Amazon Patents the Milkman

theodp writes "Got Milk? Got Milk Delivery Patent? Perhaps unfamiliar with the concept of the Milkman, the USPTO has granted Amazon.com a patent for the Recurring Delivery of Products , an idea five Amazon inventors came up with to let customers schedule product deliveries to their doorsteps or mailboxes on a recurring basis, without needing to submit a new order every time. 'For instance,' the filing explains, 'a customer may request delivery of one bunch of bananas every week and two gallons of milk every two weeks.'"

Comments

Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[benjfowler]

Jeff Bozos is a chiselling little crook.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Reached for a comment, Mr. Bezos replied:

Hey, when it comes to patents, I'm not the bad guy here!

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[coastwalker]

You get the feeling that now the housing market is bust we need a new a new commodity to inflate into the next mega bubble.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you the new economy - trading patent portfolios.

1. Write down everything that has ever been done in human history on bits of paper
2. Convert bits of paper into patents
3. ?????
4. Profit!

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Even without considering prior art, this is not an invention.
It's not patentable matter.
Why is USPTO asleep at the switch?

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

35 USC 101: Patentable Subject Matter
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

That's the black letter law and has been for quite some time. Not saying it is right, or that the interpretations haven't been vastly overextended, but patents don't cover just inventions.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[AK Marc]

One click was based on an idea a few thousand years old. "put it on my tab" worked like one-click for more than a thousand years.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Smallpond]

Even without considering prior art, this is not an invention.
It's not patentable matter.
Why is USPTO asleep at the switch?

This would fall under "Business method" patents. As for recurring deliveries without reordering, maybe my weekly newspaper should print a story on this "new" business method. They've only been doing this since they started.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[hedwards]

I used to have vitamins shipped to me every couple months on a subscription basis. I'd be very curious as to what about this patent is novel in any way.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[AK Marc]

Patenting a process that's been around for hundreds of years (milk delivery or one-click "put it on my tab") isn't "new" or "useful".

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[niftymitch]

35 USC 101: Patentable Subject Matter "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

That's the black letter law and has been for quite some time. Not saying it is right, or that the interpretations haven't been vastly overextended, but patents don't cover just inventions.

Oh bother... someone has been futzing with the word process.

There is an apparent corruption of the word process that confused a physical process with a logical process. The process for making steel is not the same as a process describing how to manage the making of steel.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[niftymitch]

Even without considering prior art, this is not an invention. It's not patentable matter. Why is USPTO asleep at the switch?

Interesting -- there are USPTO processes that schedule payments and renewal of patents. Both push and pull....

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[z3pp3h]

Way to miss the point and state the obvious. 2/2, wanna try again?

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Altus]

You don't get it man... they are doing it on the internet

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, it is not new. Not exactly sure what you mean by "not useful" though.

However, neither one of those is relevant to the point I was making. I was not commenting on the validity of patenting this process, I was simply commenting that, something being a process does not automatically invalidate its ability to be patented.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

I know...isn't the prior art inherent in the name of this "technology"?

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[wed128]

Correct, it is not new. Not exactly sure what you mean by "not useful" though.

He means the ability to patent the process is not new or useful. He was not speaking about the process which, while not new, is useful.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Luckyo]

If they have indeed invented a way to ship items on the internet, rather then on delivery vans, I think they deserve the patent! :D

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[sycodon]

It's clear we don't having any budding Einsteins at the USPTO office.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

And applying those processes to a new area is patentable. What remains to be seen is if other Internet vendors would challenge that.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[camperdave]

There is an apparent corruption of the word process that confused a physical process with a logical process. The process for making steel is not the same as a process describing how to manage the making of steel.

True. However, the process of specifying a repeating order for milk now is the same as it was then: Check calendar to see if it's milk delivery day. If so, deliver milk.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. New processes are patentable. Applying old processes to a new area is not patentable.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[blackbeak]

Hey! Once I get my patent covering the ability to process patents processed it'll be game over for all this stupidity!

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[harlequinn]

But it has to be "new and useful" - so by definition if it is not new then it is not patentable matter.

As to what a process constitutes, I'd suggest that each process should have to be evaluated on its own to determine whether it is in fact worthy of being considered a process. E.g. forming a queue, while a process, should not on its own be considered a process worthy of patenting. There would have to be something else that makes it novel.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[harlequinn]

Good point. There has to be some physical process involved somewhere though, so I'm sure that's what they argue is the process - i.e. the physical process controlled by the logical process.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[harlequinn]

I totally forgot about that category of patents. If you can call them that. They shouldn't exist.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't bold new Which the amazon patent ain't.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

i pray someone murders him

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[AK Marc]

Correct, it is not new. Not exactly sure what you mean by "not useful" though.

Whatever changes to the process("on a computer") do not alter the usefulness of the process, so it is no more useful than the previous version. Thus, is not useful. The idea was useful, hence why it was done for all of recent history for a variety of things.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[zzyzyx]

Why is USPTO asleep at the switch?

A rejected patents entails a relatively small application fee, needs a motivated rejection memoir from the examiner, which can be appealed and ensures a long processing time of the patent application.

On the other hand, an accepted patent means recurring renewal fees for the USPTO, and a painless job for the examiner which is paid in part depending on how many applications he can process per month.

Does that answer your question?

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

But this patent is awesome!

I am going to tell my boss that he can't expect me to come to office on any fixed schedule at any fixed time without violating this patent.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

I thought the U.S. was no longer first to file?

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

I frickin hate one click anyway. I always want to be sure what card it goes on. I always want the ability to confim I'm not buying 4 copies or misreading a decimal point. I --hate-- one-click.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Sarius64]

ROFL You just wait till I get my patent for breathing through the pipeline!

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[hedwards]

Yeah, well, so was the place I ordered them from. And yes, I know you're joking.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Why then I guess the question is why isn't USPTO regulated?

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[DRJlaw]

There is an apparent corruption of the word process that confused a physical process with a logical process. The process for making steel is not the same as a process describing how to manage the making of steel.

The very fact that you have to add the adjectives "physical" and "logical" to "process" undermines your argument. You've admitted that "process" is generic to both, and we can see that "process" is the word that was used.

You're not happy with patents for business methods. Many people aren't. But let's not pretend that the principal architect of the 1952 act was anyone other than man who ruled that there is no business method exception to patentable "methods" and "processes". Then, turn to the fact that even the Supreme Court is not willing to back your interpretation.

The argument concerning the meaning of the law is over and done with. If you refuse to turn to arguments concerning policy and changes to the law, you may as well change your name to Don Quixote.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

One click was an override of programmers' inherent anal retentiveness at getting confirmations before irreversible operations.

As such it was novel, and non-obvious (big time) and is a poor example of silly patents.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why is USPTO asleep at the switch?

What are you talking about? The patent office is doing exactly what it has to in order to increase their revenue.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[bryan1945]

Because it's one of the few federal agencies/departments that actually makes money.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[AK Marc]

But it was one of the ones that was eventually overturned, so it couldn't have been that good. And overriding "best practice" by doing something more simply is not novel. The idea has been around for literally thousands of years.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

PRIOR ART.

You use to be able to this on Starbucks,com with coffee beans. How the hell does the USPTO accept this crap.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[ryen]

?????==Sue anyone using prior art

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[DedTV]

Bezos has been openly supporting patent reform since 2000. He's repeatedly proposed a 3-5 year limit on business method and software patents to be implemented retroactively and a minimum 1 month public comment period before granting them so the public could submit prior art.

It's not his fault voters keep electing people who continually refuse to do anything of the sort. So long as they do refuse he, just like any business leader, would be stupid not to patent everything the USPTO will let them Patent as those that don't get patents get sued out of business by those who do.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[lsatenstein]

35 USC 101: Patentable Subject Matter
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

That's the black letter law and has been for quite some time. Not saying it is right, or that the interpretations haven't been vastly overextended, but patents don't cover just inventions.

Gee,
In my youth we had a milkman and he had the key to the house. He would look in the fridge and take the sandwich we left for him, he would look at the remaining bottles of milk, put the new ones in the back, and move the older ones to the front. He also checked the cottage cheese and butter consumption.

It worked great, until the era of supermarkets came on the scene.

Later, we had oil delivery where the oil company knew the size of the reservoir tank, the degree days, and our consumption over a previous period. That consumption gave them the information about the homes heat loss, as the important variable in the equation. This algorithm is still in use for the few homes that continue to heat by oil.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[pugugly]

Prior Art

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subscription
subscription (sb-skrpshn)
n.
1. a. A purchase made by signed order, as for a periodical for a specified period of time or for a series of performances.

Re:Way to go, patenting the fucking obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Or IS it? Maybe I can patent "A method to manage Steel Production" Who's in with me?

Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. Do we like or hate Amazon in this story?

Re:Ok

[Synerg1y]

As I understand, they patented their subscribe and save feature which has been around for years. How nobody else implemented this almost justifies that amazon should get the patent... almost, it's a stupid patent.

Re:Ok

[bobthesungeek76036]

Bravo to them to think of patenting such nonsense. Who woulda thunk??? The USPTO must be a bunch of monkeys behind the keyboard...

Re:Ok

[rtfa-troll]

As I understand, they patented their subscribe and save feature which has been around for years.

Note that this patent has been around for years. It was "Filed: November 2, 2009". Yet another example how patents which might be reasonable when applied to mechanical objects are completely stupid when applied to computer software. Even if this patent might have taught someone something when it was first filed (which looks extremely dubious; I suspect IBM mainframe automatically delivered supplies from the 1960s will be prior art), four years is a lifetime in internet computing. There is no way this could ever be a useful idea on it's date of publication.

Re:Ok

[HaZardman27]

That's giving them too much credit. If that were the case, with enough of them something of value would transpire.

Re:Ok

[ShanghaiBill]

How nobody else implemented this almost justifies that amazon should get the patent...

Newspapers implemented it a few centuries ago. If you subscribe to a newspaper, it is delivered to your door, and you get a discount off the newsstand price. You can also vary the schedule. For instance you can get it delivered everyday, or just on Sunday.

Re:Ok

[eksith]

Assuming they have keyboards. If the latest string of asinine patents are a hint, I'm willing to bet, they're two guys called Bill and Ted (but 80 years old) and instead of having an awesome phone booth adventure, they get to go on a ladder ride among dusty shelves full of patents.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a few online pharmacies will send you regular shipments of medications. Yes it is a stupid patent.

Re:Ok

[samkass]

I'm not arguing that it's a defensible patent, but it's also not patenting what the summary or TFA claims. Here's the #1 core claim of the patent:

1. A computer-implemented method for providing recurring delivery of products, the method comprising performing instructions under the control of a computer system for: receiving at the computer system a designation of a delivery slot and a recurring delivery list comprising one or more list items, each of the one or more list items identifying a product, a quantity to deliver, and a frequency of delivery; periodically generating, by the computer system, an order having a date and time for delivery based on a next occurrence of the delivery slot, the order being generated in advance of the date and time for delivery such that the order has a period of time of pendency prior to the delivery; creating, by the computer system, one or more order items for the order based on a last delivery date and the frequency of delivery of each list item in the recurring delivery list; receiving at the computer system a change made to a first list item of the recurring delivery list during the period of time of pendency of the order; in response to receiving the change, determining, by the computer system, whether the order includes an order item corresponding to the first list item; in response to determining that the order includes an order item corresponding to the first list item, modifying, by the computer system, the order item corresponding to the first list item based on the change made to the first list item of the recurring delivery list; and providing, by the computer system, the order to an order fulfillment system capable of causing the one or more order items to be delivered substantially on the date and time for delivery.

In other words, it's a particular implementation of a subscription system that has to include every element in the above list in order to infringe. It would be easy to work around this in implementing a subscription system. It's also not generally how milkmen used to operate. It's also PROBABLY covered by prior art, but whenever I hear "X just patented Y that's stupid LOLOL!" I have to go to the claims, and I usually see that, no, only a particular implementation/method for accomplishing Y is covered.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

GNC and, I think, Vitamin Shoppe, both do the same exact thing. Or at least to me it's the same. You can sign up to have vitamins/supplements delivered to your door on a regular basis for a discounted price.

Re:Ok

[AK Marc]

And what happens to my toner guy? Will he have to pay Amazon to bring me toner?

Re:Ok

[Synerg1y]

I meant technology wise more or less. It makes sense when you take into context the website you're posting on. I'm not aware of any other website that lets me subscribe for say water filters to be delivered every 3-4 months to me.

Re:Ok

[Em Adespoton]

How long did this patent take to process? I had a local food delivery service doing exactly what this patent describes 12 years ago... and they weren't the first one in my area to do it (first one was around 16 years ago I think).

