Slashdot Mirror
Amazon.com Receives Patent for 1-Click Shopping
jaydeekay writes "It looks like Amazon has patented the storing of credit-card and shipping info and then using it to facilate online purchasing via a single click. Check out this
news release from Yahoo. Interesting to look at the actual
patent - Amazon seems to have several patents which seem awfully 'generic' " Ah, yes, yet more dumb patents.
Intel never tried to patent the phrase "x86." You're confusing patents with trademarks.
--
Back when the Patent Laws were first mooted, good ideas were relatively scarce (emphasis on good) so there was some justification to encourage open publication and greater dissemination. However, in today's modern era where any business process can be codified in software to some extent and thus automated, creating artificial exclusions seems to encourage too many ideas which frankly are minor and incremental. We need much better ways of filtering out the crap that floats by (perhaps a /. moderated version?).
Also, nowadays, having a good idea is not enough, you need to be in a position to execute and solve a broader long-term customer need (or even create that need!). When patents become deliberate barriers to new entrants (either through unrealistic licensing or legal threats) then it starts to create systematic problems. For example, drugs can be patented so companies then spend more effort on manufactured designs rather than adapting existing commonplace plant-based remedies which they can't control. So given the choice between high margin patented solutions or low-margin systems, guess which gets widely advertised and pushed at doctors? Given the complications of body chemistry, I suspect that most people want the placebo equivalent of a nice cup of tea and less stress.
Anyway, you can make still money by not using software patents. One path is to become an ultraspecialist and come up with completely new fields. For the rest of us, we have to be content with just surviving without getting too rippedoff. In the end, it's not the patented software that counts (business guys will always find a way of screwing over the inventor), it's the fact that you will continue to generate good ideas in the future that will make you an irresistable catch for whatever company that wants your skills (and threaten to quit if not happy).
LL
If I was doing something this obvious, but no one else had done it...
I'd patent it. In fact, I am patenting something.
Why, you might ask?
So someone doesn't come out of nowhere and spring a patent on me for something semi obvious that I am relying on. I probably won't use it against anyone, but I'll sure as hell use it as defense.
Yep.
This in and of itself indicates that the patent is useless.
Nope, sorry
Java, Javascript, VBScript, ASP, Perl, CGI, etc are all NOT HTML. Therefore it is fairly easy to argue that any document containing these things (AKA every dynamicaly generated web page) does not fall under the patent, regardless of the use of cookies.
Yep, all of the above are NON-HTML - so? from the above, the ONLY one sent to the user as part of the response is Javascript - and that is imbedded in HTML. All the rest either generate HTML on-the-fly and send it, or in the case of Java, are linked to by the HTML document and are helpfully downloaded by your browser for you, and inserted into the screen display. For this to invalidate the patent, you would have to assume that including IMAGES on the page (which are non-html, and downloaded by the browser during it's parsing of the document) invalidated the patent too.....
Assuming the patent itself could hold up in court (which is a big leap of faith), any decent lawyer can simply walk in, say "Our sales process uses scripting documents, not HTML documents" and that will be the end of the suit.
That would be nice, yes - problem is, the nasty, bubble-bursting techie from Amazon would telnet to port 80 on your webserver, issue the request for the page, and guess what he would get back (and the answer isn't your ASP script). Amazon is stating what the user receives, not how the server made it.
--
-=DaveHowe=-
Ever noticed how the USA patent office site we're looking at violates this patent?
Looking at the patent it does seem to be more than one step. You send your selection and your details to the server the server send back a confirmation with the order button on it and you confirm it. I'm sure there's more than just a single button click in there.
----------------------- Nothing to say, no one to say it to.
Same goes for bottles one can actually open, mice with more than zero buttons, doors that open and close instead of just falling out of their frames and keyboards with keys.
This (TM) is (TM) just (TM) ridiculous (TM)
I think patents exist for another reason: to allow people to make money.
People would still invent and improve technology without the protections provided by patent law. Open source development is a good example. Patents exist to allow companies to license stuff to other companies, to sue people who don't license stuff or produce products that are similar to theirs.
There's no reason to patent anything unless it means you can make money exclusively off it. Would anyone really care about owning the logical rights to anything if it didn't mean cash in a real and direct way?
How 'bout Buy.com? They store all of my address and credit-card numbers for future use. How is this diferent then Amazon's system?
I won't argue that there's no innovation here, but it's ludicrous to say that the idea of purchasing an item with a single click is innovative. Anyone who is designing a shopping system is going to tell you that (one of the) goals is to minimize the number of pages & forms to fill out. One click shopping does nothing more than succede in that goal.
The innovation here is in the methods used -- the code behind the scene. And you know, there's already protection for that code: copyright.
Or perhaps you're going to tell me that they were innovative to come up with the oh-so-novel idea of using a database?
Ah good! This is exactly what we've been trying to say. There are lots of possible combinations of these stages that are prior art. And they still express the same essential algorithm.
I thought shopping was already patented...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Obviously, the system is not working. Just as copyright and trade secrets are used to hamper the development of knowledge by a society in today's modern world, so do patents nowadays serve only to lessen the march of science.
I disagree. Patents are extremely important to companies funding real research and development in many fields. We would not have the $1x10^9 investments needed to develop modern pharmaceuticals without patents. The patent system is in fact working to the great advantage of the US and its citizens. The fact is that the only countries that don't have patent systems are the same countries that don't develop any technology and have no real scientific infrastructure.
What is being done in the software industry today with patents is irrelavent to the march of science. The advances in computer science that are occurring now have nothing to do with one-click shopping.
In fact patents stimulate the advancement of science and technology because they increase the size of the pot of gold; they require that the inventor publish his results to insure wide dissemination of technology (i.e. you only get a patent if you open source your idea) and they encourage comapnies to develop their own ideas rather than just copying the competition.
Are there problems? Sure. Many of the patents that are described here never should have been issued. Someday somebody will win a test in court, and the system will be revised, or the patent owners will realize the futility of their patents and let the maintenance fees lapse.
But you should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Systems of laws are always and constantly evolving to keep up with the changes in society that occur with time.
...that they also cite activation methods such as *sounds* produced by users, and TV remote controls, in addition to buttons. Maybe they're thinking of licensing set-top boxes or something.
From an architectual point of view, it seems pretty specific in breakdown of clients and servers/databases and communcation between such -- and, it's an interesting idea.
The one weakness is probably the existence of prior art, if any. I've not read the Java books cited earlier in the thread, but whether they match or not also depends upon the system design -- this is NOT just a patent on a cookie. If there is prior art, 'tho, well, tough luck Amazon...
And to all those who uselessly post, "Well, now I'm gonna patent this...":
Get a life.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Fundamental technologies are based on mathematical algorithms, heh, wake up? I think RSA deserves a patent. I don't think the ability to iconify a program deserves a patent.
See these claims:
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the single action is speaking of a sound.
17. The method of claim 11 wherein the single action is clicking a mouse button when a cursor is positioned over a predefined area of the
displayed information.
18. The method of claim 11 wherein the single action is a sound generated by a user.
19. The method of claim 11 wherein the single action is selection using a television remote control.
20. The method of claim 11 wherein the single action is depressing of a key on a key pad.
21. The method of claim 11 wherein the single action is selecting using a pointing device.
22. The method of claim 11 wherein the single action is selection of a displayed indication.
It still sounds a lot like the "cookie" system to me. I could see if the patent were just for speaking a single sound where this might be an innovation. But IMHO this is too general to hold up.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Amazon.com's method is unique in the industry. They are the only website on the Internet where one click will have an order shipped to you. There is no messing with a basket, nor is there any need to enter your credit card. Can any of you name another site that has this ability?
