Slashdot Log In
New Amazon Patent Cites Bezos Patent Reform
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jun 15, 2005 05:08 AM
from the give-an-inch-they'll-charge-you-a-mile dept.
from the give-an-inch-they'll-charge-you-a-mile dept.
theodp writes "In seeking yet another patent related to 'single-action ordering of items,' Amazon asked the USPTO to consider a number of documents, including Doonesbury cartoons, which Amazon earlier claimed vindicated its 1-Click patent. Ironically, much of this material was collected and edited by BountyQuest, which reportedly received $1+ million from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in the name of patent reform. A USPTO examiner dutifully considered the material, and on Tuesday U.S. Patent No. 6,907,315 was issued to Amazon."
Related Stories
[+]
Amazon One-Click Patent to be Re-Examined 132 comments
timrichardson writes "A New Zealand actor, frustrated by a poor shopping experience, has successfully requested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review the correctness of Amazon's infamous One-Click patent. An examiner for the agency ruled that the re-examination requested by Peter Calveley had raised a 'substantial new question of patentability' affecting Amazon's patent, according to a document outlining the agency's decision."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Technical Inovation Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Today it seems, You can get a patent on anything that has not been explicitly described in a patent by someone else.
Re:Technical Inovation Indeed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Technical Inovation Indeed (Score:4, Interesting)
I would argue that a lot of those "silly" patents did some societal good. Why spend money on turning a good idea into a product when you know that someone with deeper pockets (probably a corporation) can turn around and copy your design and then undercut you. Without patents there are probably lots of ideas that would either be long delayed in being developed into a product or perhaps never see the light of day at all. The problem (IMHO) is that the current patent system no longer does what it was originally intended to do. My solution: make the patent office buy back patents that lose in court and adjust the definition of what can be patented to include the concept of "impediment to implementation". If an idea is at risk of being kept secret and unpublished then a patent is in societies best interest. Otherwise why prevent others from implementing the idea? One click is a good example. The development cost of implementing the idea is very small. The likelyhood of someone else coming up with the idea is, uh, like about 100%. There doesn't appear to be anything gained by allowing the idea to be monopolized. Does knowing that the one click idea was patentable give you an incentive to sit down and think up other good ideas? I doubt it.
Parent
Business value? (Score:5, Insightful)
a) how the hell to they hope to ever enforce this
b) how can they prove the absence of prior art - people have been doing 'one click shopping' in a non digital fashion 'i'll take one of those jim, charge my account' for hundreds of years
and c) where's the gain? You spend $1,000,000+ attempting to prove your IP rights over something, but, as a result of a and b, can't profit from it (you profit from the one-click system in itself, but not by restricting its use by others).
I can understand patenting it, if they feel they have a prior art, and want to prevent others using it, but is it really worth the expense? Nobody is going to blow amazon out of the water any time soon...
Re:Business value? (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't have to.
Re:Business value? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Business value? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly
That's why one click shopping is great - not for you, for them. If they can circumvent you reviewing, checking, and considering, they're far more likely to get impulse sales, which equal $$$$$$$.
Parent
Re:Business value? (Score:2)
Re:Business value? (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't have to. If you think that you have prior art that invalidates the patent, you have to prove it. They'll most likely attempt to prove that your prior art isn't, but you don't have to try to disprove the existence of any prior art at all, that would be unworkable.
Parent
Re:Business value? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can only guess, but I would suppose they could try to make a profit by charging other e-commerce companies for using automated billing, or they want to try to sell the patent, or they want to wedge their way into being some kind of front end order processing provider for ecomerce shops.
Then again, they did try to sue B&N dot com for using something similar, so maybe the whole plan is just to harass competitiors.
Re:Business value? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cookie patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cookie patent (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that the abstract and summary do not really count. It is the specific claims that do. The abstract is the same as their 1999 patent and the summary is about 95% the same. The claims on the otherhand are different.
Either the patent office had a mix up, or they used the same application with slight mods...:)
BWP
Cite your sources! (Score:5, Funny)
Filed May 22, 2003, covers all eCommerce (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't there some sort of lawsuit you can bring against the patent office to force them to do their job?
Also is there anyway to check on the sharedealings of patent reviewers? Forgive my suspiciousness but when patent reviewers are so determined to do their job badly, I wonder if they have an underlying motive.
Re:Filed May 22, 2003, covers all eCommerce (Score:2)
I heard of a procedure called "ballot". Time to use it for this purpose, perhaps?
Re:Filed May 22, 2003, covers all eCommerce (Score:2)
okay.. and vote for who ? Obviously not a republican since they love the patent office. Vote for a democrat ? Based on their actions for the last 15 years they seem to be falling in love with psychotic american capitalism as well. Guess I'm stuck voting for Kucinich ? Great.
Re:Filed May 22, 2003, covers all eCommerce (Score:5, Insightful)
How, exactly, do you propose I use mine to push for patent reform? By voting for a Bush? For a Democrat? For a no-hoper with a thousand other perfectly worthy lost causes to think about?
