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.
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
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
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.
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
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.)