Trust me, it is really convenient. You can browse their site, find something you like, and with just one click, your product is ordered. You can continue shopping immediately, and keep ordering their products. When you're done shopping, Amazon.com bundles your items, and ships them off to you. So please, before you question the voracity of the patent, think about other websites and whether they offer this capability. This convenience IS the future of the Internet, and whether you like it or not, this unique method of business is patentable.
Sig goes here
Sorry :-)
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
Were these relatively "open" machines? That is, not set up as multi-user systems with sane file permissions and so forth? If they're not, then regardless of whether the *server* stores data, I'd be concerned about things like the swap file/partition, logs, initialization / configuration files, keystroke loggers, Trojans, etc.
'course, there are also sites that'll hose you by printing out the digits as you type 'em. Not good... but I digress.
If there *are* good file perms, then there shouldn't be access to other folks' cookies. Particularly if you use a network file system, and getting authenticated on that is harder than simply rebooting with your own boot disk. If there *aren't*, then cookies are arguably the least of your worries.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I don't think that the people at Amazon grabbed this patent because they think they are going to go hunt down all the online shops that use the concept and charge them or force them to cease and desist. If that were to happen, it would eventually end up in court and Amazon would likely be on the losing end of that court battle (as many of you have pointed out). Rather, it seems that this is just the standard practice (and no, I don't blame Microsoft for starting this, although they are as guilty as the rest). It seems that the real value of holding such a patent is that it is a bargaining chip. The more you collect, the greater the chance that you can leverage one or more the next time you sit down to hammer out a deal with a competitor. Both sides don't want to see it go to court, but the one holding the patent has a slight upper hand...
Is it a sane thing to do in a perfect world? No.
Can the company using this tactic benefit from it? Yes.
Will it happen over and over again? You bet.
The down side: One scenario comes to mind. Amazon, Microsoft, Sun, whoever, sits around collecting little patents on obvious things that are mostly unenforceable. Some little startup comes up with an amazing new product and patents the part of it that is new. Our tragic startup company is approached by the multi-patent owner and told that if they don't sell out or license their product, then they will be in a dozen or more court cases based on the stinky little patents. Little guy loses and consumer possibly loses...
I happen to think that many information technology patents are pretty silly. Compare them to the original look-and-feel lawsuit by apple to M$. Look and Feel is ok to take and plagerize, but one click shopping is patentable?
It is funny that patents are made to protect the inventor, but these days they seem to only make the patent laywer and companies who can afford them rich. Do you think the originator of one click shopping has anything to do with Amazon?
-- Moondog
This is a good thing. This good thing attracts a potentially huuuuuuge audience (read /.) and can be a base for building the foundation for Ecomerce . What's most interesting, is that the one thing that makes it so accessible (open, and well documented protocals) is also the one thing that makes it easy to duplicate.
Now, when an Ecomerce company goes public and looks for outside investors, the one thing investors want to here is ROI. They want to hear that you have something none else has. Something nobody can duplicate. something . . . ...wait for it . . ...proprietary. (cringe)
I work for a large machine tool manufacturer and I use this wonderful little phrase (It's patented!) everyday in my pitch to clients. I even hand them a printout of our companies patent on each little piece of technology in the machine and I walk them through the value of each one.
Does this mean that it's a defensive patent? No! Is it a patent that our legal department fights tooth and nail? Hell no! Are there others using the patented technologies in there machine tool? Yes! Do we care?.. not really . . we still get to use that wonderful little sales tool (patented!) in our presentation.
It's a sales tool. That's all
Agreed, that with properly set up machines, this shouldn't be nearly as large of a problem. But think about how many school campuses you've seen (or any other public place with a lab) that have 'doze boxen just sitting out for the public to use...even if the user reboots the machine before and after use, cookies are still going to be stored. I agree that things like keystroke loggers are just as big of a problem, but many places put in protection against them, whereas cookies aren't something people tend to think about...
A group of Slashdotters should get together and write a patent application for the act of patenting. This is totally absurd, so the US patent office is sure to grant it, then we can sue them for breach of our intellectual property.
We'll get so much damages from them in the ensuing lawsuit that they won't be able to afford to employ people to process any new patents.
Patents is just another sign of that the US legal system is quite bad. To say the least. The correlation between a conviction and income is probably much stronger that the correlation of guilt and conviction.
yours
arne
Copyright 1998 arne Verbatim copying and distribution is permited as long as this message is preserved
So how will this affect Microsoft's Passport?
/ZL
People would still invent and improve technology without the protections provided by patent law.
Yes, but could you get $200 million from a venture capital firm for a biotech startup if you could not patent the results? I think not.
There's no reason to patent anything unless it means you can make money exclusively off it.
Your point being? A patent is essentially a contract between you and the government. You get exclusive rights to an invention for 20 years in exchange for publishing a complete description of the invention that allows anyone else to duplicate it.
Slashdotters don't seem to understand at all the parallel between the patent system and the Open Source movement. The only way you get a patent is by publishing your work. This allows anyone to examine your technology, and work on ways to improve it. After a fixed length of time everyone else is allowed free use of the technology. If it weren't for the patent system everyone would try to keep as much technology as possible secret. Patent systems were in fact put into place to fight the practice of keeping secrets within companies and guilds. The great industrial revolution of the 19th century may well have been triggered by the institution of a patent system in England.
Inxight (www.inxight.com) has a patent on the
displaying of hyperbolic trees on a computer
(paraphrased liberally). How can they patent
the drawing of geometric surfaces?
I dunno, but they did.
-WW
But getting rid of patents is just as bad. Let's say I'm working on an Anti-Gravity device. When I finish it I sure want to be able to sell it. And I don't want people making genaric-brand Anti-Gravs without paying a licensing fee because that would mean I'd be 100% out of buisness.
If there were no patents I'd probably be happy with just proving to myself that it could be done on paper then going off to play more Quake.
Perhaps I'm just lazy, or gready or something. But I can't imagine I'm the only person who thinks this way.
Any challenge to this should quote those shopping carts that seem to be everywhere. Surely those are better than this proposed 1-Click mechanism, which seems to make separate transactions out of every item.P I would certainly wonder if MS Passport + shopping carts counted as a patent violation. (of course it shouldn't, if the patent office had a clue)...
... and today's pet project has
I'm not sure i get your point. Are you saying that there is too much conversation about the corruptness in the patent world, or there is too much corruptness in the patent world. If it's the previous, I believe it's these things that we want to stay aware of. I personally would be embarrassed to have any business relationships with AMAZON.COM and personally have started a one man boycott of AMAZON due to this very article.
As other have pointed out before on patent issues, in the end it won't hold up in court. The patent office is so backed up it isn't even funny. I guess they figure they should grant the patents and let the courts sort em all out.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I'm not sure i get your point. Are you saying that there is too much conversation about the corruptness in the patent world, or there is too much corruptness in the patent world.
If it's the previous, I believe it's these things that we want to stay aware of.
I personally would be embarrassed to have any business relationships with AMAZON.COM and personally have started a one man boycott of AMAZON due to this very article.
This seems almost as bad as Unisys's patent on the LZW comression method. (see BurnAllGifs for more on this). Maybe we could have a "Burn Amazon" day? Destroy our cookies? Request that Amazon delete out credit-card info? Somebody needs to tell these people that patents are supposed to be for fundamental technologies, not mathematical algorithms or minor UI improvements...