Add to that that Amazon doesn't even sell produce in my area, and what I get is...
higher prices to cover patent licensing with no discernible gain to anyone (these other companies that came up with the same solution as Amazon are NOT competing with them in the local market -- and it can be proven that they arrived at the solution independently just by using the wayback machine).

Re:Ok

[magarity]

As far as I can tell, my milkman's online account management does all that.

Re:Ok

[Jmc23]

Sounds like a few of the organic delivery services I've used in Canada.

Re:Ok

[PPH]

Coming soon to Washington State and Colorado!

I think the USPTO has been partaking of these organics for years.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

My Milkman's website allows me to do this...

Re:Ok

[holostarr]

How about any of these services:

Dollar Rubber Club
Craft Coffee
Birch Box
Hall & Madden

Or visit the link below for a list of on line subscriptions:

Subscription Services

Re:Ok

[icebike]

As I understand, they patented their subscribe and save feature which has been around for years. How nobody else implemented this almost justifies that amazon should get the patent... almost, it's a stupid patent.

When you look at the actual patent you see there was plenty of prior art cited. If Amazon cited these you can bet they believe (as does the USPTO) that the Amazon patent is significantly different, and does not infringe.

You have to READ the patent to see what part of this is new.

For instance Amazon states in the Patent

Some online merchant systems may provide customers the ability to place standing orders for delivery of consumable products on a recurring basis, such as every week or every month. However, these systems may be limited in their flexibility for allowing modifications of the recurring orders or for allowing the addition of one-time or specialty products to an order. Further, the customer may not be able to schedule the recurring orders for the same time and day of each week or month, thereby making it difficult for the customer to arrange to be present at the delivery of perishable goods or other consumables.

This patent is different, in that it allows Scheduling not only the day of a re-occurring delivery, but also the time. This is pretty significant. You get to choose the time slot from available time slots, when the truck will be in your neighborhood on the days you request, at the hour you request. And you do this by some form of drag and drop of products to your door step, selecting from the available time slots (presumably when the truck will be there). Pretty specific if you ask me.

Further, you can easily change it by adding or subtracting items (one time, or every scheduled time) to be on that truck, put it on vacation hold, etc.

(If Amazon can actually pull that off in any grand scale, I'd be surprised, but that's not the patent office's problem.)

Further virtually every claim in the patent is proceeded by the words: A computer-implemented method.
Dammit! I hope there is an App for this!!

This, the computer scheduling done by the customer, combined with picking the actual delivery time slot from the available time slots, is the bit that they are patenting. Not the milkman, not the newspaper boy, not your local grocery weekly delivery.

The closest prior art is the cited Amway patent. But it merely suggests to the customer that they might want to order some more Amway for future delivery, and says nothing about the details of precision or picking of exact days and time slots.

I'll leave it to the lawyers (and wanna-be lawyers) among you to pick out the details where this patent differs from the others, but do try to contain your rage till you at least Read the Patent, and ignore the hype in the summary. Its really pretty clever, and relies on Amazon knowing the precise location of the delivery vehicles on their routes in the future, and using that information, allowing the customers to make sure a half dozen bananas are on that truck, and will arrive at their door step when they are home to receive them.

Ambitious, and fairly novel if you ask me.

Re:Ok

[St.Creed]

I think the inventory planning system for a large manufacturer I worked for, does the same. However, it may never have been published. I'm also pretty sure they never thought to patent it, since this is too stupid to patent and those guys had brains.

Re:Ok

[Synerg1y]

To drill down further: let's talk about websites that are significant in size and thus significant to the internet:

http://www.internetretailer.com/top500/list/

I'm also intrigued: will those sites have to change their subscription saving ways? What if it was just a subscription and you didn't save shit, does that fall under the patent?

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you get your papers only on specific days, or at irregular intervals, or adjust a product list on the fly? No. you had one item and you either got it every day or just weekends. It is not a milkman, it is not news papers, it IS dynamic cart orders on potentially atypical yet regular and recurring basis...on a computer.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

Exactly.

Its pretty amazing when you read all the claims, and imagine dragging and dropping a dozen eggs onto the manifest of a truck that will just happen to be near your house at 7pm every second Wednesday. And then being able to put that delivery on vacation hold, or add a one time order of 12 pork chops for the big barbecue you are planning next Saturday. And the delivery will take place within the time period you specify so the neighbors dog doesn't run off with your chops while you are at work.

Amazon has to know where the trucks will be at future points in time.
Provide you with a way to put products on that truck, set them to be periodic or one time, Adjust your orders, add, subtract, reduce, or hold.
All from your computer, and (hopefully) from your smartphone.

Its way more ambitious than the Milkman, and I'm not aware of anything that comes close.

People have to stop the knee-jerk reaction to headlines.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

Regular basis?

At precise times of day, on specific days of the month/week? Can you put them on vacation hold? Can you easily add, subtract, or substitute? Is there an APP for that?

Not even close.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

As I understand, they patented their subscribe and save feature which has been around for years.

Note that this patent has been around for years. It was "Filed: November 2, 2009". Yet another example how patents which might be reasonable when applied to mechanical objects are completely stupid when applied to computer software. Even if this patent might have taught someone something when it was first filed (which looks extremely dubious; I suspect IBM mainframe automatically delivered supplies from the 1960s will be prior art), four years is a lifetime in internet computing. There is no way this could ever be a useful idea on it's date of publication.

No. Not even close.

Good, you followed the link to read the date it was filed.
Bad, you stopped reading right there.

This is way more ambitious than simple order systems.

Go back and read it again.

Re:Ok

[greg1104]

The only difference between that patent speak monstrosity and scheduled delivery services as old as humans is "by the computer system". Replace it with "by a person and an abacus" and you can find prior art that's ten thousand years old. The fact that the actual lawsuits you could win using the patent will only impact a narrow combination of claims doesn't dull the chilling effect on society of having patents in an area. And Amazon starts with the presumption of patent malice due to the equally ridiculous 1-click patent. This one does nothing to sway that bias.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Picking a day is already picking a time, just at a lower resolution of time.

They've effectively patented a higher resolution logistics system.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

To drill down further: let's talk about websites that are significant in size and thus significant to the internet:

http://www.internetretailer.com/top500/list/

I'm also intrigued: will those sites have to change their subscription saving ways? What if it was just a subscription and you didn't save shit, does that fall under the patent?

You have to save shit if you are going to allow your customer to order a dozen bananas every other week on the truck that will just happen to be in their neighborhood at 6PM on Friday.

And when they add two pounds of Nuts for delivery 5 days before Christmas on the truck that will be near their house there at 3:30, all they have to do is drag the nuts to the delivery schedule for their neighborhood, mark it one time, instead of re-occuring.

Look, this is way more precise than "send me a newspaper every day".
You get to pick the day.
You get to pick the time of day slot.
You get to specify the re-occurrence frequency and day of the week.
You get to easily add/subtract from your scheduled deliveries, all on line or from your phone.
You get to see a list of exactly what time slots are available, (when the trucks will be near you), and select the one you want.
You get to put it on hold when you go out of town.

They aren't patenting the fact that its saved in a computer. They are patenting an entire delivery scheduling methodology for customer order management of groceries (etc) that will re-occur on a predictable and fairly precise time period of the customer's choosing. Not something that shows up in the mail sometime in the future.

Re:Ok

[Nethemas the Great]

What do you mean? This is a staple means of operating for coffee, tea, wine, etc. type businesses from even before the DotCom bubble. "Send to my business 2lbs of Sumatra blend every two weeks. Bill my credit card."

Re:Ok

[icebike]

Picking a day is already picking a time, just at a lower resolution of time.
They've effectively patented a higher resolution logistics system.

Sure, in one sense all they are doing is saying "We will deliver stuff when you want it".

But read the patent, and think of the possibilities, and find anyone else willing to make that offer with that level of precision and have it all customer driven.
Nobody else does that for grocery delivery, and allows customers to schedule the weekly bacon delivery all by computer for a time they are going to be home.

Almost other system you find simply lets you ask for something to be shipped (maybe) and arrive (maybe) sometime in the future, on something approximating a schedule, but which you get little say about.

Re:Ok

[Virtex]

Depending on your definition of "deliver", I think cron may be in violation of this patent.

Re:Ok

[Nethemas the Great]

Better tell Culligan then...

Re:Ok

[Nethemas the Great]

That's the precise business model employed by countless businesses from tea and coffee companies, to the Culligan man. Many have been doing it from even before the DotCom bubble.

Re:Ok

[greg1104]

You idiot kids think you invented having a brain...this was exactly how just-in time ordering was already done on a computer by the auto industry in the 80's. Electronic data interchange (EDI) with exactly this sort of capability wasn't a new concept even then. "Please deliver me X widget assemblies and Y doodads every 9 days until I use EDI to tell you otherwise". Yup, remember first doing that myself in 1991.

Re:Ok

[steveg]

I used to get kitty litter delivered every six weeks from a website selling it. They had a "subscribe" page on the site where you marked the time interval between deliveries, which product you wanted, and your credit card number.

This was 4 or 5 years ago. How is this different?

Re:Ok

[greg1104]

There's this thing called delivery logistics, and Amazon is at best hundreds of years late to be inventing it now.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

bullcrap.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit. drugs and alcohol are not your friends.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

And, again, that is not what this patent is about.
You obviously STILL haven't read it.

Go find me another example where a customer can drag and drop two pounds of hamburger and some Cheetos and dip, to a truck that will be at his doorstep every friday after 5pm but before 5:30, and have that repeat that till football season is over, and do this all from his smartphone, and make changes to that order right up till midnight the day before.

The fricking army wishes they had that kind of logistics.

Trivialize it all you want, but nobody has a system in place to do this that Joe Sixpack can run from his couch.

Re:Ok

[c 0xFF]

Yeah, Slashdot has a tendency to oversimplify patents to their core idea, which always sound ridiculous. A variation on the Strawman fallacy.

Here's the problem with the implementation in this patent: it's bloody obvious. I mean, how else would you design "a computer-implemented method for providing recurring delivery of products?"

performing instructions under the control of a computer system

Well, duh. Let's use a computer.

a designation of a delivery slot and a recurring delivery list comprising one or more list items, each of the one or more list items identifying a product, a quantity to deliver, and a frequency of delivery

Ok, keep a list of what to deliver, where, and when.

periodically generating, by the computer system, an order having a date and time for delivery based on a next occurrence of the delivery slot, the order being generated in advance of the date and time for delivery such that the order has a period of time of pendency prior to the delivery; creating, by the computer system, one or more order items for the order based on a last delivery date and the frequency of delivery of each list item in the recurring delivery list;

From that list, have the computer create an order in advance of delivery.

receiving at the computer system a change made to a first list item of the recurring delivery list during the period of time of pendency of the order; in response to receiving the change, determining, by the computer system, whether the order includes an order item corresponding to the first list item; in response to determining that the order includes an order item corresponding to the first list item, modifying, by the computer system, the order item corresponding to the first list item based on the change made to the first list item of the recurring delivery list;

If I'm interpreting this right, this seems to be a question of what happens if a change is made between making the order form from that last step and delivery time. In this case, the computer makes the appropriate change. How novel.

and providing, by the computer system, the order to an order fulfillment system capable of causing the one or more order items to be delivered substantially on the date and time for delivery.

And then the computer sends the order to be fulfilled.

It seems to me that all the subsequent claims focus on that part where something changes before an order is fulfilled (change in quantity or frequency is claim 2, a hold on delivery is claim 3).

Now, don't get me wrong here. Managing all the complexities of automated deliveries can be quite complicated. Each of the claims seems to focus on one of those complexities, and shows the basic way the system integrates that feature. But, the solutions Amazon patented are the basic way anybody would go about solving this without computers.

"Someone wants more bananas, and I've already written out the order form! Oh, no! Whatever shall I do? Hmmm ... let's look through the orders ... yep, there it is ... let me write down the new quantity. Phew! What would have done without this patent!?!"

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of raw text in the patent exceeds the code for the logic it implements. About 15,000 words in text, or maybe a few thousand lines of code. I hate reading patents.

Re:Ok

[c 0xFF]

First off, yes, I read the patent.

Amazon is, of course, doing something on the scale that nobody else has attempted. They'll probably be very good at it, and good for them.

However, that has nothing to do with the patent. The processes described by the patent are the exact same thing that people have been doing in real life on smaller scales for hundreds (or maybe even thousands), of years.

There is nothing ... NOTHING ... in that patent that enables them to do this on a large scale, except for the automation that a computer provides (which, unfortunately, seems to make anything patentable these days). If you disagree, please call out something specific, like an actual claim in the patent, and a description of why it's something new and not just the first and most obvious solution their engineers came up with.

Congratulations to Amazon if they pull off this scale of delivery. But what they're doing should in no way be patentable, at least not as described in the patent that was awarded.