Perhaps if you figure out how you could patent the method -- there's no prior art that I can see. Failing that, wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.
Parent
Re:Filed May 22, 2003, covers all eCommerce (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Text of granted patent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Text of granted patent (Score:2)
Oh year? Well, my patent reads ...
"The server system sends to the client system the assigned client identifier and an HTML,XML,PDF, or ASCII document or other document format known to the art identifying the item and including an order button."
Guess someone owes me some big bucks.
My new patent. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
/. makes my head explode (Score:3, Informative)
1. A method in a computing system for processing item orders, comprising:
receiving a plurality of orders, each order having a destination and one or more items;
organizing the received orders into order groups, the orders of each order group all h
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
I order online nearly every day of my life and I double and triple check things to make sure they charge the right card, go to the right address, that it's what I want etc. and for this I insist on being able to get to a screen where I can double-check EVERYTHING and only then do I submit it.
How many people are seriously logged into secure websites so often that it is just one click and they've ordered something?
Re:But... (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)
Honestly, how many people USE Amazon's 1-click ordering anyway?
I do - in the iTunes Music Store, for which Apple have licensed the 1-click, er, "technology" from Amazon. For this specific use it's actually quite useful.
Weird application... (Score:3, Informative)
And the abstract/summary, and the claims do not seem to match up. The abstract/summary talk about one-click and the claims talk about an intelligent order combining system. The abstract is the same as the 1999 patent by Hartman.
There are plenty of backend systems that will combine orders. Does this only cover systems that do it all in the frontend?
BWP
It's a continuation (Score:3, Informative)
The patent-overview dissected (Score:2, Informative)
"A method and system for placing an order to purchase an item via the Internet."
OK, it's about e-commerce.
"The order is placed by a purchaser at a client system and received by a server system."
Client-server. Could be the web.
"The server system receives purchaser information including identification of the purchaser, payment information, and shipment information from the client system."
You have to tell the web-shop who you are etc.
"The server system then assigns a clie
Re:The patent-overview dissected (Score:4, Informative)
The claims are what matters and they do NOT match up with the abstract/summary. The claims talk about a system that will combine orders shipping to the same addresses from same customer.
BWP
Parent
claims vs. abstract/summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are there so that others learn from what you did, and only in return for this, you are being granted a temporary monopoly on it. If you try to hide your innovation from others, why should you be given the reward for sharing it?
And hiding it you are, if the abstract/summary don't ma
Ah, if only Yoda were a patent examiner. (Score:2)
In any event, this is what happens when you have overworked, poorly trained examiners with no real motivation to be thorough reviewing applications cooked up by dishonest companies. Chalk another one up to Congress.
Wow... the scope is huge.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the TITLE and a couple of beautiful lines from the patent.
10. A method in a computing system for processing an item orders for shipment, comprising:
receiving a first order having a first item and a second item;
determining that the first item has an availability time similar to items in a second order, and that the second item has an availability time similar to items in a third order; and
in response to the determination, adding the first item to the second order and adding the second item to the third order.
11. A computing system for processing an item orders for shipment, comprising:
an order receiver that receives a first order having a first item and a second item;
an availability determination subsystem that determines that the first item has a time-to-inventory similar to items in a second order, and that the second item a time-to-inventory similar to items in a third order; and
an item reallocation subsystem that adds the first item to the second order and adds the second item to the third order in response to the determination by the availability determination subsystem.
12. A method in a computing system for combining item orders for shipment, comprising:
among a set of orders, each order having a destination and one or more items, identifying mutually-exclusive groups of orders such that the orders of each group all have the same destination;
for each group of orders whose items are all available for shipment:
combining the orders of the group, and
scheduling the combined orders of the group for shipment; and for each group of orders whose items are not all available for shipment:
combining the orders of the group, and
scheduling the combined orders of the group for shipment.
Now I'm as ever confused by this. What is this beyond an HTML screen on the sort of package computer system made by folks like Manugistics, SAP, Oracle et al? To me what Amazon have just patented is SAPs ordering and reconciliation processes.... which certainly pre-date Amazon by a mile.
US Patent Office.... its like Dilbert, but with more jokes.
This is due to a legal requirement (Score:5, Informative)
So in order to be safe patent lawyers (especially those with rich clients) submit everything that they can get their hands on which could possibly affect the validity of the patent. And because this particular patent was so often criticized, the attorneys decided to be safe and submit all the criticisms, because one of them may possibly have material information about a piece of prior art.
So there is nothing especially nefarious about the fact that all these materials were submitted.
I am still amazed that the patent was granted though.
Sad state of IP and Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviousness (Score:5, Interesting)
Then, the examiner invites 5 people skilled in the art that are unaffiliated to the patent seeker. They are confronted with the problem description and come up with a solution to tackle that particular problem. If some of the five come up with something substantially similar to the invention that the patent is sought for, the patent doesn't get granted due to obviousness. Even if the engineers don't come up with the actual answer but with alternative solutions there will be a win, as a legal circumvention of the patent will be on record.