I'm not sure i get your point. Are you saying that there is too much conversation about the corruptness in the patent world, or there is too much corruptness in the patent world.
If it's the previous, I believe it's these things that we want to stay aware of.
I personally would be embarrassed to have any business relationships with AMAZON.COM and personally have started a one man boycott of AMAZON due to this very article.
Perhaps they'd also like to patent the idea of a bartender recognizing you and adding to your tab. It's exactly the same thing (substitute your personal appearance with a cookie, and billing info with the bouncer at the door).
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
I'm not sure i get your point. Are you saying that there is too much conversation about the corruptness in the patent world, or there is too much corruptness in the patent world.
If it's the previous, I believe it's these things that we want to stay aware of, provided the news is accurate, and so far have no reason to doubt.
I personally would be embarrassed to have any consumer relationships with AMAZON.COM and personally will begin a boycott of AMAZON due to this very article.
Thanks in advance!
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
If Amazon intends to use their patent portfolio to prevent others from pursuing their proprietary procedures, does this mean I can patent spam (of the UCE type) and sue anyone who sneds it without my permission?
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
I've placed just shy of 100 orders with Amazon, totaling somewhere around $9,000. (This doesn't count books ordered by/for my employer. - These are personal purchases over the last 3 years.)
The day I hear about Amazon actually enforcing one of their patents to limit another site is the day they've seen my last order.
Abstract A method and system for placing an order to purchase an item via the Internet. The order is placed by a purchaser at a client system and received by a server system. The server system receives purchaser information including identification of the purchaser, payment information, and shipment information from the client system. The server system then assigns a client identifier to the client system and associates the assigned client identifier with the received purchaser information. The server system sends to the client system the assigned client identifier and an HTML document identifying the item and including an order button. The client system receives and stores the assigned client identifier and receives and displays the HTML document. In response to the selection of the order button, the client system sends to the server system a request to purchase the identified item. The server system receives the request and combines the purchaser information associated with the client identifier of the client system to generate an order to purchase the item in accordance with the billing and shipment information whereby the purchaser effects the ordering of the product by selection of the order button. and this was granted?!
If I was doing something this obvious, but no one else had done it... I'd patent it. In fact, I am patenting something.
Uh, I said 'obvious clunkers', not 'something this obvious'. I don't know what it is you are patenting, and I don't really care, but some things are clearly stupid and the Amazon patent is an excellent example. For one thing there is plenty of prior art.
Hell, I worked on something very similar myself three years ago as a contractor for a different eCommerce outfit in Seattle. So, if what you are patenting is just as dumb and has as few merits as the Amazon patent, I would hope the patent office chucks it out like a live skunk. No offense intended...
Jack
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
No, it's even worse.
The only companies who can afford to challenge it have a boatload of bogus patents themselves. So, they get together and agree not to challenge each others bogus patents, and sign a "cross-licensing" deal, trading use of each other's bogus patents.
The little guys get hit with patent infringment suits they cannot afford to defend against, so they abandon the technology.
Great system, eh?
If someone has already patented internet shopping, this may not hold up in court.
I did notice that the actual patent talked about using an HTML document. Wouldn't that mean that you could use a bunch of javascript print statement to actually create the document?
Is the purpose of enhancments in communication to allow us to reach the pinacle of stupidity at an accelerating rate?
I hope somebody gets a patent on SPAM!
Seems everyone else now has 2-click shopping, movie selection, etc. Go figure.
I wonder if this is in any way related to one-click replies, IE slashdot stores a cookie or something on my system and then reads back the info.
The next step is obviously NO-click shopping, where you just surf the web for a while while Amazon tracks it, and then they just buys you stuff. THen again, Microsoft may have already taken care of this with Passport -- when somebody steals your credit card number and does some shopping for you.
I should patent the application of stupidity to writing on slashdot. -1's pay up!
-S
barnes and noble uses the MS Passport stuff...
MUCH better than amazon.com!
sheesh... you'd think people would find something more important to protest about... if it's just "another stoopid patent", why even bother? just roll your eyes and move on...
I really vote for being unable to post if you haven't read the article:
11. A method for ordering an item using a client system, the method comprising:
displaying information identifying the item and displaying an indication of a single action that is to be performed to order the identified item; and
or even:
18. The method of claim 11 wherein the single action is a sound generated by a user.
Shakespeare gives some excellent advice:
DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
CADE
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.
(For those who don't know, laws at the time were handwritten on lambskin parchment, and legal agreements were sealed with signet rings pressed in beeswax.)
And Mark Twain in his collected letters wrote (I do not remember to whom he wrote, and I'm paraphrasing):
"I agree with you and the bard, sir. Whilst killing all the lawyers in this country would probably not solve all of our problems, it would be a lot of fun and do no one any harm."
That said, I have come to have a very healthy respect for lawyers and the law, and I have come to value the convolutions and wranglings of American jurisprudence. All one has to do is to look at what governments can accomplish against their citizens in countries that do NOT have a body law before all other authority.
No, lawyers and laws are good things because the alternatives are despotism or rule by thugs. I would be very interested to see a survey of cases brought to court in the area of patent law and to see how often patent law has cut the wrong way. We know it has, an earlier poster brought up the contention over frequency modulation (an actual INVENTION!) and how patent law was used to screw the inventor.
I know most working engineers sign agreements giving their employers patent rights on their work.
Patent law has been a good thing. It encourages both innovation and dissemenation, in principle. I have frequently advocated that, if software patents must exist, they should last less than two years. It seems very bad in the software world; but is it really?
How often does patent law *really* misfire? I submit the suspicion that no one posting to this discussion topic (myself included) has the slightest idea.
Getting a patent is one thing. Exercising it is another. Is there a patent lawyer in the house who could actually throw some light on the state of patent law? How many cases result in the striking down of the patent. How many uphold the patent? And of those, how many really protect an innovation and how many protect dubious patents like "on-line sales," or "one-click shopping?"
You'll excuse me if I fail to see the inherent contradiction the granting of patents upon technologies that would otherwise remain secret and the granting upon technologies that are blatantly obvious bridgings of the old paradigms applied to newer technological environments. You cannot deny the corruption, the false taxation, and the raw abuse of the patent system by its present controllers, no matter what your view on patents as a whole. Yours Truly, Dan Kaminsky DoxPara Research http://www.doxpara.com
Or to force stored cookies with longer expirations dates to expire at the end of the session or after some time limit that I choose. Really, I've seen cookies with expiration dates set to the year 2015! NO ONE NEEDS COOKIES TO LIVE THAT LONG. But, I don't want to deny them totally, just expire them after a time I choose, say a week or so.
none one has noticed that the USTPO is in direct violation of the patent. It is using a shopping cart to gather the patents to order AND using a cookie to identify me. Hmmm.
Three things are certain: Death, taxes, and lost data. Guess which has occurred.
I would really like to patent a method to generate new patent application by taking a well-known and/or obvious process or method and adding "on the internet" to it. However, I suspect that there is to much prior art out there...
Stephan
What about the other half of the industry that uses their version of
this? I struggle just thinking where I can't do this. I guess using a
cookie or flagging a field in a datbase has NEVER be done before!?!
I am somewhat suspect in Amazons technical prowess at this point. You guys
actually making money yet?
