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Elektroschock writes "The Amazon gift ordering patent was revoked by the European Patent Office. In a press release they write: 'The so-called 'Gift Order Patent' has been revoked by the EPO in an opposition proceeding today after a hearing involving three opposing parties and the patent proprietor, Amazon Inc. The patent relates to a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.
Please correct your links about FFII Europe:
http://ffii.org/
http://eupat.ffii.org/07/12/amazon07/
AFFII is for United States
http://www.affii.org/ is for the United States.
Software and business method patents aren't allowed in Europe, and this "invention" seems to be a method of carrying on business implemented in software - someone buys something, and the vendor contacts the recipient to get a shipping address.
In the US, however, such patents are permitted, so challenging it would be a bit more difficult.
July 2005: The Grinch Who Patented Christmas.
...Is that when the Elks make trouble for you?
And by "impede everyone's effort to innovate" you mean "impede everyone's effort to copy other people's successes without putting in the work to come up with them in the first place" right? Because patents pretty much force people to innovate.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
The answers to the question are fairly straightforward:
1. The US doesn't have an 'opposition' system, where you can make your claims before a court to oppose the patent. All you can do is (first pay some money) give your evidence to the USPTO, and then go away and hope the applicant can't explain their way around it. Therefore, only European patents can be opposed.
2. A European patent can only be opposed in this fashion within 9 months of it being granted.
3. Other reasons as given above: if I win, it benefits everybody, but if I lose, it costs me greatly. My competition now has a proven good patent, and they know I don't like it. I'll be the first to be sued.
Despite all this, about 1 in 20 EP granted patents are opposed. The US has an opposition system planned as part of the Patent Reform Act of 2007, but it's currently held up before the Senate.
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?).
Well it is the same as giving the florist the phone number of the recipient and asking them to phone her to find out where they should be delivered to. That clearly is not patentable, so European law says that doing it using a computer isn't patentable either.
"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.
ever do manage to sneak Software Patents past the EU Parliament
Or widen the approach to enforce US-law: US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Nobody reads the patent database. Not only is it full of crap, but if you do happen to come across something that you are actually using, then in case of a lawsuit you'd be risking doubling your damages for "willful infringement". These days nobody wants to state the obvious truth that the vast majority of infringed patented ideas are not stolen but reinvented.