the innovation going.