I'm going to rush out and patent the coffee cup. I formerly announce my
plans to form a company based upon this revolutionary idea. I plan to go
public within 6 months. I need venture capitalists! The time to get
onboard is now!
--My Patent--
"The device being used to contain a caffeine based liquid (or other
liquids) in a state of suspension from the surrounding environment. The
design being based on a cylinder in which the lower portion is sealed
with a like substance that composes the cylinders walls. The top-most
portion of the device would not be sealed, thus allowing a person to
place said liquid substance(s) in the device. It could in theory, be
used to remove aforementioned liquid with the mouth or drain it to
larger container.
A round semi-circle being attached to the side in the manufacturing
process can be used to grasp the object by the thumb and index "finger"
of a mammals hand (i.e and simian creature or humanoid).
As a novelty item, clever designs or slogans can be affixed to the
load-bearing outer portion of said device diametrically opposed to the
'handle.'
The device could assume the appearance of a multitude of familiar
objects; including a flower-pot."
--
Patents do assist in helping people make money, but nowadays we have mostly corporations registering patents, whereas in the early days of the republic we had people like my grandfather inventing a better radiator and getting a patent for it.
The money is a method of:
1. reimbursing the inventor for the time and effort of creation;
2. assisting in the publication of the details of the work which is patented, so that others can adopt good ideas; and
3. providing a mechanism for licensing those works and spreading the idea/work.
The problem is that patents nowadays are used to make it very difficult to compete with another idea which improves on the original.
Will in Seattle
Im really freaking sick of people who don't understand and don't bother to know the facts about cookies. It's really infuriating. http://home.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.h tml to quote: "When searching the cookie list for valid cookies, a comparison of the domain attributes of the cookie is made with the Internet domain name of the host from which the URL will be fetched. If there is a tail match, then the cookie will go through path matching to see if it should be sent. "Tail matching" means that domain attribute is matched against the tail of the fully qualified domain name of the host. A domain attribute of "acme.com" would match host names "anvil.acme.com" as well as "shipping.crate.acme.com". " Cookies are only sent to the server if they are in the same domain. I also used to have a refrence or maybe it was just some code that showed that cookies could only be set to have a maximum of 1 year life expectancy, but i might just be smoking crack there. b
b
I'm confused by your post. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure than Amazon.com will only ship to one address, and if you want something delivered to another address you have to provide the credit card information again when you order. You can't just use the card information saved in the cookie.
So, either you made these stories up, or the Amazon system is not as I remember it.
You're right. It was a trademark attempt. Stupid Intel, if they had only applied for a patent instead, it would have been granted. :)...er :(
Hopefully this means that no other sites will shell out to Amazon to get 1-click on their sites. 1-click is far too dangerous for the general public to be using, especially the way that Amazon has their operation setup.
;)
If you purchase anything from Amazon, all of the defaults settings enable 1-click and remember you credit card details. The next time you shop with Amazon 1-click is instant purchase. If you aren't paying complete attention to everything on the display and never check your shopping cart the purchases are made and the books will arive. To bad if you were just browsing
Prodigy had 1-click shopping way back in the '80s. It is too bad companies will put their integrity on the line for stupid publicity stunts.
They may have changed it since this happened, I'm not sure. However, at one point a couple years ago a close friend of mine ordered something from Amazon in a lab on her campus. A few hours later, she got another e-mail saying that 3 more books had been ordered on her card, and that they were being shipped to an address not hers. Amazon quickly took care of it, but the fact that things like this can (or could at some point) happen sort of weakens my faith in Amazon's system.
How about this, I could patent 2-second mouse_over shopping, then I could patent 1-second mouse_over shopping. Then after I have the industry in my back pocket, I will unleash instantanous mouse_over shopping. BUWHAHAHA
--bill "Why is it, that all the fools play for the other team, and there are more of them?"
"I would hope the patent office chucks it out like a live skunk." It seems as though the patent office is getting close to the point where it's so full of shit, that it becomes meaningless. When someone manages to patent grass, will the courts even bother to acknowledge the case at all?
Regardless of whether they're passing the info back and forth via cookies is not the issue for myself. If the cookie expires at the end of the browser session the information will persisit longer in your cache depending on your settings.
I agree that you shouldn't be dependent on one or the other; it would be ideal if you could deny stored (time-based) cookies and allow session based.
AC
stupid html formating.
b
b
Patenting one-click shopping is like Slashdot patenting 0-click logins. When I go to www.slashdot.org, the web site knows who I am without any intervention! What Amazon has, while it may not be implemented anywhere else, was invented the day cookies were invented. As was pointed out before, I can call for pizza and with caller ID, they don't even have to ask for my name. It's exactly the same process.
To patent an invention, the invention must be non-obvious. I'm sorry but one-click ordering is obvious.
Jeez!
-partap
Have you taken a look at the other patents Amazon.com has? Jeff Bezos (yes, Jeff Bezos--by himself) has a patent on taking credit card numbers over the phone. That's a bit of a simplification but not much. I was laughing too much/too scared to look at the other patents.
I'm going to go out on a limb here an say that I believe that most of the readers of ./ are anti software patents.
./ user stopped using Amazon and sent them a letter why and every ./ user got their friends to do the same I believe Amazon would give up the patent and never do it again. Same with Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Adobe, Corel whoever.
So, if you want software patents to STOP. Boycott any company that uses them. Spread the word. Get it out. If everybody
Basically put out or shut up.
-g
ecampbel says the exact same thing in posts #99, #100, and #101. He has not taken into any consideration what people responded to his initial post above with. And he continues to claim that the patent must of gone way back "since it's a patent and patents take a long time to be done" (to paraphrase), without looking at the patent app itself which says it was filed in September 1997.
p.s. - the patent is voracious, in that it will eat other small websites for lunch, but fails with veracity, in that it is not true Amazon should be able to patent this
Please, ecampbel (itiyrn:), go back and read the patent. Amazon filed for it in Sept 1997. It is unlikely that no one came up this before (preposterous really) and not the other way around.
/. readers criticizing Amazon's patent, that's why the topic was posted in the first place. The patent deserves criticism since it lacks merit.
As for
As a reader points out above(#112 - in response to you actually), outpost.com has been doing this for a long time.
RCA may have gotten a patent - but they didn't invent television - that distinction goes to a man (nay, a boy!) by the name of Philo T. Farnsworth.
Don't believe me - read the history yourself:
The Farnsworth Chronicles
Not only did Farnsworth invent television when he was a kid, he went on to develop what some think is a different form of fusion:
Farnsworth Fusion
Farnsworth is one of those inventors, who much like Tesla, came up with ideas and implemented them, but was forgotten by the public - even though we use both men's discoveries/inventions EVERY DAY.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I have a friend who works there and he has gotten at least one insane patent through the door. Apparantly Amazon's motivation is revenue from law suits.
I've been thinking alot about patents and the USPTO as of late, and I've begun to realize a much more politically effective and valid way to make the non-technical understand just how corrupt the US Patent system really is.
Covert taxation backing a none-too-subtle amount of graft.
What, did you think those patents are free?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has taken to delusions of grandeur. It is not illegal or questionable for a government body to charge for its services--a bill from the USPTO does not a tax make. Taxes achieve their special nature by the fact that they're enforced charges--if you meet conditions x, y, and z, then you pay the tax or face government enforced penalties.