Re:Ok

[Hognoxious]

They are patenting an entire delivery scheduling methodology for customer order management of groceries (etc) that will re-occur on a predictable and fairly precise time period of the customer's choosing.

Still, it's hardly rocket science, is it? It's more flexible & sophisticated than telling the milkman to bring you a pint every other day, but it's not a qualitatively different thing like a jet compared to a piston engine.

I'd be surprised of most ERP systems don't have something like this.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

it's NOT NOVEL AT ALL

look at a small-business oil delivery company and how they deliver fuel and parts and service to their customers

every single thing that you talk about has already been implemented

the oil delivery people have been carrying cell phones and using GPS devices for decades

Re:Ok

[avandesande]

You have to remember too that Amazon is probably more concerned by getting hit by a patent troll than they are on cornering the market.

Re:Ok

[Hognoxious]

Business to business scenarios have worked like that for twenty years. The classic example (they don't teach it on the DeVry MBA, apparently) is the auto industry's kanban, as pioneered by the Japanese.

From personal experience in the packaging industry, breweries schedule the arrival of empty cans at the filling plant in excruciating detail; they can be off the truck, filled and ready to go to the supermarket in the time it takes the driver to take a piss.

This is at most a few incremental improvements (which don't pass the obviousness test) and a bit of lipstick.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

There is nothing ... NOTHING ... in that patent that enables them to do this on a large scale, except for the automation that a computer provides (which, unfortunately, seems to make anything patentable these days). If you disagree, please call out something specific, like an actual claim in the patent, and a description of why it's something new and not just the first and most obvious solution their engineers came up with.

Well the whole aspect of the customer being able to pick groceries (etc) from a list, and drop them into a time-certain delivery slot is pretty novel if you ask me.

In no other system I am aware of does the customer have a pre-published list of when delivery slot exists at their particular residence. Everybody else says we will get there when we get there. Most don't offer the frequency of delivery that Amazon is already doing in their target areas. (Mostly Seattle for now).
Schwan's comes closest I think. But their selection is abysmal and their 14 day cycle is not how people buy groceries. (Step outside their schedule and price goes way up).

Amazon has to make their truck schedules Address Specific, and presented to to the users as a series of time-slots that Amazon can come close to guaranteeing. That's pretty novel.

Amazon has to handle your regularly scheduled grocery deliveries (arguably not that unusual, although still not common), and marry that to the Address Specific time slots. (Its the combination of these two elements that is pretty unique).

As for the order management being totally computerized, and customer manageable on line; Obviously that's not unique either.
Scheduling repeat deliveries, lots of places handle that as well, although, again, not with any precision.

I believe it is the addition of fairly precise scheduling of both re-occurring orders, (all fully user adjustable) and one-off orders, vacation holds, etc. that makes the Amazon patent fairly unique, not only TODAY, but more precisely in 2009.

Its not like scheduling Comcast to tell you they will be there between 3 and 5, (and having them show up at 7, or not at all). They know precisely what they have to do, and have everything in the truck, they don't have that many products.

Amazon has way more stuff than they could possibly put in the truck, and they have to sequence-load each truck for each route with a load that they might even have finalized until the truck pulls up to the loading dock.

And they have to put this before the user on their computer screen in an obvious and understandable way. They clearly imply drag-and-drop in their wording.

We all expected the supermarkets to come up with this. We've dreamt about it for years each time we trudge off to Safeway or Supervalue.
Nobody did it. You can't buy this service anywhere except portions of Seattle. So its pretty novel if you ask me.

Its ambitious. That it does not exist even today is pretty indicative that its unique and non-obvious. It might be considered obvious in retrospect, only if you're willing to equate a milkman to a full scale customization delivery schedule of a wide variety of grocery products, or simply assume into existence a computer system tied directly to a customer scheduled delivery schedule for almost any food item you want on a regular basis at a pre-determined time.

Like I say, Schwan's s the closest you can come. And its not even close.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

I'd be surprised of most ERP systems don't have something like this.

Enterprise Resource Planning? Really? In the grocery business? All driven by house wives on their iPads?

If its so obvious, why isn't anyone doing this? God knows we waste so much gas and time going to the grocery store every few days.

Why all the hate for the first group that could actually put all the pieces together and make it work?

Re:Ok

[icebike]

Nope. Not the same. (And cell phones have nothing to do with it).

Let me know then that oil truck driver will arrive with three frozen pizzas and a gallon of milk that I added to my account just last night, (while laying in bed with my tablet) for my kids birthday party, even though today isn't my normal day and those items are different than my normal grocery deliver that happens on monday at 5pm.

Oil delivery. Come on!!!

Re:Ok

[Hognoxious]

Shut the fuck up, you shill.

Shouldn't you be busy catching fish or stealing depositors' money?

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

I can already schedule a delivery to the exact day for almost anything; just have it shipped overnight the day before. Why is increasing that to the exact time so novel? Does the patent go into explaining exactly how one would pull that off. I'm guessing not and the patent is broad enough to cover any and all possible methods.

Re:Ok

[Hognoxious]

But this is different! It's revolutionary! You can't just do shit like saying "don't send any next week, I'm on holiday" but you can say "send double the next time, and make one decaff, I've got relatives visiting and one's on meds". And it uses, can you believe it, the internet!

You must not be a stupid cunt from Iceland if you can't see that.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

Ship Groceries overnight? You want to spend 30 bucks shipping a quart of milk?

How can you ASK if the patent explains exactly how it is done, and in the same sentence GUESS that it is overly broad? Obviously you refuse to read it, but still want to pontificate about it.

Re:Ok

[mrbester]

I'll have to double check but I'm sure all the major supermarkets in UK have had a recurring order facility for years. You get to pick a time slot as well.

Re:Ok

[ShanghaiBill]

Why all the hate for the first group that could actually put all the pieces together and make it work?

No one here hates them for "doing it," but some hate them for "patenting it." I don't even hate them for that. I don't hate Amazon at all. Amazon is just doing what any big company in a similar situation would do: try to patent everything and see what goes through. My "hate" is reserved for the USPTO. They supposed to be acting in the interest of the citizens. By allowing garbage patents like this, they are stifling competition and making our economy less efficient.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

Its not a garbage patent. Its a protect your ass patent.
Someone was bound to sue them sooner or later.

Re:Ok

[richlv]

This patent is different, in that it allows Scheduling not only the day of a re-occurring delivery, but also the time. This is pretty significant.

are you fucking serious ?
some "deliveries" can be scheduled for a specific month, date or day of week. it's garbage collection. and you think increasing resolution a bit to add time of day is worth a patent ? that sounds like research & development department for retarded amazon engineers.

it has nothing at all to do with actually pulling it off and being profitable. in a densely populated region that would be easier... WAIT GOTTA PATENT SOME SHIT ABOUT THAT.

it's a sad state of mental capabilities if one can honestly claim that it's a valid idea to patent.

Re:Ok

[richlv]

on the second thought, did i just fall for a clever troll ? :)
it did sound a bit too unbelievably silly...

Re:Ok

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Surely the process as you just described has been common in the restaurant supply system and other wholesale distribution channels for several decades. The previous process may be done on pieces of paper with a different degree of granularity, but the underlying concept is not new.

"Hey, which truck can I get this on? No, I do not need it that soon because it will be stale before the weekend rush. Thursday afternoon? Perfecto!"

Re:Ok

[icebike]

Sure the concept is not new, but the execution (process) and the machinery involved is.

That is what patents protect. Not Ideas, but machines and methods of doing things.

Amazon has computerized the entire process, from grocery selection, to picking and packing, to scheduling and shipping. (Its a process patent - much loathed, but yet still within the law).

Remember a patent doesn't cover an idea, or some way of doing things in the past. It covers NEW things (machines) or ways of doing something (processes).

Just because the Wright Brothers invented an airplane doesn't mean there weren't gliders previously and internal combustion engines previously. And just because they got a patent (Did they?, guessing) doesn't mean that no one else can patent a different airplane, or a hang glider.

Combining previously invented things (old phone orders and manual lists, scheduled deliver routes) with new technology (computer order systems, fully automated picking packing loading, with closely scheduled routes all managed by computers, is a significant change.

Pick up anything in your house with a patent number on it. Then tell me it has never existed before, in any other form.

Patents for incremental improvements of brooms are just as valid as the patent for the first broom.

Re:Ok

[SoftwareArtist]

Wait - did you actually READ what you just posted?

Look again at the text you quoted: "these systems may be limited in their flexibility for allowing modifications," which implies they also may not be. "Further, the customer may not be able to schedule the recurring orders for the same time and day," which implies they also may. All they say is that some existing delivery systems don't have these properties. But plenty of others do, and they don't even deny that. (Guess what? You can tell your newspaper company, "Don't deliver my paper for the next three days, since I'll be away," and they'll do it. There is nothing whatsoever novel in this. Just because some existing delivery systems don't have a certain property (but others do), that doesn't mean you can patent it!

Re:Ok

[icebike]

Your argument is with Amazon, the section you quoted was a quote directly out of the patent document.

As for not being able to patent it, The USPTO issued them a patent, so your protestations to the contrary are moot.

The newspaper is not groceries, they don't give you a guaranteed delivery time, and you have to call them up, and you can't log in to their web site and modify your order from the Times to also throw in 2 pounds of hamburger next thursday.

You can't pick and choose PIECES of a patent and scream "This is already done", Patents stand as a whole, all of it together. You don't get to invalidate a patent for a tricycle with a refrigerator under the seat just because someone else patented the tricycle and some other guy patented the refrigerator.

Re:Ok

[SoftwareArtist]

As for not being able to patent it, The USPTO issued them a patent, so your protestations to the contrary are moot.

If that were true, our patent system would be even more fatally broken than it is. Patentability is determined by law (and ultimately by the courts), not by the incompetence of a patent examiner. Sadly, there are far too many incompetent patent examiners who approve a steady flood of bad patents on things that, by law, are not patentable. Those then need to get appealed, litigated, and ultimately rescinded at enormous cost. This is just the latest example.

And you missed my point about the quote. It doesn't say that no one has ever combined these elements before, only that there exist services that are missing one or more of these elements. There also are lots of existing services that do combine all of them and aren't missing any of them. Lots of other people in this thread have cited examples, so I won't repeat them.

Re:Ok

[guevera]

So they're patenting the service which Safeway has been offering since 2007? And wasn't there a couple of companies that did the same thing back during web-bubble 1.0?

Re:Ok

[icebike]

There also are lots of existing services that do combine all of them and aren't missing any of them.

Apparently not. Otherwise it would be simple for someone to come up with a realistic example.
So far, nobody has posted anything that comes close.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

Where do you buy things on line at safeway, AND get a choice delivery time slots, automatic re-orders, ability to log in and add or subtract from your automatic order, put your weekly order on hold while you are on vacation?

You have to place EACH order on line at safeway. You can't tell them to deliver a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs every 4 days at 5pm.

Re:Ok

[jackbird]

I was doing that with Freshdirect in 2005. Except for the heating oil part.

Re:Ok

[rtfa-troll]

The crucial mistake you have made is to read the whole patent. The whole patent is typically a major misdirection. It talks of the glorious complex new idea they had and looks, to the layman, like something valuable. However, that's not what they are attempting to patent. What you want to read is claim 1 or more generally each of the "independent claims". Each of these things stands alone as a system that they are claiming a patent over and if you do what is stated in any one of the "independent claims" then you would be considered to be infringing. Almost nothing else in the patent, apart from, possibly, places where they define the meaning of words which occur in claim 1, has any real importance whatsoever. The courts will interpret your patent to cover even completely unrelated systems which use the same 'idea'.

Claim 1 in this case basically says, 'an automatic order system where you can change the items in the order and then it rebuilds the order'. Please note that it does not actually give any specifics about how that is done in terms of specific algorithms.

There are later "dependent claims" as in "the system of claim 1 where the xxxx is a yyyy". These do not in any way influence what the patent claims (since they would already be covered by claim 1). They just make it more difficult to get rid of the patent as overbroad and obvious, especially if you actually did more or less the same thing as Amazon is doing.

Re:Ok

[icebike]

And by "attempting to patent" you mean DID patent, because the patent was in fact issued.

Now it's up to someone else to fight to overturn it.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a particular implementation of a subscription system

No it isn't. It's a particular example of the centuries old existing invention of periodic delivery. To claim it's something new is arbitrary and in this case completely wrong.

It would be easy to work around this

No it wouldn't. There are millions of businesses in the US. Try coming up with a separate "patented periodic delivery" system for each one of them. Even by the PTO's ridiculous standards of "difference" that would be impossible. Those millions of businesses are going to be arbitrarily taxed whether they like it or not.

I usually see that, no, only a particular implementation/method for accomplishing Y is covered.