Such a system would have killed Bezos' original patent right of. Problem: "I want to be able to allow my customers to buy things with a single click". The patented solution would have been proposed by 5 out of 5 people skilled in the art. Similar questions as "I want to be able to stream live video to a computer", "I want to show a picture of the product I'm selling " will be shot down.
One of the big dangers of software patents currently is locking out entire problem domains, by patenting the questions, not the answers. If the question contains the answer, it should not be patentable.
Note that with this scheme the question "How does one exercise a cat" would most likely allow for this patent [freepatentsonline.com].
Re:Obviousness (Score:2)
A patent is an exclusive right granted for a technical invention which, as required in most countries, offers a novel and non-obvious technical solution to a problem.
So, at the company I work for, the patent commitee will accept submissions for most anything, but will filter out the crap that they know is not unique or interesting. And, patent reviewers at the USPTO are supposed to make
Re:Obviousness (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that would not work, because as in the case of the one-click patent, sometimes the problem is the invention.
In other words, what if no one else ever even thought there was a need to buy things with one click? Bezos or someone at Amazon thought about it and realized that this could be an advantage to them or to their customers, even though it's actually counterintuitive -- most people want confirmation screens, and most sites assume they want them.
So just because the solution to a problem m
Re:Obviousness (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that Bezos came up with an interesting question does not automatically make that question patentable. As far as I know this is the law, you get patents for solutions, copyrights for works and trademarks for names used in trade. No protection for questions.
Imagine a
Re:Obviousness (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that's true. But why do we have patents? Is it to reward inventors? Or is it to encourage inventors (or others) to invent more?
The idea of using gravity, might have needed a spark of creativity in someones head, at one time. And it is a good idea. But it's not the kind of idea t
patents have a purpose (Score:3, Interesting)
do NOT tell companies about prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to ask yourself: why do you tell a company about prior art, and why do they ask about it?
Presumably, the primary goal you have telling a company about prior art is to convince them not to file the patent, or at least make them look bad among the tech savvy. But companies don't give a damn about that sort of thing, so don't waste your breath.
On the other hand, companies have a strong interest in hearing about prior art before filing the patent because when they include your prior art reference into their patent application, the patent becomes stronger. Rather than causing them to rethink their application, your reports of prior art to them are valuable background reseach that save companies lots of money in legal fees.
So, just about the worst thing you can do is to tell a company about prior art for a patent application, because doing so will make the patent even harder to fight.
What's a better strategy? Make sure as many people as possible know about the prior art, but only well after the patent has issued. Never contact the company filing the patent directly with prior art, even after it has issued--they have their lawyers, they should pay for their own prior art searches. And generally, it is probably also a good idea to wait with prior art discussions in public forums (like Slashdot) until after the patent has issued.
As for Bezos and Bounty Quest, it is sleazy at best for Bezos to use Bounty Quest as a repository for prior art for his own patent filings even if he decided to do so after the fact. If Bounty Quest was set up with such uses in mind, it is deceptive and may be fraudulent. In any case, it seems to be just another example of big companies deceiving and abusing people who are interested in doing volunteer work for the common good.
Did the patent office outlaw themselves? (Score:2, Funny)
Nico
They patented logistics (Score:2)
Basically you and I thought that online ordering logistics was a field in itself, with many many companies specialising in it (both doing it and advising on it), and countless books on the subject, but no, apparently it was all in our minds and the subject was invented by Amazon in 2003.
Strange since this search:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=logistics+site%3 A amazon.com&prssweb= [yahoo.com]
Here's a book from 2001 on eCommerce Logistics (Score:2)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/013
"E-Commerce Logistics & Fulfillment: Delivering the Goods"
United States Patent 6,907,316 (Score:5, Funny)
Abstract
Method and system for purchasing goods or services in the physical world. After construction of suitable 'premises' (Pat. 6,907,317 - a space altered by arranging materials for the purpose of creating a distinction between 'outside' and 'inside') a person enters the premises via the 'door' (Pat. 6,907,318 - a hole made in the materials of Pat. 6,907,317 to facilitate access to the 'inside' space) and is greeted by an 'employee' (Pat. 6,907,319 - a poor loser unable to to engage in any entrepreneurial activities due to the lack of unpatented processes left in the world and therefore forced to work for an evil overlord quicker off the mark to exploit the idiocy of the patent system). The customer selects goods or services for purchase, pays the 'employee' and exits through the 'door'. The funds are then used by the evil overlords to continue to pay high-priced lawyers in their ongoing effort to patent the 'patent process' (Pat. 6,907,320 - Pending).
BountyQuest was a scam (Score:2, Insightful)
By getting everyone focussed on prior art, it caused people to skip over the real question, which was whether Amazon's "one-click" was a legitimate patent in the first place.
The "one-click" patent should not be rejected on the basis of prior art.
It should be rejected because it is _obvious_, i.e., not a patentable idea in the first place.
Re:hey (Score:2, Funny)
Because I love you, you love me, we're a sadomaso family.
KFG
Re:hey (Score:2)
Re:I remember a time... (Score:2)
He exhales carbon dioxide, which is needed by plants.