There's obviously a charge element to patents--last I checked, patents cost thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars to file. Every time a patent is rejected for having some trivial grammatical error, that's more money for the USPTO--more cash per patent, more charge per service rendered. The enforcement is, however, where things get hairy. Since everybody else has accepted the concept of attempting to patent any idea, obvious or not, anyone who refuses to pay for patent "protection"(we've heard this word before) is placed at the mercy of their protected competitors. And good luck to any company who crosses a competitor so armed--all profits can disappear with the signing of a court mandate. These same courts, of course, have been muzzled from attacking the USPTO's decisions, so those facing kangeroo justice aren't going to find much support from those who came before. Even genuinely invalid patents cost in the ranges of half a million dollars to address, so even if you win, you lose.
Even the (now kinder and gentler) IRS isn't/wasn't this nightmarish. Imagine if Cisco and 3Com could sue eachother for taking excessive deductions, and thus competing unfairly. The USPTO doesn't need to lift a finger to enforce its taxation--those who have paid to join their little club will be more than happy to emasculate their competitors.
Of course, such emasculation requires nice and expensive patent attorneys, and thus comes the graft. By assigning as many patents as they can get away with, patent attorneys(who, I'm sure, have quite a bit of pull at the USPTO) have more material to wield when hired to attack competing companies, more material to defend with when a company is attacked, greater stakes on either side from which to calculate an hourly rate, and much less predictability and guaranteed freedom for the clients--this translates directly into a greater need for highly trained patent attorneys to be on retainer, as well as longer time spent in court jousting-for-millions. (Look mah, longer hours!)
More taxes for the Agency, and more cash for the agencies apparent constituents. Disguised behind claims of being understaffed and underpaid are patent office employees intentionally overworked and paid to accept, not reject. The lower ranks are mismanaged such that the upper ranks will be richer for it. "It's Net So It's New" has become the mantra for a thoroughly corrupted government body with delusions of being superior to the Judicial Branch, the IRS, the United States Congress, and the American People.
Such oppression is out of place for the otherwise free and democratic ideals the Net so powerfully engenders, and particularly out of line with regards to the separation of powers between the governmental structures.
We need reform. Complaining about patents on a technical level is effective, but needs to be prefaced by an explanation of not only how such patents are ludicrous and valueless, but why.
Your livelyhood could be next. Call your congressman.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Dug up this one from the rec.humor.funny archives.
. htmlNewsgroup behavior (fwd)
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/97/May/listlb
bfinley@sade.eco.REMOVETHIS-NOSPAM.utexas.edu (Photo Dude)
(chuckle, Internet)
Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 1,331: 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. 53 to flame the spell checkers 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list. 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames. 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped. 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we are all use light bulbs and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this mail list. 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty. 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs. 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list. 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversey. 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ. 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup. 47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it here. 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb.
[Note - making the list and newsgroups rounds in a big way, original author unknown - ed.]
snort. Let's boycott the USPS, the USG and every supermarket everywhere because they've done a bad thing at 'one|way too many' point[s] in time.
I am going to patent N click shopping, where N is a real number. That's right, 0.5 click shopping! Let's see amazon compete with that!!!
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
So much for Patent-related stupidity...maybe we can join as well? Form an organization, General Public Patent or whatever, patent as many participants' ideas as possible. The only objective? To make the ideas publicly available and not letting the idea being patented into the proprietary hell. Is it possible or plausible? By making ourselves part of the joke we'll get involved in a fun and maybe healthy process called "self-ridicule" =)
Who is this everybody? When did they invent this? One-Click Shopping consists of the ability to click ONE button, have the following happen: 1) Product Ordered 2) Credit Card Validated 3) Bundle the various one-click orders, and ship them all to the user. 4) Requires NO additional user intervention once the system is setup the first time Please name other companies that offer this technology, and had it in place before the patent was filed? If you can't, then you should be quite. Amazon.com was one of the first companies to pioneer Internet shopping. A patent takes years to be processed, so it very possible that they came with this way before anyone else did. A patent is not granted that easily.
Sig goes here
Ever hear of patent roses? I can see it now: Skunk 42 x Durban = my patented wonder weed... Does it have to be a legal product to get a patent? I don't think so...
The sheer stupidy of Amazon getting a patent on USING customer data has turned my brain into a snake pit...
I have actually read several papers (from IBM, etc. ) on this exact topic - including details about implementations. I would be very surprised if Google has not read these papers. I hope that they are not patenting ideas that were previously available in the public sphere. God damn I hate patents!!!!!!!
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
"How can a patent reviewer who does not have a handle on the technology make a decision as to what is an invention." Are you new to the USA? Well, here's a little experiment you can try to find out why these things happen: have one of your friends run over your head multiple times and piss into your cracked and bleeding skull. Then, eat some twinkies, drink some beer, look at porn and get a job in the gov.
You are so smart. You are smarter than all the lawyers in the patent office. Good job. You did it you invalidated the patent with one quick read. Good JOB!
Now that we are out of fantasyland think about how Amazon.com generates their pages. They use Javascript, ASP, and other technologies. So obviously, the patent at least covers THIER methods of business.
Sig goes here
No it doesn't. Clicking one button does not send you the patent. There is always a second or third step involved in ordering things from all other sites, including the patent office. The "one click and the product is sent" method is the essence of the patent.
Sig goes here
The original idea of having the state protecting your new "discoveryes", was to encourage inventors to disclose there new inventions.
In his case, the idea seems so simple that surely somebody has thought of it before, even though it hasn't been put into practice before.
Amazon is taking advantage of the fact that they were first do actually implement this idea. And if you think about it, the real problem with software patents is that companies will patent whatever they do, so long as somebody hasn't already done so.
Does anybody realy think that Amazon wouldn't have put this idea into practice if they couldn't have patented it ??
Of cource this is "legal", there is nobody here claiming otherwise, but that in itself is the real problem.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Your choice to enable this feature. I feel perfectly safe having this feature activated on my own personal computer. If you don't, then don't enable this feature.
Sig goes here
I admit that it is very convient to use one-click type shopping, but it does not seem to be innovative enough to warrant a patent.
The idea is that the net's been perverted by a corrupt system into a get rich quick welfare scheme for patent attorneys and self-aggrandizing government administrators. Whatever basis patents had, the fallout "Its Net So Its New" proves we need reform, and soon.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
The patent in question was filed on September 12, 1997 and issued on September 28, 1999. Calculations yield a 2 year & 16 day period between filing and issue.
I wouldn't buy from a company that pollutes my street, so why would I buy from a company that pollutes my intellectual environment with what I consider unreasonable, bad patents? I'll start buying my books elsewhere.
The fact that it is stored on your private servers offers little comfort for me since it doesn't protect my information from the company that is most likely to do something stupid with it: amazon.com.
If only I could keep amazon.com from exploiting my precious information for purpose other than allowing me to buy a book. I do not want to send another email to really-fuck-off-this-time@amazon.com or fax an official letter on my company stationary everytime one of the amazon geniuses comes up with a brilliant new idea.
...already have a patent on the BSOD?
What if you pass gas?
Actually, I switched to Fatbrain a while back just for that reason: I wanted to boycott Amazon.
Unfortunately, there's just one problem... I forgot why I was boycotting Amazon. *sigh* So I guess if anyone asks why I boycott Amazon, I'll just tell 'em it was the One Click Patent. Too bad that I don't remember the real reason. Not enough caffeine, I guess.
Parent: "Just be yourself!"
Gen Y kid (sarcasticly): "Yeah, right!!"
Parent: "Are you being sarcastic?"
Gen Y kid: "I don't know anymore."