Explain the difference between "idea" and "implementation". You can't. An implementation is simply a more specific idea and the boundary between them so arbitrary it'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Re:Ok

[hairyfish]

Its way more ambitious than the Milkman, and I'm not aware of anything that comes close.

Maybe you don't get out much? I worked for an online retailer a few years back and this was fairly standard technology in the Supply Chain game. We as retailers didn't need to know where the trucks were, we simply gave the package, the address and the delivery times to the courier company who have the smarts to manage drivers and vehicles. A couple years after that I did a small job for a courier company. The technology there was impressive and was fully geared towards reducing the standard 1-3 day delivery to under an hour. So you could order something online and have it at your door in a hour (obviously there are conditions that apply). Transport Logistics is a hugely competitive industry. Since the rise of online retailing, it has exploded as everyone now gets stuff delivered. While Amazon may be leading the charge in some areas of this industry, this idea is neither new or original.

Re:Ok

[bryan1945]

Don't offend the monkeys.

Re:Ok

[Pseudonym]

Note that this patent has been around for years. It was "Filed: November 2, 2009".

My milkman service (which also delivers bread, bagels, fruit, meat etc) has been doing Internet-based maintenance of both regular and irregular orders since 2007 at least. (That's when I started with them.)

Re:Ok

[anguirus.x]

I'm not arguing that it's a defensible patent, but it's also not patenting what the summary or TFA claims. Here's the #1 core claim of the patent:

1. A computer-implemented method for providing recurring delivery of products, the method comprising performing instructions under the control of a computer system for: receiving at the computer system a designation of a delivery slot and a recurring delivery list comprising one or more list items, each of the one or more list items identifying a product, a quantity to deliver, and a frequency of delivery; periodically generating, by the computer system, an order having a date and time for delivery based on a next occurrence of the delivery slot, the order being generated in advance of the date and time for delivery such that the order has a period of time of pendency prior to the delivery; creating, by the computer system, one or more order items for the order based on a last delivery date and the frequency of delivery of each list item in the recurring delivery list; receiving at the computer system a change made to a first list item of the recurring delivery list during the period of time of pendency of the order; in response to receiving the change, determining, by the computer system, whether the order includes an order item corresponding to the first list item; in response to determining that the order includes an order item corresponding to the first list item, modifying, by the computer system, the order item corresponding to the first list item based on the change made to the first list item of the recurring delivery list; and providing, by the computer system, the order to an order fulfillment system capable of causing the one or more order items to be delivered substantially on the date and time for delivery.

In other words, it's a particular implementation of a subscription system that has to include every element in the above list in order to infringe. It would be easy to work around this in implementing a subscription system. It's also not generally how milkmen used to operate. It's also PROBABLY covered by prior art, but whenever I hear "X just patented Y that's stupid LOLOL!" I have to go to the claims, and I usually see that, no, only a particular implementation/method for accomplishing Y is covered.

You should actually read the list. It covers a computer-controlled system for accepting order lists, and generating the orders before the delivery date so if the customer changes their order or whatever, you don't fuck it completely up. I mean, you can go ahead and 'workaround' checking to see if the customer cancelled, or 'workaround' checking to see that the order is sent out *before* the date the customer wanted it... Those are terrible workarounds though.

Re:Ok

[anguirus.x]

Exactly.

Its pretty amazing when you read all the claims, and imagine dragging and dropping a dozen eggs onto the manifest of a truck that will just happen to be near your house at 7pm every second Wednesday. And then being able to put that delivery on vacation hold, or add a one time order of 12 pork chops for the big barbecue you are planning next Saturday. And the delivery will take place within the time period you specify so the neighbors dog doesn't run off with your chops while you are at work.

Amazon has to know where the trucks will be at future points in time. Provide you with a way to put products on that truck, set them to be periodic or one time, Adjust your orders, add, subtract, reduce, or hold. All from your computer, and (hopefully) from your smartphone.

Its way more ambitious than the Milkman, and I'm not aware of anything that comes close.

People have to stop the knee-jerk reaction to headlines.

The logistical problems Amazon has chosen to deal with aren't covered by the patent.

Re:Ok

[rtfa-troll]

You want to remember that and bring that up at the point they sue someone over this patent. If they get sued and use it for counter defence, you might consider not remembering..

Re:Ok

[Pseudonym]

Roger that.

Incidentally, I did just check on the Wayback Machine, and the "change your order" form is clearly there in the version from December 2007. It's not just my flaky memory.

Re:Ok

[Hognoxious]

Where do you buy things on line at safeway,

In a physical sense I'd be In front of a computer. Same as when I buy anything online. Url-wise, probably at safeway.com.

AND get a choice delivery time slots, automatic re-orders, ability to log in and add or subtract from your automatic order, put your weekly order on hold while you are on vacation?

I tell my butler my requirements and he sorts it all out. Doesn't everyone?

That's what this bag of arse you're shamelessly shilling is. A butler, on the internet!.

Frost Pist!

[PPH]

What about ice delivery?

You kids with refrigerators stay off my lawn!

It's official

[bobthesungeek76036]

The USPTO has no signs of life...

Re:It's official

[MickyTheIdiot]

Apparently, you can take any patent in the database, copy-pasta in a word processing document, go to the end of the document and add these characters:

....ON A COMPUTER!

And you have a new patent, ready for filing.

This is becoming absolutely absurd.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

The USPTO has no signs of life...

I'm sure there's life, just not intelligent.

Re:It's official

[Camaro]

I love pasta. May I license your patent?

Re:It's official

[MickyTheIdiot]

No.. but add "...on a computer" on the end of it and it's your innovation.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean this is becoming... patently absurd?

Re:It's official

[Midnight Thunder]

You mean "There's life Jim, but not as we know it"?

Re:It's official

[rolfwind]

The thing is, that this wouldn't be patentable in real life, even when patents first began.

Back then:
"Hey, I want to patent something?"

USPTO: "What?"

"A customer requests a product, not just once, but to have it delivered to them regularly. We keep their names on file and send it out and collect payment at the end of the month."

USPTO: "That's not an invention, that's how you run your business. Fuck off."

Re:It's official

[ShanghaiBill]

Apparently, you can take any patent in the database, copy-pasta in a word processing document, go to the end of the document and add these characters:

....ON A COMPUTER!

And you have a new patent, ready for filing.

In a 2007 ruling the Supreme Court said these sorts of "combination patents" are not valid. So I can't see how the USPTO can justify continuing to issue them.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean anyone who writes spaghetti code will now owe royalties to him? Entry level programmers, and the companies that hire them, will be bankrupt within a day.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple: they rubber stamp everything and let the courts deal with it.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

This is becoming absolutely absurd.

You might even say it's patently absurd...*ducks*

Re:It's official

[Sarten-X]

More closely to the actual patent:

"My invention is a method for business, where I have a machine that will listen to my customers, record what products they want regularly, and maintain an ongoing list for each customer. Whenever a product on the list needs to be ordered so it will arrive when the customer wants it, this machine will alert me place the order on the customer's behalf... on a computer."

Or in other words, it's not really like a milkman, or even how a milkman operated, but let's not let that get in the way of our Slashdot-mandated rant against the USPTO.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah(hhhhh!)

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, you can take any patent in the database, copy-pasta in a word processing document, go to the end of the document and add these characters:

....ON A COMPUTER!

And you have a new patent, ready for filing.

This is becoming absolutely absurd.

If you look at the Patent's claims it is actually "A computer-implemented method" followed by ...

How do you find the application? I would like to see their prior art section.

Re:It's official

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

You forgot to put on the sunglasses first.

Re:It's official

[NEDHead]

I propose to implement a business method by which you don't have to live on this planet anymore - ON A COMPUTER!

I believe you owe me royalties

Re:It's official

[NEDHead]

We know it, we just don't want to.

Re:It's official

[TemperedAlchemist]

We clearly need more Einsteins working in patent offices.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

No, just insanely profitable.

Re:It's official

[Maxo-Texas]

More closely to the actual patent:

"My invention is a method for business, where I have a COMPUTER (instead of a human) that will listen to my customers, record what products they want regularly, and maintain an ongoing list for each customer. Whenever a product on the list needs to be ordered so it will arrive when the customer wants it, the COMPUTER (instead of a human) will alert me place the order on the customer's behalf... on a computer."

Or in other words, it's not really like a milkman, or even how a milkman operated, but let's not let that get in the way of our Slashdot-mandated rant against the USPTO.

Re:It's official

[Qzukk]

it's not really like a milkman, or even how a milkman operated

I was a milkman once, let me tell you it was a tough job. I had no idea what my customers wanted, when they wanted it, or hell, I didn't even know where they lived, I just wandered around town until I ran out of gas then dumped the whole load of milk in the ditch and walked home.

Just think, if only someone had invented a way to keep a list of people, what they wanted, when they wanted it and where they wanted me to drop it off, I might have been able to keep my job a second day!

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not milkmen didn't just deliver milk to every door. They actually had a business method whereby customers could place orders for regular service and they kept track of their customers. Same with newspaper delivery boys and ice delivery men.

So fine, this is a method patent. It is a patent of the method which the milkman always used... on a computer. Rather than say on a telephone plus notebook.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually plenty of milkmen not to mention supermarkets do just that already. Our receptionist orders bottles of milk on a regular basis can adjust the amount being delivered for the next cycle how you say? Through a website ran by the milk company pretty sure that covers amazons patent right there.

This revolutionary business process has been around for years.

Re:It's official

[Bill_the_Engineer]

So you are saying it's more like my pharmacist who keeps a record of all my prescriptions and then automatically ships them to me when it is time for a refill?

Re:It's official

[Glendale2x]

Throw "on the internet" or "on a computer" in there and you've got yourself a patent.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

It's combining three prior arts (a) maintaining a database of repeating orders (source: second-hand experience) (b) allowing the customers to update the orders at will (source: same as a.) and (c) scheduled tasks (duh!).

Now if it would (d) shuffle the delivery dates based on availability (e) while optimizing cost and level of service, and/or (f) suggest substitutions in case of unavailability (g) based on historical data, I would consider that whole combination as patentable. Individual parts, hell no!

Re:It's official

[chilvence]

Fucking brilliant :)

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

My invention is a method for business, where I have a machine that will listen to my customers, record what products they want regularly, and maintain an ongoing list for each customer.

Or in other words, it's not really like a milkman, or even how a milkman operated

HTF is this "Insightful?" Are the mods conspiring to troll us all? That's exactly how home milk delivery operated, at least until the industry dried up back in the 1960s or 70s. You'd tell a sales rep you wanted a quart of milk every MWF, and they'd have some mysterious back-office process for maintaining that request and communicating it to the delivery van so the desired product(s) arrive when the customer wants. In the 1950s, it was probably all note cards and rolodex, but the whole point here is that converting a process from rolodex to computer database ought not to be patentable.

Re:It's official

[DrData99]

Well, Amway Corp has been doing this *on a computer* for quite some time. And they have lawyers that *might* take exception to having their business processes patented by someone else...

Re:It's official

[similar_name]

And don't forget

. . . .on a mobile device
. . . .in the cloud

Re:It's official

[Sarten-X]

Amazon's system doesn't place orders for regular service. It regularly places orders for service.

The distinction is subtle but meaningful, and not too far a leap to call it money-saving (therefore useful), either. The periodic system repeatedly inserts orders on a schedule, rather than inserting a single order with a "repeat this" flag.

As a programmer, I could see this helping to make upgrades and other changes easier, because there's a clear demarcation between immediate and future shipments. If something's on the shipping side, it goes out immediately.

Re:It's official

[Sarten-X]

That back-office process probably being to tally up all the items of each kind needed for this route into a master list for the truck, so the truck could be loaded and verified as a whole, then individual orders are assembled as the truck goes around. This would let the trucks be packed most efficiently for the heterogeneous load.

In contract, a system along the lines of Amazon's would have the mysterious back-office process involve a worker running through the notecards for each house, every day, and labeling each house's order separately. The items would then be packed into boxes all the same size, which would be loaded on the truck, which would just drop off a box at each house along the route. This takes less work to load the trucks and make deliveries, but at the expense of having extra processing for each order.

That difference in efficiencies is what's important. The ordering system can focus on ordering, and the shipping system can focus on shipping.

Re:It's official

[desdinova 216]

*puts on sunglasses* YEAH!

Re:It's official

[Sarten-X]

Now, see, if you had only had Amazon's system, you would have had each house's order readily packed in your truck, whether they were regular customers or not. All you'd have had to do would be drive past their house and throw the order in the general direction of the door, porch, or doghouse with your apparently-normal level of concern. No worries about special orders for the day or who's paying when... just driving and tossing.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this comment insightful? So what is the big deal about the patent? The 'Funny' comment below by Qzukk has the right perspective.

