Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Patents Customized 404 Pages

theodp writes "Among the patents awarded to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos on Tuesday was one for his invention of Error Processing Methods for Providing Responsive Content to a User When a Page Load Error Occurs, which covers displaying alternate web pages in response to HTTP 404 page-not-found errors. So is this the technology that causes Amazon's Home Page to be displayed when Bezos' MIA Patent Reform Page can't be found?"

25 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. The Plan by suso · · Score: 4, Funny

    They were going to sue everyone on the planet, but they couldn't find their websites.

    And by the way, what constitutes "customized" when its open source software?

    1. Re:The Plan by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      And by the way, what constitutes "customized" when its open source software?

      Their patent doesn't have anything to do with 404 pages. Their patent covers the specific case of having multiple error pages corresponding to cashed version, or closest name for a page, etcetera -and- a client side component that says failures load alternate version X. The client-side component may be prt of the browser. But the important thing is that the error type is user-settable./p

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:The Plan by ashridah · · Score: 3, Informative

      closest name for a page
      So... mod_speling for apache would be an accurate representation of prior art of some of that patent, then...

      ash

  2. 404'd! by boristdog · · Score: 5, Funny
  3. How stupid can the patent office be.. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 3, Informative

    I mean seriously, in the last 2 weeks, we have the Minerva Industries patent on smartphones, and now this.. Who the hell is working in the patent office.....

    I am sure we can find some prior art.. the most annoying being angelfire and geocities from way back when.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    1. Re:How stupid can the patent office be.. by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not all the patent offices fault. They have to follow the rules, and those rules were not set up for the torrent of patents they receive these days.

      If you get too many patent applications, the process of establishing if prior art exists also gets swamped. Thus without a special effort, patents which have prior art can still get granted.

      I've skimmed the patent in question, and it sounds like a new thing to me. There may be bits and pieces that invalidate some of what it does, but since the USPTO allows patents for software products (which has always struck me as dumb), this is probably valid.

    2. Re:How stupid can the patent office be.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its not all the patent offices fault. They have to follow the rules, and those rules were not set up for the torrent of patents they receive these days.


      They should use Comcast, then. That should slow the torrents down a bit...

      *cower (Rank 8)*
    3. Re:How stupid can the patent office be.. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful


      If you get too many patent applications, the process of establishing if prior art exists also gets swamped. Thus without a special effort, patents which have prior art can still get granted.


      Um, easy solution, don't issue any patents until you're sure there's no prior art. If there are too many patents submitted, tough shit, no patents for anyone. That would motivate reform!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Not prior art by codegen · · Score: 5, Informative

    The patent is not about the server serving custom
    error pages (which is your post), but about a client
    side process that communicates with a separate error server
    to generate the appropriate response. So I would guess it
    is a intended to be a plugin for a browser.

    But then this is slashdot, why bother to read the article.

    --
    Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    1. Re:Not prior art by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      What error is displayed when the error server is not found?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Not prior art by PinkyDead · · Score: 3, Funny

      What article?

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    3. Re:Not prior art by cduffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "client-side component" in question is (or can be) simply a part of the browser's built-in functionality. And don't tell me that using a redirect to a different server dedicated to dynamic 404s is bloody "innovative".

      (And having a 404 handler that tries to figure out what the user is looking for [which is the other major component]? That has very, very much been done before).

    4. Re:Not prior art by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why:
      Error Displaying Error Message, of course...

      Drat, can't find the pic I wanted...

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    5. Re:Not prior art by jacksonj04 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Additionally, a 404 error was detected in displaying this error page"

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    6. Re:Not prior art by cavac · · Score: 3, Funny

      Given the average software quality out there, the plugin would probably detect that it can't connect to a server (ignoring that it failed on the error server) and contact the error server "instead".

      The most probable error message would be something in the spirit of "You just transfered huge amounts of data on your non-flatrate account. Your account has been suspended."

      --
      Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
  5. RTFA you tards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not a patent on 404 handlers. It's a patent on a client-side component that detects errors including, but not limited to 404s, then relays the error to an external server and receives an alternate URL or resource to serve the user. Blame the patent office for being idiots if you want, but this time *you* are the idiot.

  6. It's *CLIENT* based by ps236 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If anyone else has read the patent, they'll realise that it's a CLIENT-SIDE component that's involved.

    Most (all?) 'automatic redirect' systems I've seen are server based - the server runs a script which says 'That page couldn't be found, did you mean any of these...'

    I can't imagine who'd put this on the client with client-server communication going on. It sounds like a vastly over-engineered and 'Enterprisey' solution to me. It DOES have the advantage that it can look back in the browser history, but I'm not sure I see how that could benefit the user (the component COULD tell the server what's in the history though, so it could benefit Amazon!)

  7. MSIE did it. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Much as I'm loath to hold it up as an example of anything ever, Internet Explorer has been using client-based action to generate a friendly "This page cannot be displayed" page in place of 404 errors for years and years.

  8. Re:We need a lawyer to explain this by nagora · · Score: 4, Insightful
    To me, this is like placing a patent on "using the emergency flashing lights on my car to signal for help." Someone already thought of this use of my emergency flashing lights, and that's why the lights were implemented.