Microsoft steals patents all the time. Makes sense since they have gobs of money with which to control the U.S. patent office.
... "Mr. Gates went on to say that many other companies were suing Microsoft for patent infringement and that priceline.com could, in effect, get in line."
As a recent example, PriceLine's patented technology is being stolen right now:
CEO Bill Gates told Priceline founder Jay Walker that he wasn't going to let patent infringement claims stand in his way.
A little further in the past, GoldTouch technologies filed a lawsuit which is still pending over MS's outright theft of their patented ergonomic mouse technology:
The Meeting with Microsoft 9. In September 1997, during an intensive two-hour meeting, Goldtouch representatives met with Microsoft representatives, disclosed the design of the Goldtouch mouse to Microsoft, and proposed that Microsoft license and market the Goldtouch mouse. Microsoft knew of Goldtouch's pending patent application at the time of this meeting. 10. During the September 1997 meeting, senior Microsoft design staff closely examined a sample of the Goldtouch mouse and extensively questioned Mr.Goldstein on how and why it had been invented. Being very familiar with product design generally, they used their own extensive background to explore in detail both the unique design rationale and the underlying scientific measurements which demonstrated that the Goldtouch mouse was superior to competing mice. Microsoft thus was able to acquire valuable design information even beyond that disclosed in the then-pending patent application (which had not yet been made public). As experienced industry hands, they knew that this information was extremely valuable, not just for Goldtouch's current product line, but for the future innovation which Goldtouch relied on for its very existence. Microsoft Markets the Goldtouch Mouse As Its Own 11. At the conclusion of the September 1997 meeting, Microsoft professed to be completely uninterested in the Goldtouch mouse, and led Goldtouch to believe that Microsoft was entirely satisfied with its existing mouse designs. Despite these representations, only about one year later Microsoft introduced its own ergonomic mouse, the Intellimouse® Pro. In the year following the meeting with Goldtouch, Microsoft copied important features of the Goldtouch sample mouse examined at the September 1997 meeting, implemented additional advanced features discussed at the meeting, and began to manufacture its knock-off product. Microsoft misappropriated Goldtouch's trade secrets to enhance its own inadequate designs. 12. Microsoft's knock-off mouse copies patented features relating to the shape of the Goldtouch mouse and adds rubber inserts to enhance ease of gripping. But the additional inserts themselves are an idea stolen from Goldtouch - a premium feature that was specifically discussed at the September 1997 meeting. Nevertheless, Microsoft's Intellimouse® Pro is an inferior product and it certainly infringes Goldtouch's issued patent. Microsoft is effectively draining Goldtouch's lifeblood by unlawfully exploiting its most carefully guarded ideas and their scientific basis. 13. Through the unconscionable scheme described above, Microsoft has sought to add Goldtouch's purloined intellectual property to Microsoft's already impressive hoard of ill-gotten gains, in so doing, Microsoft has dealt Goldtouch a grievous wound. Goldtouch invokes the jurisdiction of this Court to obtain compensation for Microsoft's theft of benefits which Goldtouch otherwise would have received for its innovation and leadership in ergonomic mouse design. Goldtouch further requests that the Court enter an order enjoining Microsoft from further violations of state and federal intellectual property law.
More is at... Complaint
Doing that is easy, since so many people are at work when deliveries arrive. Happens all the time. It's part of why I pay for a private mailbox (not a PO Box, they reject deliveries).
our country got rid of patents as soon as the stupid idea proved wrong, and now we're stuck with them again. the country is holland, but nearly every other self-respecting country was fooled by egocentric bastards. it's making me insane. so much money's spent on war, couldn't we just spend $10 on a thought? sigh sigh sigh sigh BIG GROUP SIGH. (author drops dead after hitting submit button)
Don't blame Amazon for this. They are protecting themselves, because we all know someone else would have tried to patent it if amazon didn't.
Blame the patent office for granting it, and stop jumping on the "boycott Amazon" bandwagon until you see them try to exercise their patent. (They never will, because everyone knows it's utter silliness -- including Amazon.)
You know, the sad truth is that patents aren't necessarily a bad thing. I remember the original patent RCA held on the TV; that was a good thing. Their engineers spent thousands of man hours, millions of dollars, and frittered away their lives to design the time waster we know today called television. Had there been no patent to protect their specific invention, everyone would have ripped off and reverse engineered RCA's TVs and made their own. Their competitors were forced to come up with their own televisions, and the competition eventually led to color TV. There was a PBS documentary on the whole thing, in which the narrator said that had RCA NOT patented their original B&W TV, it'd have taken considerably longer to get where we are today in terms of television. So in that instance a patent did what it was supposed to do -- it encouraged competition, protected YEARS of nonstop work from being ripped off, and ended up benefiting us all.
However the situation today is much different. RCA patented an object, something their engineers poured their lives into. Today we're seeing ludicrous patents, not on inventions, but on concepts and processes. Had RCA patented the process, you can imagine what would have happened. Who's fault is it? Is it the Greedy Corporation (tm) or the patent office? I believe it is the patent office. The agency itself hasn't changed, only those running it. In this case we can see it's morally bankrupt people who sell out to the highest bidder. Patents themselves (at least how they were intended) are not evil. Those that administer the patent office, however, are. Plain and simple. So when we call for change, let's take the first step before changing the underlying system (which is idealogically sound) and boot the corrupt sell outs who run the patent office out on the street where they belong.
It bugs me that Unisys aquired the LZW patent then attempted to squeeze money from everyone but LZW really is non-obvious. Run-length encoding is obvious, Huffman trees are obvious after a little thought, but not so obvious is LZW and how it packs nodes of different bit-lengths into the compressed data stream.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... are not competant to examine software patents. If they were, they wouldn't approve the howlers that we regularly see from these incredible idiots.
Two things must be done:
The USPTO must take its examiners out of their offices, line them up against a wall, and terminate them.
The Congress must amend the patent act to cut the period of time that a patent is viable to five years.
As things are, progress is being impeded, not accelerated, by the patent system.
It *is* obvious.
Cookies and other technologies are available for identifying users. This is the use of these.
Interface design tends to streamline processes. This means, remembering unchanging information and getting rid of useless dialog boxes.
So yes, it is obvious that there should be a way to click a 'purchase' button and order a product.
Why do you think cookies and cgi were invented? This whole area was forseen. If not exactly "Hey, let's have an online bookstore where you can buy books and have them fed-ex'd to you with one mouse click" then generally "hey, let's try to get rid of as many hurdles to online purchasing as possible, then it'll be really easy to buy O'Reilly books on the net!"
Things that aren't trivially obvious: Internal Combustion Engines, CRTs, Transistors.
Things that are: Selling data over a network, One-click sales.
Those last two are silly. Selling data over a network would be like trying to patent selling things from a car. And 1-"click" sales are already being used by pizza places and other stores that use your Caller-ID info to lookup your stored info.
Just another mindless patent to sue the competition out of business. The mark of a pathetic company scared it won't be in business soon.
Careful tying your shoes you might get sued... There probably is a patent on that.-
------------------------------------------
Movie News - "Entertainment news, bitch!"
> A patent is not granted that easily.
Sure it is. Patent office is making a lot of money.
All Amazon are doing is ID'ing the user and then performing a transaction. Even if everyone else does it in two clicks and Amazon in one, all that makes them is more efficient. They haven't invented anything. Also, don't you think that turning "three-click transactions" into "one-click transactions" could be considered obvious? Like a hundred years from now a guy would go "shit! why didn't we ever think of making Web shopping more efficient?"