Re:It's official

[Kaenneth]

"I propose to implement a business method by which you don't have to live on this planet anymore - ON A COMPUTER!"

It's called an MMO.

Re:It's official

[qwerty shrdlu]

Well, as a milkman you should have licensed one of my exclusive inventions: a semi-autonomous semi-intelligent propulsion system that not only pulls your vehicle but remembers the entire route and all the stops. It even runs on unprocessed biofuel and produces salable fertilizer as waste! May I present: Equus ferus caballus

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's actually difficult to figure out how to implement this stuff on a computer, which is the innovative or novel element of the invention. People get hung up on the process elements of the patent but completely forget that the implementers implemented the process on a machine which is difficult and requires novel thinking. To put it another way, computers are good at keeping lists, following up on schedules, and remembering things, but they don't know how to do all those things at once. Putting all of those things together was the novel element of the patent.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you should patent this process as a business method!

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

I use to work for a company that "...while using Directory Assistance" and got a patent for being able to hit a button on your phone to return to an agent. Literally, you could process * or 0 after you were connected to the # and get an Agent to do another lookup.

And they won a few court battles challenging it. Because it was "while using directory assistance." made it novel/unique. /Curtis

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn it! How am I going to get my Proactiv now? And my Playboy magazine?

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You sound like the ex-captain of the Costa Concordia, justifying every stupid thought, every stupid decision. Oh and by the way, the wrong result arrived at by an "official" process, does not justify the end result.

Re:It's official

[Theaetetus]

Apparently, you can take any patent in the database, copy-pasta in a word processing document, go to the end of the document and add these characters:

....ON A COMPUTER!

And you have a new patent, ready for filing.

In a 2007 ruling the Supreme Court said these sorts of "combination patents" are not valid. So I can't see how the USPTO can justify continuing to issue them.

Because, contrary to what the above posters have ranted about, this patent does not claim an entirely known process "... ON A COMPUTER!" In fact, as you note, the Supreme Court said they weren't patentable in KSR (and they weren't patentable before it either) and there are NO totally known process "... ON A COMPUTER!" patents. Not one. People might try to paraphrase a patent that way, but their description is not the patent - the patent is the claims, and there are no issued patents with a claim like that.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

this really cracked me up, thanks

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

This is 2013 and this is *precisely* how my milkman has operated for quite some time. It allows him to maintain an edge against the supermarkets, and has recently started delivering bread, fruit and meat products.

Re:It's official

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I was a milkman once, let me tell you it was a tough job. I had no idea what my customers wanted, when they wanted it, or hell, I didn't even know where they lived, I just wandered around town until I ran out of gas then dumped the whole load of milk in the ditch and walked home.

Reid Fleming?

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

How about patenting the process of adding 'on a computer' to the end .... Oh wait Amazon also patented that as well ;)

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Nutrisystem foods delivered once a month. They're not that tasty, I think eating cardboard is a good way to lose weight tho.

Re:It's official

[Anonymous Coward]

People get hung up on the process elements of the patent but completely forget that the implementers implemented the process on a machine which is difficult and requires novel thinking.

The claim doesn't disclose how they did it, only that it was done and anyone else who does it (presumably in any way at all) infringes.

Non-disclosure should be every bit as valid of a grounds for dismissing a patent as non-novel, being that it fails to advance the arts and sciences.

Sounds like a subscription...

[hedgemage]

Newspapers, magazines, book-of-the-month, all these are products that are delivered at regularly scheduled intervals. But these are old media, so it makes sense that Amazon doesn't know about them.

Re:Sounds like a subscription...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon doesn't know about books? I doubt that...

Re:Sounds like a subscription...

[Anonymous Coward]

Newspapers, magazines, book-of-the-month, all these are products that are delivered at regularly scheduled intervals. But these are old media, so it makes sense that Amazon doesn't know about them.

There is at least two unique innovations offered by Amazon:

1. You are charged separately instead of annual subscription as you would with newspapers

2. Subscription happens on the internet with a computer

Yep, that looks highly innovative to me. They should have filed for two separate patents.

Re:Sounds like a subscription...

[Talennor]

Strangely enough, I've managed my magazine subscriptions through Amazon for years. So their own stuff is prior art! And old enough they can't patent it anymore.

Re:Sounds like a subscription...

[digitig]

When I had milk deliveries from a milkman -- quite a few years ago now -- I managed the deliveries over the internet. I no longer get that delivery, but I do get a recurring vegetable box delivery and a recurring snack box delivery, both of which I manage over the internet. This is in the UK, though, and the US Patent Office might not be aware that we exist.

Re:Sounds like a subscription...

[Anonymous Coward]

To bad there are already web grocer's that have been doing this for years. I wander if they are going to have to suddenly start licensing their entire business model from amazon.

Re:Sounds like a subscription...

[AK Marc]

If you joined Columbia House in the 1980s (maybe before, I wasn't aware of them before that), you'd get an automatic delivery that would be billed separately. Or newspapers or magazines for subscriptions. There's nothing in #1 that hasn't been done for 20+ years (some for thousands) before Amazon applied for this.

Re:Sounds like a subscription...

[nukenerd]

There is at least two unique innovations offered by Amazon:

1. You are charged separately instead of annual subscription as you would with newspapers

2. Subscription happens on the internet with a computer

Yep, that looks highly innovative to me. They should have filed for two separate patents.

I take it that your post is irony, but pay annually for newspapers? Maybe direct from the publishers, but it is quite usual (in UK at least) to order papers and mags to be delivered from a local newsagent, and call in the shop to pay him once a week.

Re:Sounds like a subscription...

[greg1104]

The Columbia Record Club goes back to 1955.

Re:Sounds like a subscription...

[AK Marc]

So, hundreds of years of milk delivery and newspapers, 50+ years of "media" (specifically what Amazon is known for selling), and thousands of different "of the month" clubs around for many years, all as prior art, and the patent clerk has never heard of any of them. It should have been rejected for inadequate documentation of prior art. Sometimes this all reminds me of Bush when he went to a supermarket as president and was shocked at bar code scanners. 20+ years after they were common, and he'd never seen one. He was president and had no idea how the common man lived. Not even a little bit. The patent clerks have never heard of milk deliveries, [whatever] of the month clubs, or even Columbia House or other media services (I know Disney has one now too).

Talk about obvious and pre-existing

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't there a whole herd of men's razors and women's clothes shops that so this already?

Columbia House may have something to day about scheduling regular deliveries too.

Re:Talk about obvious and pre-existing

[bobthesungeek76036]

Finally!!! Maybe I can get Amazon to sue ProActive and get those annoying refils to stop!!!

Why patent?

[schneidafunk]

The first time they try to defend this patent, it will be thrown out of court. Seems like a waste of time & money.

Re:Why patent?

[Desler]

Because they can use it to threaten smaller competitors.

Re:Why patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you develop a technology for a company and get a patent on it, it is highly likely you are getting a nice little bonus.

Re:Why patent?

[characterZer0]

Or they figure it is cheaper and easier for them to patent it than to deal with some other company patenting it and harassing them.

Re:Why patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

They will make you spend a couple million to defend your shipping of a product on a regular basis.
You go out of business, your grand children may get a dime some day.

Re:Why patent?

[Desler]

Yeah, that must be it. Oh wait...

Re:Why patent?

[rolfwind]

So this is just a defense patent. To squat on it before anyone else.

The US Patent Office seems like a waste of time and money to me.

Nearly all the good stuff is kept secret and proprietary and unfiled anyway.... and all the big 500 companies run their employees ragged filling out and filing bullshit.

All the megacorps usually have folders of patents, in a Mutual Assured Destruction situation with all the other megacorps. If you're a small guy, good luck enforcing your patents, it usually means who has the best lawyer (read: most money), not justice.

There seems to be two beneficiaries to the patent system: the big corps trying to keep smaller, nimbler competitors out. And the patent trolls.

I don't think either side benefiting so much is what the original framers of the Constitution forseen or wanted. The system has to be either abolished or tightened up considerably, with fines for frivolous applications. I'm thinking that the patent office should mythbust. Show us the best thing on the market. Show us your invention. We'll pit the claims against reality and see if there is an improvement. If no improvement, don't patent it, even if it's a new brainfart.

Re:Why patent?

[Githaron]

All lot of small companies that do not have the resources to get into a long legal battle will pay out. Even if they fought and managed to win, the legal battle would likely either bankrupt them or put them so far behind their competition that they might has well be bankrupt. The patent office has been irresponsible by letting bad patents through and expecting the judicial system to validate/invalidate them in court.

Re:Why patent?

[Sponge Bath]

...squat on it before anyone else.

This is proof that Jeff Bezos knows squat.

Re:Why patent?

[leonardluen]

haha, you think it is defensive!

how soon we forget "1-click"

Re:Why patent?

[drrilll]

Exactly. I hear they will be extracting a patent toll from paper boys (and girls) everywhere.

Joke of the year.

[NettiWelho]

United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Really???

[bobthesungeek76036]

"... an idea five Amazon inventors came up with ..."

It took five of them to come up with this brilliance??? Amazon must have some stellar intellects...

Re:Really???

[NettiWelho]

Amazon must have some stellar intellects...

Or an R&D department filled with lawyers instead of engineers.

Re:Really???

[CanHasDIY]

"... an idea five Amazon inventors came up with ..."

It took five of them to come up with this brilliance??? Amazon must have some stellar intellects...

On the other hand, it does open up a new avenue for the old joke setup;

How many Amazon inventors does it take...

- to screw in a lightbulb?
5 - one to screw it in, one to file a patent on the process of rotating an object until it is seated in a socket, and 3 more to pat each other on the back.

Re:Really???

[Squeebee]

Actually it took one guy to come up with it, the rest was this...

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-08-05/

Re:Really???

[maxwell demon]

Amazon would never be so ineffective. They certainly would file several patents on this: One for rotating an object in order to get it seated, and another one for stopping the rotation at the point where it is seated, both with subclauses for the case that the object is a light bulb, that the place it is put into is a light bulb socket, and that the direction of rotation is clockwise (and to be on the safe side, also a subclause for the case where you put it in by counter-clockwise rotation). Then two further patents for removing the old light bulb. In addition, one on selecting the correct light bulb for the socket. Not to forget the patent for the method of detecting when a light bulb has to be replaced by checking if light is emitted by it when a voltage is applied.

Re:Really???

[Belial6]

Well, kind of like that but the one guy that came up with it has long died of old age long before Amazon ever existed.

Re:Really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon must have some stellar intellects

Actually, their intellect is truly dizzying. I think this is a stalling tactic though. Plainly, the bogus patent is in front of YOU.

Re:Really???

[CanHasDIY]

Why did the 5 Amazon inventors cross the road?

To slap the chicken with a lawsuit for not purchasing a license to their method of relocating livestock from one side of a tarmac surface to the other via bipedal forward kinetics patent

Re:Really???

[crunchygranola]

Dilbert is luck he only got his boss's name on it. I have a patent filed by an Internet company that has about a dozen names on it. One other engineer, besides myself, created all of the work described in the patent. But every manager in the two chains-of-command (tech and business) involved is on the patent, some of them people I had never heard of, plus as few who were completely unknown to me. The order of listing naturally has us two engineers at or close to the end of the list.

Re:Really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't be an Amazon patent; the chicken isn't on a computer.

Re:Really???

[camperdave]

"... an idea five Amazon inventors came up with ..." It took five of them to come up with this brilliance??? Amazon must have some stellar intellects...

Oh I don't know. They were able to take a perfectly functional, ordinary, every day process used by thousands of companies all over the country for hundreds of years with blatant and copious examples of prior art, and get it through the patent process. That's got to take some level of genius.

Re:Really???

[sxltrex]

You forgot: "...on a computer."

Re:Really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Credit was given: The janitor inventing it on a drinking binge, his boss getting credit for drafting the patent, the CEO for being CEO and two lawers for the final patent.

Re:Really???

[girlinatrainingbra]

Yeah, this kind of "authorship misattribution" crime also occurs so frequently in medicine that there are actually peer-reviewed journal articles about it: it's called gift authorship. This is where those who really had no part in or contribution towards the work are given authorship credit for owning the lab or being a graduate student's dissertation advisor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship#Honorary_authorship

Not even the first website to do this!

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, in the late 90's I know there were sites that would set up automatic recurring deliveries of crickets and other reptile foods for you. And I imagine there are many other specialized sites with similar systems.

Ok...

[Agares]

This is crazy why do companies even get patents like this anyways? I use to think that people who say we should do away with patents were a little crazy, but maybe it wouldn't be as bad as I thought if it were to happen? I don't know hard to say, but stuff like this is ridiculous. Something seriously needs to be done already.