    Which is exactly the situation with the 1-click patent. Cookies were invented to allow a site to recognise a returning user/customer, so patenting the act of using cookies to recognise a returning customer (and by "recognising" I mean linking them to an account) should never have been allowed a patent.

    There is a VERY simple solution: don't buy anything off Amazon, and tell your friends not to too. I don't. If they want my money they can stop trying to prevent me from working.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  9. Re:We need a lawyer to explain this by superid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IANAPA, but coincidentally in another window right now I am writing a patent disclosure application. I am lucky enough to work at an office that has a cadre of patent attorneys and just last week I had a discussion about a topic just like this Amazon patent (or I think it is).

    In my case, I've "built" a system using nothing more than a set of other peoples building blocks. Each existing component is already extensively patented and/or in common use with TONS of prior art. The system I created performs a useful function that is also covered by prior art (in my case, it is a medical diagnostic tool).

    The patent attorney told me that my idea was very likely patentable because it was a "novel" (new) implementation, even though the pieces exist and a (different) end product already exists.

  10. Useful bit of engineering by GauteL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... which is using a well known malware/phishing technique.

    It is a client component (read adware/malware) that intercepts 404 messages, calls home to find out where to redirect the user, then redirects.

    i.e. if you type in "slahdsot.org" it will search a database of misspellings and redirect you to "slashdot.org".

    or.. in the case of malware.. if you type in "myinternetbank.com" it could redirect you to "myphishingsite.com".

    I'd be surprised if there isn't prior art among the less ethical Internet inventions out there.

  11. Wheel patented in Australia by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 4, Funny

    An Australian man has been issued with an innovation patent for the wheel after setting out to test the workability of a new national patent system.

    John Keogh was issued the innovation patent for a "circular transportation facilitation device" under a patent system introduced in May 2001.

    (read the rest...)

    :-)

    - Jesper

    --
    My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
  12. Old news by yog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bezos has stated in the past that he is patenting software methods as a defensive measure. "We're not saying we have bad patents," Amazon.com spokesman Bill Curry said. "We feel very good about our patents... [Bezos] makes the point very emphatically in the letter that we cannot unilaterally disarm in a world where there are big ugly players who aren't disarming."

    It's like road rage. When people are cutting you off and breaking all the rules, you have to tailgate and cut them off as a defensive measure (sometimes, at least). Nice guys finish last. The entire system is broken and the Patent Office really needs more legislative direction because it has strayed from its original mission.

    I think software and business methods should not be patentable in the same way that physical inventions are. Also, I question the concept of selling patents. We end up with these litigious patent holding companies that have no technical abilities of their own, only a lot of lawyers.

    A few years ago I looked into making and marketing a telephony device that would be an incremental but useful improvement over existing equipment, and discovered that so many methods related to telephony and voicemail are patented that practically speaking there was no way to make a device without infringing. "A method for playing back a telephoned message by pressing a button"--give me a freaking break. No wonder the U.S. has slipped behind in technical innovation, when much of the incentive for incremental product improvement has been removed by the threat of instant litigation. Thank goodness the Asians still believe in incremental improvement.

    I'm OK with Amazon patenting stupid obvious things, as long as they don't enforce those patents, which I believe they have done very little of, and as long as Jeff Bezos continues to crusade for patent reform. Just my 2c!

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    1. Re:Old news by seebs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bezos has said that, yes.

      Would you call his one-click lawsuit from a few years back a "defensive measure"? I would not.

      The fact is, he's lied on every last thing he's said on the issue, and swallowing these lies given his clear, repeated, public contradictions of every such claim is just pathetic. I mean, it's long past "stupid".

      You believe they have done "very little" of enforcing patents on "stupid obvious things". How much is okay? Would you say that demanding an injunction against a competitor running their existing web site, at all, during the holiday season is "very little"? Reasonable for you? You think it's no big deal to demand that someone suddenly, on no notice, stop accepting any orders on their web site until they revise their system not to conflict with a "stupid obvious" patent?

      The fact is, Bezos is part of the problem, and actively so, and all his "crusading" for patent reform has consisted of, purely reactively in response to negative outcries over his abuses, saying sets of things that his critics would like him to say... And then doing nothing about it, and continuing to use the system, as is, to his advantage. Including filing suits.

      You know why so many 419 scams have phrases like "in God's name" and "we are devout Christians"? Because there are millions of people who will reflexively assume that anyone who claims to be Christian is honest and trustworthy, as long as they use a few of the right buzzwords. Bezos has found the corresponding hole in your cognitive system; you simply can't be bothered to investigate the truth of his claims. Why? Because, if they were true, they would be exactly what you wish he'd think.

      It ain't so. Amazon is an abuser of the patent system. Amazon is a spammer. Amazon is everything we hoped they wouldn't be, and they rely on our wishful thinking to convince us that, really, they're a great company, when they are actually systematic scumbags. They spam, and then they get caught and "fix" it. They abuse the patent system, and they don't even stop abusing it, they just say it's "defensive". They have filed suits against competitors who were not using patents against them since they first claimed this was defensive.

      Why do you keep trusting them? What's your emotional investment in never, ever, considering the possibility that they lied to you?

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  13. Re:Why would Amazon patent a client-side component by tjarrett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, Amazon is making clients now. Is it possible that this is related to what Amazon is doing with Kindle?