Outpost.com has been doing this for a long time, too, I believe. I always skip it, but its certainly there.
Actually Amazon has a pretty good scheme going for keeping people from being able to order with someone else's card. Any time you want to add another shipping address you have to enter a credit card. This means that each shipping address is associated with a credit card that was explicitly entered when the address was added. How did these people retrieve what they'd ordered without commiting mail fraud and camping out next to this guy's mailbox?
Amazon's one-click ordering has to be manually activated at each site now (that is, every machine, user account/profile, etc). That requires entering your password to access you account config. Ordering w/o 1-C also requires a password. That's hardly 'secure', but its as good as you'll find on the web.
Bell patented the phone first, but probably did not invent it first, but he did get that patent.
The enforcement of the LZW patent is ridiculous since it was allowed to become standard in web pages via gif's before its new owner decided to start chasing programmers for implementing it and endusers for using gif's on webpages.
Normally I don't flame people, because they're just a bit misguided.
But dude, you're a freaking retard!
The point of partents isn't so that every small change to something can be patented.
Maybe I can't site a case of someone picking his nose quite like you do, but that doesn't mean you should be granted a patent on doing so.
Hey wait... You own Amazon stock, don't you?
One-click! is not an invention. It barely qualifies as technology.
:) :o :p
(I think you mean quiet
Sept 12, 1997 - Sept 28, 1999.
Could you show me how you visited 'all other sites' to verify this? :)
I give this 2 Lawsuits before this patent is taken away from them. But Scream and hollar anyways about IP, communism, etc.
The truth is, even though the entire patent system may be a little wacky, a patent like this will not stand. Amazon is confusing a trademark with a patent. Everyone knows they didn't invent the concept of "one click shopping", they just invented the neat term to describe it.
Does this apply to the online ordering system for a hard copy of patents they have on the page? :)
With everyone and their dog getting hacked, Do I REALLY want a company storing my credit card info?? It's hard enough to get away from ibill!!!
How can a patent reviewer who does not have a handle on the technology make a decision as to what is an invention. The invention is merely a usage of already existing inventions, not in a new way just a faster easier and utterly insecure way way. This is not an invention its using technology. Its one thing to make the patent and its an entirely different thing to enforce the patent. I think I will go and make a one click buy page and then watch Amazon enforce it. These types of things deserve rebellion from the industry. All online stores should do this and demand Amazon to stop its ludicrosy. They dont have a product and their trying to make one for the sole reason of cash, not advancing technology which most patents do, look at linus'
They actually beat themselves in the worst patent: look at number 5715399. It's patent (that was granted!) for the invention of only sending part of a credit card number over the net to chose which one you want to use (ie. if you've 6 different cards in the past, and you actually want to reuse one you used before, they give you a list of all the cards you've used, but only showing the last 4 digits). This is insane!
Shipped to your house and left unattended on your doorstep in a big brown box that proclaims to the shysters in question "here's the stuff you ripped me off for, so come and get it!" Yeah, that's reassuring.
Well, now that geek is chic (hahaha, yeah, right. ;) I think I'm going to go patent the 'look and feel' of messy hair, dirty classes, raggy jeans and a T-shirt before somebody else does.
;) If only I wasn't in Canada, where our patent office is sane. Or invisible. Not sure which.
There is the small issue of precedence... but then again I could just say Nitrozac (After Y2K) was a former business parter and she stole *my* likeness for her comic strips, without paying me properly.
Ooh, this could be fun.
You'll eat it and you'll like it.
Probably because they've been spammer scum since they started.
"This particular patent doesn't bother me in the least. Although I did notice a complete absence of non-patent references. I expect Amazon knows better than to enforce it. They will either just keep it in a drawer or license it really really cheap." Hmmm... I hope the attorney doesn't mind, I just wanted to give a little legal perspective
Yep. The paperwork is being processed now.
Everyone who shops at Amazon.com better go to that 1-click shopping real quick, otherwise Amazon is gonna be in a heap of trouble.
This sig is false.
A method and system for placing an order to purchase an item via the Internet. .emacs
The New York Times and the The Ecomomist have a system for buying "items" with one click.
These "items" are articles from previous issues but it does the exact same thing that Amazon is trying to patent. Can Amozon belive the patent will actually stand? If not then why are they patenting something that obviously is a) not invative and b) has an example of prior art?
%vi
struct item
{
- void *data;
};struct item *next;
and have used it to create a dynamic array,
you owe me $$$, for I have just patented the linked list!
Sheesh.
I just received the patent #143224345323 for a system of electronic purchase designed so to minimise the number of mouse-clicks to zero mouse-clicks. Everybody using an interface allowing people to shop without even touching the mouse will have to contact our legal department to discuss a contract to allow you use our technology.
This include but is not restricted to text-based interfaces not using the mouse.
And after stupid laws like that they say that America is the land of freedom. Bouah!
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
If sites require cookies, I don't shop there. And I am not alone. It's pretty simple economics, eh?
Actually, once you`ve done the one-click thing they give you ninety minutes to add more stuff or change your mind. If you don`t do either of those within that time, then it goes. But you can`t say you can`t get out of it. If the book you`re ordering is delayed, you can still cancel it at any time up until it`s dispatched. I know; I`ve done this once, when I found a book I`d ordered from Amazon available cheaper locally. They hadn`t shipped it yet, so I was able to cancel the order.
Well, I never thought I'd say it, even if Laura and some other friends work there:
...
Thank god for MSFT.
Yup, you can bet that right now their trained hordes of lawyers are thinking of creative ways of invalidating this patent.
Maybe I could patent Stupidity
Will in Seattle
Seriously, in addition to being in the Constitution of the United States of America (as opposed to the separation of church and state, which is in the writings), patents exist for one reason only:
To encourage people to come up with new inventions.
Obviously, the system is not working. Just as copyright and trade secrets are used to hamper the development of knowledge by a society in today's modern world, so do patents nowadays serve only to lessen the march of science.
Will in Seattle
The chairman of Priceline, Jay Walker, thinks that 'people who think up ideas should own them'.
Priceline.com came about as a venture of Walker Digital, who's main focus is to think of business methods and patent them before anyone else does. While I think that someone who is inventive or innovative in the field of business model forming should be rewarded with success dependent upon the merits of their idea, I don't think the government should be granting them exclusive license to operate in such a manner.
Some of these patents are going to cause major problems unless they are struck down. It seems pretty apparent to me that many of them are WAY too broad - especially this Amazon one. I don't see how they could protect a patent like this (i hope...), nor do I see why such patents are even allowable.
Juln
Shopping carts are the way to go. I bought something in Amazon's eshop and they said I would have a chance to review (I thought I had it in a shopping cart). But with one-click its a done deal!! No chance to change your mind or your purchase. This is not a 'feature' just a gimmick. The same as those windshield wipers for eyeglasses.
So just out of curriousity. How does this pattent affect Microsoft's new passport service? It could get interesting...
- AMW
You got the killer browser-app !
;-)) ?
Anyone feeling like writing an open source Web browser (or a plugin) that allows time-based denying or allowing of cookies, possibly with "ANN or GA-based adaptive cookie filtering" schemes, etc. - should patent that one
See it on freshmeat !?
Score: -1 (redundant) == you keeping posting the same damn thing.