Re:Ok...

[cdrudge]

Honestly? Because just by itself it looks really small and harmless. No one would ever use it all by itself because it likely would be thrown out of court and/or invalidated. However to combine it with a hundred other equally ridiculous patents and you go after your smaller competition. The smaller guys might be able to fend off a few patent attacks, but if you throw your entire portfolio at them then it takes significantly more resources to fight. So the competition either capitulates, or licenses your nonsense patents.

The patent is valid

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent is valid because it is on a computer or it is on "the cloud". Sheesh you guys - don't you know how patents work by now?

You Really Can Patent Everything

[Anonymous Coward]

First it's MS suing over a patent on page up and page down, now it's Amazon filing for a patent on the milkman. What the fuck happened to prior art? Oh right, corporate lobbyists.

This is actually pretty useful...

[AcquaCow]

...I use it so that I get a new pack of socks every 6 months...

Nothing better than coming home from work to a fresh package of socks!

ERMAGHERD SCHOCKS!

Re:This is actually pretty useful...

[DocSavage64109]

What happens if they "accidentally" change the price of your sucks upwards of 1000%? Does it still automatically purchase them?

Re:This is actually pretty useful...

[Anonymous Coward]

ERMAGHERD *SERKS

you don't reddit so good

Re:This is actually pretty useful...

[Anonymous Coward]

They lock in your price for recurring orders like that. When the price rises you keep paying the same amount. It's only if you cancel your subscription that you will then have to pay the new price.

Re:This is actually pretty useful...

[Overzeetop]

Actually, I don't think it does. You agree to a price and a recurrence frequency. Prior to the new delivery, I believe you get a message (I got one on an item I'm trying out, but it's because my card expired so they knew they couldn't charge it). You can then delay/skip the delivery at your option or cancel the recurrence altogether. Apparently, I don't go through after shave nearly as fast as the slowest "average" person.

Re:This is actually pretty useful...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Except for that time they screwed it up and sent out tons of deliveries months early and double-charged you for it. (Maybe a year or two ago?) Yeah, no thanks, I'm done with that.

Western Science Is So Wonderful

[Shimbo]

So if you happen to be passing through Waterbury, Conn., and see a solid gold milk truck driving itself through the streets, you'll know it's Jeff Bezos.

How many amazon inventors does it take...

[Dancindan84]

How many amazon inventors does it take to screw in a light bulb? No one knows, but it takes 5 to figure out how to automatically send you a new one every 6 months.

Re:How many amazon inventors does it take...

[slowdeath]

I would venture that none of the Amazon inventors were alive when milkmen roamed the earth...

Re:How many amazon inventors does it take...

[digitig]

What, none of them are alive yet? We still have milkmen (and women, I assume) around here.

Well ok then.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Did someone at Amazon tell their boss that you can patent the most bullshit things, and they're just seeing what the biggest BS patent they can get is?

Re:Well ok then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like a game? I wonder if the most outrageous patent application accepted gets a free beer or something?

But but but...

[CCarrot]

...you're doing it "using a computer"!!

That makes it new, right? /sarcasm

Hmmm ...

[gstoddart]

Columbia House did this years ago. I know many people get their oil or propane delivered regularly. TFS points out the milkman. Newspapers have been delivered for a long time.

This is a business process, not an invention from what I can tell.

Yet another patent which is a "system and methodology for doing something we've been doing for decades, but with a computer".

Epic fail to the USPTO.

Re:Hmmm ...

[characterZer0]

I signed up on the internet to have diapers delivered on a schedule in 2007, 2 years before the filing date.

Re:Hmmm ...

[gstoddart]

Wow, sorry to hear you need diapers, but glad you have the courage to admit it. ;-)

But seriously, automated, recurring delivery is decades old, possibly more. How this could even be patented is beyond me.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a business process, not an invention from what I can tell.

It's the process of configuring an existing business process over the internet!

Re:Hmmm ...

[SuricouRaven]

Business processes are patentable in the US. Have been to some extent since the patent system was established, and very firmly established as allowable following some recent cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent

Re:Hmmm ...

[gstoddart]

Yeah, but is this a "new method of doing business" -- or an old way of doing business, but with a computer?

I'm not getting a whole lot of "new method" out of that.

fresh direct is prior art

[alen]

maybe even webvan

in the NYC area we have had a bunch of food delivery startup over the last 15 years

in the dot bomb era we had webvan. you order food online and they deliver. they bombed.
peapod is owned by a few B&M food stores and delivers
Fresh Direct is the new all online food store in the NYC area. they even partner with nice buildings here in NYC to offer special holding rooms for food and to have the doorman sign for it. they have had subscription food delivery for a long time.

Fresh Direct is a little more expensive than B&M stores, but for busy people its a huge timesaver

He's forgetting something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Daily newspaper delivery began in the 16th century London, England.

Prior art. Oh yeah.

Doesen't peepad have patents on stuff like this

[Joe_Dragon]

Doesen't peepad have patents on stuff like this?

We need a strict firing policy in the USPTO

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who approves an obviously bogus patent simply needs to be summarily fired.

Honestly - its not like auto-renewal, auto-shipping etc haven't been around long before Amazon. How are the nitwits who approve these patents?

Having gone through the process at my current job to get patents approved, I have to assume there is some degree of graft going on here. I've had reviewers shoot down patents over silly points, and yet somehow Amazon, Apple (and other BIG companies) get absurd patents approved. I think I smell money changing hands in a back room somewhere...

Re:We need a strict firing policy in the USPTO

[Anonymous Coward]

No edit feature... Obviously I meant "Who are the nitwits", not "How"...

But they do it with a computer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's completely novel when you do add in some technology.

Uhhh

[Kreegalor]

Even from a electronic store, Thinkgeek was doing this years ago with their Bawls.

First to file.

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States will switch to a first-to-file system on March 16, 2013 after the enactment of the America Invents Act. So it doesn't matter if milkman have been using this invention for 50+ years.

Re:First to file.

[thebigmacd]

First-to-file only applies when two or more people apply for the same patent within the application period. Prior art is still relevant. The rest of the world with less-broken patent offices have always been first-to-file.

I patented the patent process

[bab72]

I patented the patent process and I'm going to sue the next person that submits a patent!

Re:I patented the patent process

[AtomicBison]

That was my immediate thought too!

Cuts out the middle man and according to my projections, will lead to greater amounts of profit. And we all know it's really about the profits! If only I had filed a patent for making money....

Re:I patented the patent process

[mercurywoodrose]

Well, i just patented the process for patenting the patenting process, so you owe me money from each case you win against someone who submits a patent. also, i patented the process for patenting the process for patenting the patenting process, and patented the process for that process, and just now patented the process for patenting an infinite recursion of processes designed to patent all patent processes.

Sincerely,
Jeff Bezos

What if?

[spaceyhackerlady]

Are Amazon deliberately trying to discredit the USPTO, or even the entire patent system?

This patent fails on so many criteria: prior art, lack of novelty, obvious. If it's granted, it's a crock.

...laura

Re:What if?

[SuricouRaven]

Most likely Amazon's policy is to patent anything and everything they can come up with. There is no penalty for a rejected application, so the worst that can happen is they waste some lawyer-time - if they were more selective, they'd risk not patenting something good, or being beaten to file by a competitor who invented simutainously but didn't waste time deciding if the invention was patentable.

Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the patent process surely is encouraging imaginative and innovative patent claims.

Its time to eliminate patents entirely. They are simply roadblocks to economic progress.

Ummm ... what about Alice

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't Alice.com basically been doing this for years; milkman ... "with a computer". Or peapod for that matter?

Makes me wonder

[DontBlameCanada]

Is this a real filing or is Amazon (or it's engineers) trolling the USPTO to see if there are any signs of life?
A software patent for something acting like the milkman that actually references milk deliveries? Something smells fishy.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

i am pretty sure the USPTO replaced all their employees with gerbils long ago.

Re:Makes me wonder

[greg1104]

They also have irregularly scheduled deliveries of new gerbils.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Absolutely.Geek]

Makes me wonder also, But maybe they are thinking that they got away with "put it on my tab" so maybe just maybe they will also be able to get "send me that again every week".......next they will extend this to 1-click(tm) will automatically re-trigger your order....also know as "the usual thanks Jeff"

Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I have just filed a patent on common sense, now you will all have to go about like idiots or pay up usage rights to me.

this is going down...

[snemiro]

What's the idea behind this kind of "patents"?? Some profit for some lawyers?? Can I patent "a displacement method using two organic carbon based devices, using one of them at a time" ??? Or "an organic device which captures air into a closed system and expels CO2" ?? So nature spent 4000 million years evolving for this??? what a waste....

first ti file?

[number6x]

Has first to file started yet?

If Amazon is the first to file on this does it matter how many people have done it before or even if they didn't invent it. It's all about who gets first post at the USPTO now isn't it?

Please help me understand. The broken patent system never made sense to me and the things Congress does to 'fix' it, like first to file, make even less sense.

Re:first ti file?

[blueg3]

If Amazon is the first to file on this does it matter how many people have done it before or even if they didn't invent it. It's all about who gets first post at the USPTO now isn't it?

No, first-to-file doesn't change how prior art works. (Okay, it subtlely changes some rules about prior art. It does not change in any way the overall idea that you can't patent something that already exists. "Already exists" needs to be demonstrated by something like a publication or an existing practice.)

First-to-file just changes the rules about how a conflict is resolved when two organizations independently patent the same thing. In first-to-invent, a court uses documentation from the two parties to determine which of the parties actually invented it first. (This is because when you invent something, if you keep it secret, it remains patentable. You have something like a year from when you first expose your invention to the public to file a patent. Hence, someone could easily file a patent on something that was already invented but never shown to the public. The first inventor could then file their own patent later. In first-to-invent, the latter takes precedence.) In first-to-file, instead of determining when the inventions were actually made, the filing date of the patent is used. It saves the courts from having to adjudicate these matters.

Doesn't change prior art.

Re:first ti file?

[rogerz]

That's a helpful response, but begs the question: If the later filer had already manufactured the invention, doesn't that make it "existing practice" and therefore prior art? Even if they hadn't manufactured it, but only designed it, if they produce the design in court with a provable date prior to the earlier filing, doesn't that at least make it "obvious" if not "prior art"?

What am I missing here?

Re:first ti file?

[blueg3]

Prior art has to be publicly disclosed. If you write a paper about your invention and make it publicly available, or manufacture the thing and sell it, or any number of other ways of making the invention known to the public, then it's prior art. If you invent it and don't do that, it's just an unpatented but patentable invention (and is not prior art). (I'm sure there's some subtlety about the "if you manufacture it" bit.)

Prior art isn't just art that is also prior. It's a legal term of art with a particular definition. The substance of the patent has to have been made known to the public to qualify as prior art.

Haven't they heard of prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on. Haven't they heard of prior art? The USPTO is out of control. And anyone who files a patent application like this appears stupid.

Patenting Air

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought about that for a few years now. Well someone has too, Right!
Providing Amazon or someone else says they have had that idea before me.
And since I live in Utah, where we have the dirtiest air in the continental USA. The cleaner it is, the more TAX charged.
Then after that I am going for water. H2O.
LOL

Jeff Bezos IS A GENIUS...

[Assmasher]

...his ACTUAL goal is to have software patents abolished entirely - while simultaneously protecting his company from others who patent things out of greed and avarice.

This explains why he continually patents the most ridiculously obvious things - it's an effort to eventually (so he hopes) get the non-technical world to realize how absolutely f***ing stupid the software patent system is. Sadly, he appears to think that his efforts need to be even more obvious; ergo, the latest patent.

I'm telling you - GENIUS...

BTW - On a serious note, I'd be embarrassed as an engineer to have my name as 'inventor' on a patent so blatantly f***ing stupid.

bad summary of patent

[Anonymous Coward]

The first claim includes the idea of automatic, last-minute changing of a recurring order. Without that element - no infringement. Bad summary in article.

good thing no prior art is out there

[Anonymous Coward]

from before November 2, 2009, I mean definitely nothing like the Petco Bottomless bowl that used a computer system to allow subscription delivery of a product so consumers didn't have to order it each time.
I mean no references at all from 2007
http://www.retailemailblog.com/2007/04/am-inbox-endless-bowl-of-upsell.html

Or especially not from 2001
http://chiefmarketer.com/direct-marketing/refill-please

The Petco.com site run by Petco Animal Supplies Inc., San Diego, has an auto-refill service called Bottomless Bowl. Customers buying products such as food, treats, litter and other staples that need frequent replenishment can set up the system to do so from every one to eight weeks. The system notifies customers by e-mail that the order has been shipped. The credit card is automatically billed (and as a courtesy, Petco.com tells customers if the card is about to expire). Customers can cancel an order by calling or e-mailing.

