Amazon Patents Bad Gift Protection

theodp writes "Thanks to the inventors at Amazon.com, you needn't fear Aunt Martha any longer. On Tuesday, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos received a patent for a bad gift defense system that intercepts gifts you don't want and instead sends you something that you actually do want. For example, Amazon explains that its 'System and Method for Converting Gifts' would allow you to set up a rule like 'Convert all gifts from Aunt Mildred,' which would automatically convert any online gift orders from your well-meaning-but-tasteless Auntie into a gift certificate. Other examples of how the system might be used: You could convert bad gifts to something off your wish list; block specific products ('Not another XYZ comic strip calendar'); or ensure that any clothing gifts match your exact size ('Check clothes sizes first')."

Comments

Automatic? Just let me know.

[chemicaldave]

Instead of trying to make an educated guess about what I would or would not want, just let me know beforehand that you might have an order coming to me that I don't want. Then let me decide if I want it in gift certificate form.

Re:Automatic? Just let me know.

[hodet]

....or how about not being a spoiled brat and accepting Aunt Mildreds gift with a little gratitude and respect. There is a saying, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

Re:Automatic? Just let me know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about not giving gifts to people in the first place simply because the calendar said to?

I only give gifts to small children on birthdays and Christmas. Everybody else gets them when I find something they might like - regardless of what day it is.

How about...

[contra_mundi]

How about a bad patent protection instead?

Re:How about...

[nospam007]

"Not (really) obvious, no prior art, kind of a cool idea."

Yep. Auntie pays a company to send something with bad taste and they substitute something else.
It might sound like a good, patentable idea, but most countries just call it 'fraud'.

I understand the concept

[OzPeter]

However I believe (IMHO) it is not solving the fundamental problem.

A gift from person A to person B should be a symbol saying "I know you, and I believe that you should have this gift I am giving you". If person B is not receiving a desired gift from person A then there are at least 2 issues at stake:

1. Person A doesn't really know Person B - in which case why are they obligated to send a gift, and whose fault is it for the lack of knowledge?
2. Person B does not care about Person A, and instead selfishly only wants the gifts that they want and as such ignores the feelings/beliefs of person A - in which case again, why are gifts being sent?

So the fundamental problem is the lack of a proper relationship between Person A and Person B, and that this patent application goes to weaken all such relationships by automatically sweeping the real issues under the electronic carpet.

Re:I understand the concept

[compro01]

I see it in a third way, as stated in the summery, with the "I already have X, I don't want another one" option. I've had this problem a number of times, where a new book in a series I like comes out near Christmas/my birthday/etc. and I get three people buying me the book, which I already bought myself.

Re:I understand the concept

[Anonymous Coward]

"It amounts to I am compelled to give you a gift but I don't know anything about you at all"

Welcome to the holidays. If people knew or cared they wouldn't need the pretext to begin with.

Re:I understand the concept

[jjhall]

I see cash gifts the other way. I have hobbies where the items I need for those hobbies is either expensive, obscure to the average bear, or both. The items that fall outside of those two categories I probably already have or there is a reason I don't already have it. Many of my relatives have started to just give me cash for gifts. At first it was prefaced with "I know it is impolite to give cash, but I know you've mentioned a Whizbang 6000 or some such doohickey and I don't even know where to get it. I figured this way you can get it yourself and make sure you get the right thing." I do the same thing to other relatives, such as my brother, who has no common hobby to me. I know he hunts with hounds, but I wouldn't know what call to get him, or know if a particular tracking collar will work with his particular tracker, if he already has an extra, or if it is better to buy from store B instead of store A because they have a longer return period in case it fails after the first couple of uses. Sure I could call and ask him, but that kind of defeats the purpose of a surprise gift. By giving him cash, I know he'll get what he wants. We call them universal gift certificates.

We give cash because we don't want to have the awkward fake "Thank you, I wanted a HoundHunting-a-day calendar!" when he knows it will mean standing in line for 2 hours to exchange 2 of the 3 he got for something he can actually use. By exchanging cash he is usually online showing me "what I got him" (or at least helped him get) after the family meal. That makes me much happier seeing him excited about getting something he *really* wanted.

Now that there are little kids around at Christmas time, pretty much all of the gift giving has changed to focus on them. We adults usually give token or even gag gifts now and get much more enjoyment out of watching the kids and enjoying time together as a family than anything else.

Re:Isn't this illegal under consumer protection la

[Dthief]

Not if you opt into it via Amazon's terms of service.

You just will no longer be creating the same contract. The contract will now read this item will be offered to the recipient, which he/she can accept or exchange for credit towards another purchase.

Re:Isn't this illegal under consumer protection la

[DavidD_CA]

I see the defense for this being that Amazon is simply speeding up the return process.

Remember that gifts are sent via Amazon with a return policy for store credit, and shipping is free.

So if Aunt Mildred sent Johnny a book, Johnny can return it for a $15 credit to Grand Theft Auto: Fargo.

Amazon is just making that process faster, knowing in advance that Johnny doesn't want the book, and giving him the credit before even shipping.

It's a win for everyone except UPS.

i wish i had something like this at my wedding

[alen]

like a bad gift to cash in an envelope conversion

but bad gifts do serve a purpose, it's a free supply of crap you give to people where you have to give a gift but don't want to buy one

Re:Bait and switch

[Danse]

So in other words, Bozo^H^H^Hezos patented the ancient practice of bait and switch. His mother would be so proud...

No, just the practice of saving people the effort of returning products for store credit.

Re:Isn't this illegal under consumer protection la

[Danse]

I see the defense for this being that Amazon is simply speeding up the return process.

Remember that gifts are sent via Amazon with a return policy for store credit, and shipping is free.

So if Aunt Mildred sent Johnny a book, Johnny can return it for a $15 credit to Grand Theft Auto: Fargo.

Amazon is just making that process faster, knowing in advance that Johnny doesn't want the book, and giving him the credit before even shipping.

It's a win for everyone except UPS.

Even UPS will win when Johnny uses that credit to get something he actually wants.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[falsified]

What's cool about a database containing information I voluntarily input into it? Nothing, I suppose. The database better do that.

The patent is for some sort of function that uses the information in the database.

It shouldn't be necessary to make something like this. My aunt Nellie should know I don't want a bunch of "Mad About You" DVDs. But, gosh darn it, some people don't listen and this keeps people from a Christmastime shouting match about crappy presents.

If it's not a useful idea, then I'm sure Amazon will scrap the project because it isn't making them any money.

But nobody has been able to dig up prior art, and the rebuttal for this being an actual invention seems to be "yeah, but instead of the automatic step this would perform, you could just do the manual steps instead, DUH!!" which ignores the reason any invention is invented, ever.

People are just wary because of Amazon's history of pretty awful patent abuse. People should be wary of any patent, and any big company. But on this one here, I don't see the big deal (again, if we allow for software patents at all, which I'm not really a big fan of).