Why is this obvious? If this was so obvious why is nobody on the Internet doing the same thing Amazon .com is doing? Have you even used One-Click shopping? I ask again, is there any company on the Internet that offers the ability to click one button and have your credit card validated, order processed and shipped to you with no additional intervention? Get off your "I could have thought of that, so the patent is bogus" horse, and come up with one other site that allows this.
Amazon.com was one of the first big-time retailers, and undoubtedly came up with a lot of the way things are done now on the Internet. Hell, when Barnes and Noble first started out on the Internet, their goal was to be as close to Amazon.com as possible. I'm sure many retailers thought the same thing. A patent takes years to be issued, so even if their methods are obvious now, they probably weren't when the patent was issued.
Sig goes here
> Tags embedded in HTML tags can't
...
> hang around like cookies, and can't be
> tracked from site to site by the banner ad
> houses.
Last time I checked, most browsers honored the Referrer: header
This probably violates somebodys patent on using a computer to store credit card details---- or the patent on pay phones - you put a coin in to place a call, or a pre-programmed card to call home automatically Or using callerid and the 'time' and history to a shop at home greeting like 'Hello Mrs Smith, you wanted to order item 112344 green pendant' Or the security system. You walk up to your front door, it sniffs your BO or retina scan, then lets you in. I know, we can charge employees for using the washroom. Or the banks SET protocol, that not only takes the swipe of the card, push of a button, but does a whole lot of other work too. But seriously, I thought patent examiners get paid 80,000 a year. If so, and approved this, would hang my head in shame
After all, this is exactly what Passport is supposed to do. Didn't Microsoft try to patent the idea themselves? If not, they obviously missed a trick for once...
How can people even file patents for stuff like this? In a rational world there would be gatekeepers at the patent office to toss out the obvious clunkers.
Jack
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
As I read it, anyone with access to my computer (or maybe even just my identifier!?) could easily order whatever they want from amazon.com.
I don't think there'll ever be a really safe internet payment system, unless it involves physical identifiers like (chip)cards, fingerprints or voice recognition.
Most people will be hit by their Big Brother nerve though.
i'm surprised, really. looks like Bezos is hiring very cheap or very stupid lawyers. for example - they explicitly mention HTML instead of a more generic "markup" or "hypertext" language. looks like i'm free to use one-click shopping via XML or Java, etc. the patent is full of holes like this.
"One skilled in the art would recognize that there are other possible combinations of these stages which still express the same essential algorithm."
Uh, huh.
--
Anonymous cowards own more patents.
Even linux sites have stilly patents - look at google.com - they patent something that other search egines had been using, just not making a big deal about (more links to a page means it's ranked higher.)
Abstract:
A method for naming and interacting intelligently with other self-aware biological entities. A server, hereafter referred to as Mother, creates a client app, hereafter referred to as Baby. The Mother then designates the Baby with a unique identification marker (UID). The Mother can consult with other servers, also known as Father, Friends, or Family, as to an appropiate UID. The Baby also has the option of transferring their old UID for a new UID. Note: A collection of servers operating in a master slave configuration or load balancing manner, hereafter known as The Government, can choose to give a supplemental UID to the Baby. This UID given by The Government may be permanently affixed to the Baby at The Government's discretion.
Note: The Baby may change into a server given the proper hardware.
Does this mean I can patent the naming of children?
Scheme everyday...
...not to shop at Amazon. You'd think they'd realize that this gratuitous usage of cookies is not only a feature, but a huge security hole.
I know personally at least two people who have had other people order things on their credit cards, because they made the mistake of ordering something from Amazon from a public computer lab, where their cookie was then stored, and retrieved (and thus their credit card number used) when another person came along and used the same machine to order from Amazon. You'd think people would realize that letting any remote site "store" your credit card number is a hugely bad idea...but then I suppose these are the same folks who randomly run the binaries sent to their AOL e-mail address...
Two things...
First, it almost sounds like they are patenting the cookie being used in conjunction with a cgi, as it was designed to do.
Second, I have a book entitled "The ABCs of JavaScript" by Lee Purcell and Mary Jane Mara, Published by Sybex Copyright 1997 (which I bought before September 12, 1997--the application date on the patent), in which they describe this same system. Since it takes a while to write,then publish a book, it would seem that Amazon stole someone else's idea and patented it.
Only in America...
The patent specificaly states the usage of HTML documents. This in and of itself indicates that the patent is useless. Java, Javascript, VBScript, ASP, Perl, CGI, etc are all NOT HTML. Therefore it is fairly easy to argue that any document containing these things (AKA every dynamicaly generated web page) does not fall under the patent, regardless of the use of cookies. Assuming the patent itself could hold up in court (which is a big leap of faith), any decent lawyer can simply walk in, say "Our sales process uses scripting documents, not HTML documents" and that will be the end of the suit.
MORON!! Your cookie security method makes STUPID assumptions. [whatever].tld is NOT always a single site. What about cookies that allow themselves to be sent back to *.co.uk? How many sites does that encompass?
If my memory is correct on this [this was a LONG time ago] on-line stores running on BBSes.
This patent may get around that small detail by refering only to web sales. It's still pritty generic.
It's also stupid.
On the other hand shouldn't a person be worryed that Amazon has that information on record?
I don't actually exist.
In reading through the Amazon.com patent, they've also snuck a bit in about adding products to a "shopping cart" with a single click. And if you look down at the bottom of the patent's page, there are buttons for "Add to Cart" and "Buy". Not being a patent lawyer I'm not sure how solid Amazon's claims on "Add to Cart" are with this patent, but the possible irony of a patent being violated on the Patent Office page it's posted on brightened my morning.
I stand corrected.
Technology is only a vehicle. People are the ones that drive it.
the software to do this should be copyrighted, and not applied to a patent, it may be unique but its certainly not a revolutionary idea, its purely "service", better service then youd get elsewhere on the net.
Intel tries to patent a sequence of numbers (x86) and loses the case, hence Pentium (tm).
Patenting a click sequence? This doesn't make sense.
Why doesn't Cisco patent the IP routing concept?
Patenting should be retained for the new, unique and conceptual ideas in technology, not the MINOR improvements.
Technology is only a vehicle. People are the ones that drive it.
I see all the /. patent law experts are up late tonight. Relax people. Regardless of whether you think this patent is apocryphal in nature, Amazon is playing by the rules that were in place long before Bezos ever laid his first virtual brick. The sad fact is technology companies are forced to play this silly game because of all the Microsoft's of the world who do engage in the art of securing patents for the sole purpose of creating exclusionary, propietary technology. The jury is still out on Amazon.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
Ok ridiculus has reached a new level. So my suggestions are first boycott Amazon. The only voice we have is with our credit cards therefore we should invoke the privilage of withoulding our credit cards. Besides Barnes and Nobles has a better selection. Second everyone has to stop breathing. I just applied for a patent on organic autonomic oxeygen intake systems, as well as organic autonomic plasma distribution systems. That way if you breath or your heart pumps blood I get paid.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
It's really simple. If you web site has one of those snazzy agreements with Amazon, cancel it, and tell them that until they put that patent into the public domain, you will buy telling your web site patrons to buy their books at Chapters, or Barnes&Nobel, or any other online book seller.
Furthermore, you should lobby the web sites you frequent to do the same, for example, Slashdot.org!
Let's see the Slashdot crew walk their talk, cancel their agreement with Amazon, and tell them to renounce their patent!
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Now, this is stupid. I am currently designing a system that uses that same type of system. Now amazon can suck it. How the hell does someone gain the right to patent a one click order system? They already exist all over!!!