The service was started by Petopia.com when it launched in 1999. Petco acquired Petopia last December.

No previous art

[gmuslera]

You can't call art milk delivery, after all

Re:No previous art

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't call art milk delivery, after all

And why not? After all, the Tuscan milk is so exquisite it needs an artful process to delivery it at its full quality.

Defensive publication

[tepples]

That's what "defensive publication" is for. Any invention that one publishes can't later be patented by someone else.

Re:Defensive publication

[leonardluen]

except you can't use those to threaten and counter sue and attempt to force them to drop their suit.

for an analogy...say you are a bully carrying a stick out to steal someones lunch money. you come across victim A who is holding up his backpack defensively...might as well take a few whacks at him, he can't do much to you, and maybe you will get lucky and his lunch money will fall out of his pockets...worse case you hit him too hard and your stick breaks

on the other hand you come up to victim B who also has a stick. now you have to consider whether you are the one that will get the beating. it is similar to the debate about guns, having your own stick puts you on equal footing to your aggressor.

Re:Defensive publication

[Desler]

That you also think Amazon is doing this for defensive purposes is pretty funny. Just look at the history of all their lawsuits using the 1-click patent.

Re:Defensive publication

[leonardluen]

I like amazon's service but they are indeed evil bastards in regards to their patents. it makes me feel conflicted because i don't want to reward them for being pricks.

mostly just saying that "defensive publications" are a joke. mutually assured destruction is a better strategy because then at least you can take down the other guy with you.

Re:Defensive publication

[greg1104]

Your description violates my patent on preemptive war, which I totally invented despite it being common for over 100 years. Expect to hear from my patent attorney you scoundrel.

Re:Defensive publication

[camperdave]

That's not what patents are for. It may be what they have become, but it is not what they are for.

Re:Defensive publication

[Anonymous Coward]

In this example, Is amazon the guy with the backpack or the bully with the one-click stick?

Re:Defensive publication

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather big difference with sticks and guns. Those tend to be taken off you by the bully and used against you and thereby actually increase your risk. Patents are a bit more secure as a defence in that perspective.

Re:Defensive publication

[leonardluen]

i think amazon has pretty clearly shown they like beating up people for their lunch money.

Re:Defensive publication

[leonardluen]

how then do we convince the politicians that the process is broken and isn't working any longer?

Re:Defensive publication

[camperdave]

how then do we convince the politicians that the process is broken and isn't working any longer?

You don't. You vote in new politicians who aren't corrupt.

We're doomed.

[roc97007]

I'm going to patent piping natural gas to homes. It's crazy but it just might work.

Re:We're doomed.

[SuricouRaven]

The inventor of that, William Murdoch, actually didn't patent it because James Watt Jr informed him that it wasn't patentable.

James Watt's father, the more famous James Watt of steam engine fame, then went on to steal the idea for himself.

*The* Watt is remembered as the father of the steam engine. His true contribution to history wasn't really technological: He invented patent trolling. Boulton and Watt's firm dominated the industrial revolution by systematically patenting every little detail they could come up with, right down to individual layouts of gears, and then letting the lawyers loose on anyone who dared compete. Far from advancing steam technology, he deliberately held it back, fearful that smaller and more practical engine technology would be disruptive to his highly profitable business manufacturing large stationary engines. Murdoch eventually became a partner in the firm once it passed from Sr to Jr, having established his loyalty both by his skill at invention and his willingness to perform industrial espionage - offering assistance to unsuspecting inventors and smaller steam firms, only so he could gain access to their workshops and later testify in court that he had seen them using mechanisms patented by Watt.

Re:We're doomed.

[Pav]

Cite? Wikipedia at least doesn't seem to back up what you're saying.

Re:We're doomed.

[SuricouRaven]

That is strange indeed, because my apparent show of knowledge was actually just condensing things from several wikipedia articles together with what few fragments I already knew from reliable sources. Murdoch's gas work wasn't with natural gas though. Coal gas.

USPTO

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they all 3?? I think all the former and present dairies should rise up and challenge this to sue!

Re:USPTO

[SuricouRaven]

Numbers. Look at how useless this patent is. Do you think it's the only one? Amazon must file a ridiculous number of worthless junk patents like this - they've probably got lawyers who's only job is to review internal documents looking for patentable ideas. Every now and again they get lucky, and the patent will land before an examiner in an unusually lenient mood.

Re:USPTO

[Alumoi]

Haven't you heard? USPTO stands for United States Patent The Obvious. So, in order to be able to patent something, you must be sure it's been done before for a number of years but the sucker forgot to patent it.

Next patent

[ThatsNotPudding]

A patent on regular deliveries boinking all the stay at home wives in the neighborhood.

Re:Next patent

[Jawnn]

A patent on regular deliveries boinking all the stay at home wives in the neighborhood.

You forgot "...on a computer".
What? They have that already? I need to not get out so much.

USPTO

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is that we are currently trying to patent a couple different machines for the Agriculture industry, and we've been rejected a few times as our claims do not deviate from prior art enough, so far we've been able to differentiate our claims and proceed, but it's been pretty tough. they pull out prior art from vastly different machinery and say no to us, so why is it that something so obvious in software just floats on through. I'm guessing that although the patent is described as re-occuring delivery, the actual claims are for something different. the abstract and the claims can be pretty different.

First to file affects priority, not novelty

[tepples]

The United States will switch to a first-to-file system [...] So it doesn't matter if milkman have been using this invention for 50+ years.

How not? First-to-file affects only "priority", or conflicts between one patent application and another patent application. As I've explained before (as have others), it doesn't affect "novelty", or aspects of a patent application anticipated by prior art. Think of publication as a "filing" that ensures that no one gets the patent.

Not an invention

[EmagGeek]

Newspapers and Magazines...

Seriously, USPTO... what the hell?

Sorry, Amazon

[pubwvj]

Sorry, Amazon, but I have pre-existing artwork on this. CSA's and standing wholesale orders for our farm products are delivered to customers on a re-occuring basis.

Since I'm a generous and reasonable farmer I'll settle out of court with Amazon for a mere Billion dollars for their attempt to infringe on my business model.

But, But...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

This one is on a computer.

This gives me an idea of some perverse strangeness, I need to create a patent for the automated regular delivery of items that will then schedule automated regular delivery of other items. Damn now I can't as I have publicly disclosed my patent idea.

Innovation is saved

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness we have the patent system! Can you imagine how horrible it would be to live in a world where the innovators who came up with this idea had never been compensated for there work? Or worse, if after their idea became known, ANY COMPANY IN THE WORLD COULD JUST DELIVER THINGS ON A SCHEDULE? Human progress would come to complete halt! Businesses would burn and no one would ever come up with a new or useful idea, ever!

I only hope they are able to enforce this, that for generations to come anyone seeking to steal this idea will be forced to get permission from Amazon and pay royalties on every delivery.

(captcha: insane)

Underground service

[Anonymous Coward]

I want all of those things. It's like a utopia where you never have to go grocery shopping ever again. Do they deliver to basements?

Re:Underground service

[digitig]

Do they deliver to basements?

Yes, they do! (As long as the basement has an outside door.) In fact, most large UK supermarkets do home delivery for a modest charge, and I know people who do all of their grocery shopping on-line. They do leave the house, but not for grocery shopping.

Re:Underground service

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, most large UK supermarkets do home delivery for a modest charge, and I know people who do all of their grocery shopping on-line. They do leave the house, but not for grocery shopping.

As a giant flaming eyeball, I think I need to relocate to the UK.

This time it's real ...

[udippel]

We were used to plentiful of uninformed /. 'news' over the last decade on patents and stuff; when 'filing' and 'granted' was considered the same, effectively, and lots of nonsense, like the contents of the abstract being considered as the underlying idea, or even as the legally binded grant, and much more.

In a nutshell, I expected the same, yet again, and was almost reluctant to even go into the details and actually read the document.
OMG!
It is a patent
It does grant what the summary said
Incredible.!!

There is a comment from AC further up ("Bad summary of patent") stating correctly that it does contain a last minute change as necessity for potential infringement. True. But I can't believe that there is no anticipating document before 2009, where a recurring delivery system of any sorts had a 'last check' of possible modifications by the customer before the actual delivery.

Much too often, I had to come to the defense of my former colleagues in patent examination. In this case, however, I need to agree when someone questioned if there are signs of life left in the office.
Actually, I doubt it.

Re:This time it's real ...

[Theaetetus]

We were used to plentiful of uninformed /. 'news' over the last decade on patents and stuff; when 'filing' and 'granted' was considered the same, effectively, and lots of nonsense, like the contents of the abstract being considered as the underlying idea, or even as the legally binded grant, and much more.

In a nutshell, I expected the same, yet again, and was almost reluctant to even go into the details and actually read the document. OMG! It is a patent It does grant what the summary said Incredible.!!

There is a comment from AC further up ("Bad summary of patent") stating correctly that it does contain a last minute change as necessity for potential infringement. True. But I can't believe that there is no anticipating document before 2009, where a recurring delivery system of any sorts had a 'last check' of possible modifications by the customer before the actual delivery.

Much too often, I had to come to the defense of my former colleagues in patent examination. In this case, however, I need to agree when someone questioned if there are signs of life left in the office. Actually, I doubt it.

Uh, no, it doesn't grant what the summary said, and the fact that you ignored half of the limitations in the claims makes me wonder if those people in be examination corps were ever actually your colleagues.

Re:This time it's real ...

[udippel]

Uh, no, it doesn't grant what the summary said, and the fact that you ignored half of the limitations in the claims makes me wonder if those people in be examination corps were ever actually your colleagues.

Your assumption could be correct. If only the terminology was correct. What "claims'? You might want to go to bed tonight having learned that dependent claims do not form any limitations whatsoever. The first independent claim, one, does not contain any limitation beyond the implementation in software and the update of the transaction list quite close to the moment of execution. Over.
Dependent claims describe specific embodiments in conjunction and in the light of the independent claim(s) only.

Important Safety Information (Re:It's official)

[das-g]

Pasta on the computer might damage your hardware. Make sure it doesn't cover or obstruct any vents.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Jumping Jesus on a PogoStick

[MitchDev]

Are they trying to bring about the end of patents with this kind of stupidity?

Ever hear of a magazine subscription?

Culligan anyone?

[mjb]

Let's not forget the familiar "Culligan man!!" call. I remember that from the 70s-80s.

Next in line...

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent for a standalone telephone device (1) with a money slot (2) that automatically calculates the allowed time on the phone based on the amount of change (3) inserted. The device, when covered with a box (4) can be placed outside.

And the culprit is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...not Amazon but the USPTO.

Just be sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to make mine Tuscan Whole Milk!!!

fuel oil service to your home

[Anonymous Coward]

they deliver fuel oil to your home

they adjust the delivery schedule based on your needs which they calculate by looking at your past usage

they show up on schedule with appropriate service labor and parts to keep your furnace maintained correctly

they show up with diagnostic equipment and they can tailor their services to suit your needs

oil companies have been doing this for decades

there is nothing novel here at all

Write to your congressperson

[MobyDisk]

Everyone, repeat after me: "Business methods should not be patentable"
That means:
- No one-click ordering patents
- No more patents on online auctions
The courts cannot fix this. It is up to congress.

I'm patenting signaling a garbage truck

[kawabago]

I'm patenting signalling a city garbage truck that I have garbage to be picked up, by displaying my icon like garbage can at the curb side. The garbage truck thus informed of my need, stops and picks up my garbage from my signalling icon like garbage can. Then I will sue every city in the US for infringement. If Amazon can do it, so can I.

Re:I'm patenting signaling a garbage truck

[greg1104]

Too late; Apple already sued everyone over the trash can icon thing back in 1994. Why do you think Widows calls it the "Recycle Bin"? What Apple should have patented is the "on a computer" lawsuit.

The examiner behind this patent

[Anonymous Coward]

It is easy to find out that he has 8 years of patent examination experience, and has been promoted to supervisory tasks 5 months ago.
(Please, leave him alone!)
Relevant is, that he is not a freshman. This sordid episode rather demands to question the USPTO, what it actually thinks, or what its policies are. Or if it has been silently acquired by Amazon.
I am tempted to go Amazon, actually, and check if they have a patent office for sale. ;)

How in the bloody hell....

[mark-t]

....was things like home newspaper delivery not seen as an effing obvious previous implementation of this?

It is not first to invent, it is first to file.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

USPTO changed the patent definitions. It is not first to invent that covers patentability. It is first to file. So even if the milkman has invented it first, it is not enough, the first to file will get the patent. If the milkman can demonstrate he had been using it before the patent was filed, he can't be sued for patent violation. But all others folks who can not prove they had been using it earlier, are out of luck.

