Have you read the patent?
Looks like typical patent-the-obvious-and-hope-to-snow-the-investors rubbish.
I have this patent I am working on with a similar plan. I call it the Systematic Alteration and Lowering of Evaluations.
This invention actually uses an computer-based algorithm and publishing mechanism to increase retail demand by periodically changing prices and communicating it to potential buyers.
After the patent office grants it, I plan to sue the department stores for royalties on my SALE technology.
Actually, considering the sexual content of many of the RIAA's most popular current "music" works, I find it most hypocritical that these people would attempt to clothe themselves in piety.
Disgusting and cynical.
My post was meant to convey that the folks at Gillette are interested in identification of thieves, not shoppers.
I was at K-Mart yesterday. Mach 3 turbo blades were $15 for a pack of 8. Are you seriously going to buy 3 of the same SKU? That's almost $50 for blades. Heck... I have a hard enough time buying ONE pack since the old one is still shaving pretty well... but then I am pretty cheap.
And assume you do buy three... big deal, some security wonk in a booth is gonna watch you until you check out.
Suppose the incentive to NOT kill/remove the tag is a 10% discount or a double warranty?
Or protection against theft like engraving your SSN on your stereo?
The tags CAN be killed at time of purchase. Additionally, if you walk into another store wearing an enabled tag from a previous purchase, the store database knows that the tag is not for an item currently available for sale. So it's no issue normally.
The unknown here is what will happen when the store database is in error and did not record your previous purchase. I suspect that most people will want the tags killed to avoid this potential, just as people remove the paper price tags from purchases today.
Since each RFID tag has a unique serial number, placing an old tag in the read field will have no effect since it will be known to be a previously sold unit.
The in-store theft anticipation system has nothing to do with marketing or identification of shoppers (pretty tough to do with store cameras anyway). Why would Gillette need a tag to ID shoppers when they could much easier link a credit card or shopper card to the purchase at the checkout?
Razor blades are often stolen by professionals as they are easily sold for cash (often to other retailers). As such, the theives often use shielded bags to thwart the tag's RF anti-theft function.
Not to mention runners and employee assisted theft where conventional anti-theft tags are next to useless.
The smart shelf theft anticipation technology is about the only way to detect theft short of placing a guard at the razors.
In actuality, the Gillette smart shelf logic only signals for recording from the surveilance camera system when three or more packages of replacement blades are removed at the same time... this is indicative not of shopping but of theft.
No store has enough security people to monitor, track and verify all the shoppers who purchase blades nor would they want to. Waste of money.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read the patent? Looks like typical patent-the-obvious-and-hope-to-snow-the-investors rubbish. I have this patent I am working on with a similar plan. I call it the Systematic Alteration and Lowering of Evaluations. This invention actually uses an computer-based algorithm and publishing mechanism to increase retail demand by periodically changing prices and communicating it to potential buyers. After the patent office grants it, I plan to sue the department stores for royalties on my SALE technology.
Just to put tourism and space economics into perspective.
Each year, tourists spend as much money in Virginia as NASA spends on its entire budget.
Something to consider before dismissing the power of tourist bucks.
Actually, considering the sexual content of many of the RIAA's most popular current "music" works, I find it most hypocritical that these people would attempt to clothe themselves in piety. Disgusting and cynical.
My post was meant to convey that the folks at Gillette are interested in identification of thieves, not shoppers. I was at K-Mart yesterday. Mach 3 turbo blades were $15 for a pack of 8. Are you seriously going to buy 3 of the same SKU? That's almost $50 for blades. Heck... I have a hard enough time buying ONE pack since the old one is still shaving pretty well... but then I am pretty cheap. And assume you do buy three... big deal, some security wonk in a booth is gonna watch you until you check out.
Suppose the incentive to NOT kill/remove the tag is a 10% discount or a double warranty? Or protection against theft like engraving your SSN on your stereo?
The tags CAN be killed at time of purchase. Additionally, if you walk into another store wearing an enabled tag from a previous purchase, the store database knows that the tag is not for an item currently available for sale. So it's no issue normally. The unknown here is what will happen when the store database is in error and did not record your previous purchase. I suspect that most people will want the tags killed to avoid this potential, just as people remove the paper price tags from purchases today.
Since each RFID tag has a unique serial number, placing an old tag in the read field will have no effect since it will be known to be a previously sold unit.
Razor blades are often an impulse purchase... out of sight, out of mind.
The in-store theft anticipation system has nothing to do with marketing or identification of shoppers (pretty tough to do with store cameras anyway). Why would Gillette need a tag to ID shoppers when they could much easier link a credit card or shopper card to the purchase at the checkout? Razor blades are often stolen by professionals as they are easily sold for cash (often to other retailers). As such, the theives often use shielded bags to thwart the tag's RF anti-theft function. Not to mention runners and employee assisted theft where conventional anti-theft tags are next to useless. The smart shelf theft anticipation technology is about the only way to detect theft short of placing a guard at the razors.
In actuality, the Gillette smart shelf logic only signals for recording from the surveilance camera system when three or more packages of replacement blades are removed at the same time... this is indicative not of shopping but of theft. No store has enough security people to monitor, track and verify all the shoppers who purchase blades nor would they want to. Waste of money.