Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Patents Electronic Gifting
theodp writes "Simply giving your mother an e-book for her birthday could constitute patent infringement now that the USPTO's gone and awarded Amazon.com a patent on the 'Electronic Gifting' of items such as music, movies, television programs, games, or books. BusinessInsider speculates that the patent may be of concern to Facebook, which just dropped a reported $80 million on social gift-giving app maker Karma Science."
No: Amazon just picks the first few targets carefully ... targets that cannot afford the $5,000,000 lawyers fees to defend against the bloody obvious, so they give in. Then with a few precedents under their belt they are better armed to go against bigger fish. Even if they loose they can cause mayhem at a competitor in the 2 years that it takes to litigate.
Indeed the examiner cited a whole bunch of prior art, including:
PRwire; "Matchmaker.com Creates Business Development Unit for Gift Sales"; Jan. 20, 2000: pp. 1 and 2. cited by examiner . /; Sunday, May 20, 2007; p. 1. cited by examiner .
"GiftCardSwapping.com"; http://web.archive.org/web/20070520051410/http://www.giftcardswapping.com-
"Gift Card Exchange, Buy Gift Card, Discount Gift Cards, Cash Gift Card Swap"; http://web.archive.org/web/20080724163511/http:giftcardrescue.com/- ; Apr. 12, 2008-Jul. 11, 2011; pp. 1-3. cited by examiner .
"CBLS.www.cbls.com.(World Web Watch)."; Advanced Materials & Processes, v160, n6; Jun. 2002; p. 1. cited by examiner .
"Eugene Science"; Edgar Online; May 23, 2006; pp. 1-5. cited by examiner .
Mathieu, Elizabeth; "Opinion: Delaware: An unparalleled home for your trust"; Private Asset Management, v5, n20; Oct. 5, 1998; pp. 1 and 2. cited by examiner .
US Fed News Service, Including US State News;"Publication No. WO/2009/109949 Published on Sep. 11, Assigned to France Telecom for Electronic Gifting System (American Inventor)"; Sep. 15, 2009; p. 1. cited by examiner
There a whole load more patent documents listed in the patent as prior art.
Anyways, if sued I would probably just request a re-exam by the office, its only a couple of thousand bucks.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
There is one unusual twist: The patent describes the ability for the giver to delay payment until the recipient has accepted the digital gift, or cancel the order (and avoid payment) if the gift hasn’t been accepted and downloaded by the recipient after a certain period of time.
The FA goes on to say:
However, rest of the patent describes ideas that will seem less than novel to most people who use the Internet.
... and, so what? If the patent describes something unusual and nonobvious, then the fact that it also describes computers, or the Internet, or TCP, or anything else is irrelevant, provided the patent claims - the only part with any legal weight - recite that unusual, nonobvious bit.
Here's the method claim:
16. A computer-implemented method to enable selection of an electronically transferrable item that is electronically deliverable from a network resource to be presented as a gift, the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a selection of an electronically transferrable item that is electronically deliverable from a network resource to be presented as a gift to a recipient from a giver;
generating a gift notification to be presented to the recipient, wherein the gift notification includes an access mechanism to enable the recipient to accept the gift as a one-time delivery without requiring the recipient to hold an account with the network resource;
determining whether the gift has been accepted using the access mechanism;
when the determination is that the gift has not been accepted, enabling the giver to cancel the gift such that no payment is processed; and
when the determination is that the gift has been accepted, initiating payment by a payment mechanism associated with the giver.
Those last two steps are that "unusual twist" that the article admits is in there.
Incidentally, if you want to invalidate a patent by showing sufficient prior art exists, you have to show prior art exists for each and every claim element. Not that gifts exist, or that Christmas exists, or that something with a similar title or abstract exists. To invalidate this patent, you need to find a reference, published or in use prior to Sept. 30, 2008, that enabled a giver to cancel a gift if the gift has not been accepted, or would initiate payment if the gift had been accepted. Most systems would bill first, deliver second, and if the recipient declined, you had a long fight for a refund ahead of you.
Steam uses gifting, as does gamersgate. So prior art already exists.
Contrary to the Slashdot assertion, this is not a patent on "gifting". This is a patent on a gifting system that doesn't bill the gift giver until the gift is accepted, and allows the giver to cancel the gift if the recipient has not accepted it in time. Steam and Gamersgate (as well as the Wii Store, iTunes, etc.) all charge the giver immediately. Not only are they not anticipatory prior art, they also don't infringe.