Well, that is my understanding of the patent law. Hope it is wrong.

Re:It is not first to invent, it is first to file.

[the eric conspiracy]

Public prior art SHOULD still be a statutory bar to obtaining patent.

Slashdot publishes a lot of OMG Patent stories that are based on lack of understanding of what a patent is or should be.

But this one I think they are right on. It is completely ridiculous that somebody should be able to get a patent based on the filed claims.

Re:It is not first to invent, it is first to file.

[RevSpaminator]

First to File.. Hmm, that leaves a lot of room for corporate idea theft. Patent it before someone else does, even if they are still working on the invention in secret. Sweet.

Re:It is not first to invent, it is first to file.

[Hognoxious]

I suggest you read the actual act, rather than being an idiot like the GP and assuming that three words sum up its entire intent.

Let me get this straight.

[Ziggitz]

They're naming the process after the original concept that demonstrates it's not an an original or novel concept and they still got the fucking patent approved? What does it take to get a patent request rejected these days?

Re:Let me get this straight.

[oDDmON oUT]

"What does it take to get a patent request rejected these days?"

A lack of payola, pure and simple.

Emulation ALONE should not qualify it

[Tablizer]

Just like the "slider lock" smart-phone case; any emulation of an existing non-patented physical process should not by default get a patent. A specific implementation of an emulation, okay that may be patentable, but not the mere act of emulation.

Thus one cannot patent emulating baseball itself because the act of baseball is not patentable (the game has been around a while). However, a specific algorithm for emulating the game is perhaps legitimately deserving of a patent, or at least a copyright. But that should not cover ALL baseball emulation attempts by competitors; only those that use the same algorithm. (Likely there are many ways to emulate baseball, to varying degrees.)

Re:Emulation ALONE should not qualify it

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? You lost me when you said "at least a copyright." And also everyone else who has a basic understanding of law.

Re:Emulation ALONE should not qualify it

[Tablizer]

Hmmm, can one copyright an algorithm? Suppose you wrote something in Python, copyrighted that source code; and then a competitor swipes it and rewrites it in Java. What charges could one successfully issue against them?

The Peddler

[Anonymous Coward]

At least "The Peddler" is still safe to use.....DOH!

Same point, two days ago...

[ZahrGnosis]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Taking something that exists and making it digital (or on the internet or on your phone or any "just-add-technology" change) doesn't make it new. Prior art should still apply...I refer you to my comment on Tuesday

Obvious, Novel, and Prior Art aren't just digital

Tuscan Whole Milk

[elmetatron]

Am I the only one excited that I can now get fresh Tuscan Whole Milk delivered to my house every other day.

Re:Tuscan Whole Milk

[RevSpaminator]

I believe it is every two weeks. You can get a bunch of bananas every week. Maybe someone should file a patent for Regularly Scheduled Delivery of products other than bananas or milk. The morons down at the USPTO would probably OK it.

They hired me to finish the

[Tablizer]

...green mold module.

Nothing New

[ak3ldama]

If nothing new is being invented, and novelty and true genius is gone: then we can, indeed, abolish the patent system.

Amway/Quixtar

[Anonymous Coward]

Amway/Quixtar has been doing this for years with their "ditto delivery" service.

I am the milkman.

[Anonymous Coward]

My milk is delicious.

Re:I am the milkman.

[RevSpaminator]

But is it Tuscan Milk?

I'll show Amazon

[Tablizer]

Well I got around this stinkin' patent by using trebuchets for delivery (and lots of bubble wrap). Just you try to sue the middle ages, Ama boy!

Is this prior art?

[techno-vampire]

For the last several years, I've been getting Cafe Gevalia delivered by mail. I set this up by going to their website, setting up an account and creating a recurring order. Ever since, I've gotten my coffee mailed to me without my having to do anything. Wouldn't that be an example of prior art, or if not, why not?

Re:Is this prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you get to specify the time of delivery, or are you just scheduling the time they ship from their end?

Re:Is this prior art?

[techno-vampire]

Normally, you just tell them the interval, and they ship it on whatever date required. That is, if you want it every four weeks, it's not going to get shipped on exactly the same date each month. When it gets here, of course, depends on the USPS.

My pharamcy has been doing that for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure how this isn't obvious.

My attempt to translate to English:

[Qzukk]

A program for providing recurring delivery of products consisting of a computer that:
1. Receives a designation of a "delivery slot" and a list consisting of:
1a. what to deliver
1b. how much to deliver
1c. how often to deliver it
2. Periodically creates an order with the date and time of the next delivery slot, in advance of the due date of the delivery.
3. Places items on the order based on when they were last ordered, and the frequency to deliver them.
4. Checks to see if a change is made to the list after the order is generated and before it is shipped, and if so the order is updated to reflect the change.
5. Sends the order to a fulfillment system in time to have it delivered (close to) on time.

If anything in here is novel, it's going to be automatically generating an "order" in advance, then automatically updating the "order" if necessary when the list of items is changed between when the order is created and when it's shipped.

Re:My attempt to translate to English:

[c 0xFF]

I'll second that translation and your analysis. That's exactly how I read that first claim.

Let's look at that "order" and how it's updated, though. That's the only thing that could remotely be patentable about their system.

My wife worked for a wholesaler, fulfilling orders for major retailers (including Walmart). In the morning, they would go through their filing cabinet and find the periodic orders that were to be fulfilled that day. Should would write up a "pick slip" (basically the same thing as an "order" in the patent) and send it to the warehouse. If the customer called up and requested a change to their order, she would go through the pick slips, find the right one, and make the change.

So, how does that compare with the patent? Well, the first difference is that my wife did the work herself and wrote things out on paper. Amazon's patent does it with a computer and databases. The second difference is that they called it a "pick slip" instead of an "order." If there's a third difference, I'm at a loss to see it.

Re:My attempt to translate to English:

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for the translation. I was cross eyed by the time I got two lines into the the claim.

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Quixtar (Amway) has been providing online scheduling of different products with different intervals since about 2002.

Everything's Fine..

[RevSpaminator]

There is nothing wrong with our system of patents...nothing at all.

Fire the reviewers

[jklovanc]

This is one instance where the incompetence of the reviewers is so blatant that they should no longer be working for the USPTO. There is a point that people need to be held accountable for their decisions. The USPTO has become too much of a rubber stamp under the idea that the courts will sort out any issues. The system breaks down under that model as many people do not have the money to go to court. The USPTO is hardly a speed bump in the patent process any more.

Re:Fire the reviewers

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the USPTO accountable for anything ? They can just stamp any application as new and get away with the money ?

This looks detrimental to real innovation, since it would take a bigger effort to dig through the pile of useless patents to find out if your product has to be licenced. Isn't there some body that can tell them they didn't do their job right, and that they should give the governement and the applicant its money back ?

My turn

[I Mean, What]

I'm going to apply for a patent for the process of applying for patents for processes. I don't have to worry about prior art, obviously.

My order thru local creamery is years old

[Anonymous Coward]

South Mountain Creamery has been doing this for years. Pray tell how this isn't prior art.

When elephants fight

[TapeCutter]

As an ex-paper boy I assure you newspaper deliveries were MORE flexible than Amazon 50yrs ago.

They are patenting an entire delivery scheduling methodology for customer order management of groceries (etc) that will re-occur on a predictable and fairly precise time period of the customer's choosing.

I have a picture of a milkman's horse lifting his blinkers with one hoof and rolling his eyes at this patent, it's just ordinary business practice for any company that delivers stuff to your door. The local chemist paid me to deliver stuff on on a push bike way back in the 60's. Most family's had one car (at most), the chemist had plenty of regular customers who had difficulty getting around so he bent over backwards to accommodate their needs. He didn't have a computer and trucks, he had an order book, a big black phone, and a bunch of eager kids on push bikes who had more than enough local knowledge to make UPS blush. If a customer was in dire need during school hours, he would get in his VW and deliver it himself. Virtually the same service is available today but it's organized by the government, you get a qualified nurse in a tiny car rather than a grotty kid on a push bike. There is however a shit load more paper work involved to join up.

Copyright protects Amazon's software implementation of this age old business practice, the only possible use for a patent such as this is to burden and stall serious competitors with serious litigation, as in Apple vs Samsung. Software patents are a legislative experiment that failed. It was worth having the experiment, but now we know that all it does is provide an arena for elephants to fight, and we all know what happens to the grass when elephants fight.

My new patent idea

[sir-gold]

I have an idea for a great new invention. I call it the Rubber-Stamp Machine.

You insert a filing for a new patent, and it automatically stamps APPROVED on the patent. It can process hundred of patent applications per hour, without any human interaction or oversight needed.

There may already be prior art however, as it seems the USPTO already owns a few of these machines.

example

[lgalindo]

a beautiful example of why patents should be abolished

This is how MLM companies survive

[Anonymous Coward]

Multi-level marketing tools at auto-shipments as their life blood. Interesting how it could affect them.

how about to start to joke about USPTO workers

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not know whether it is rush for money, total ignorance, or the lack of basic ability to comprehend concepts, but I would propose to start to make fun of USPTO workers, maybe facing such a social stigma they would start to put more attention to their work.
e.g.
"Failed college exams, do not worry, ... you can always find a job in USPTO"
"How many USPTO workers does it take to change a light bulb, ... none - they do not know what a light bulb is, the patent has already expired".

I keep thinking...

[__aaltlg1547]

... or rather hoping that the USPTO can't get any stupider. But they keep surprising me.

Stop oversimplifying

[PuckSR]

This is honestly patentable. They are patenting the automation of a very complex recurring scheduled order. The milkman is the simplification. This is actually very similar to the types of scheduling systems used at large manufacturers for delivery and shipment of goods.
i.e. They need to receive raw material on a specific schedule without letting it sit for too long and they need to ship it out on a regular basis, all at very specific times and dates.

The difference is that Amazon is doing this for end customers. This is similar to other services(the milkman) with added complexity that honestly requires a great deal of design to execute. They are patenting the entire process so that they don't have a competitor come in and copy their implementation after millions of dollars are spent on design and implementation(which is the EXACT REASON PATENTS EXIST).
I agree that most patents are egregious nowadays, however this is special. The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation by protecting companies that invest in innovation from getting copied, thus destroying any incentive for investment. Apple doesn't deserve patent protection because all of their patents were for things that cost trivial amounts of time and money to implement. This is going to require a large investment(of resources and money), and it could honestly backfire in Amazon's face.

Amazon and Milkman? Stay away from my wife!

[ikaruga]

That sounds extremely familiar

Milkman,

[Anonymous Coward]

Now my grandkids will grow up thinking my father worked for Amazon in 1941

This process is already in OAGIS' library

[ArmchairAstronomer]

All the USPTO examiner had to do was to look on the OAGIS website www.openapplications.org (or EDIFACT or ANSI for that matter), find the appropriate business process documentation and even the XML data structure definition for the control messages. This stuff is 40 years old already. This should be a basic step in the review process. The auto supply companies have been doing this kind of thing for years, with computers, on the internet! The orders are complex and extremely time sensitive and if you screw up even a very few times you are de-sourced. Suppliers can get specific orders from the customer in the traditional way or manage specific inventory levels and needs that change over time on the customers premises. That having been said there is no fix until something pushes the system out of its current screwed up equilibrium state.

Rediculous!

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely rediculous!

And again...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US patents system is patently fucked.

Great idea for a new patent!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have this idea for a business process where bright and novel ideas are submitted for review by monkey...examinators who try to deduct whether those ideas have already been tried or not while sitting in a closed room with no connection to the outside. Once approved, only the submitter can use the idea and if required sue other people for coming up with a similar idea. I call it "Office for Patent Investigation and Unintelligible Meandering", OPIUM for short.

Once the patent for this has been granted, I will be able to litigate against the USPTO, which will be in clear violation of my marvelous idea.

My Milkman Already Does This

[anguirus.x]

Literally. I can have my milkman bring groceries, batteries, pretty much anything a Sam's Club or CostCo would have, periodic or one-time. USPTO is fuckin' uuuuuuup.

Re:My Milkman Already Does This

[anguirus.x]

Literally. I can have my milkman bring groceries, batteries, pretty much anything a Sam's Club or CostCo would have, periodic or one-time. USPTO is fuckin' uuuuuuup.

Next they'll be patenting sending "thank you" e-mails, letters, or saying "thank you" after a customer purchase.

Patent Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to patent the process of submitting a patent, the process of recording or registering a patent, the process of collecting license fees, the act of enforcing a patent, and the act of infringing on a patent. Then I will be the only one who can use a patent without paying license fees to ME! Even the USPTO will have to pay me. I will become the patent office! And how is this not prior art? I'm going to use a novel method which has just become obvious to me: I'm going to think about it.