Reminding Customers Patented by Amazon 237
theodp writes "When your little Hogwart checks out the latest Harry Potter book at Amazon, he or she may be reminded that they've already ordered the book. It's all part of CEO Jeff Bezos latest patent for the Contextual presentation of information about related orders during browsing of an electronic catalog, which also covers warning customers about drug interactions ('you previously purchased Drug ABC'). The USPTO allowed the patent after four years and five rejections."
Self Defense? (Score:5, Insightful)
And considering all the money spent on lawyers to go back and forth 5 times, answering the patent examiner's objections, could have bought off at least one senator, maybe two. Could have bought a handful of congressmen. Multiply his filing and lawyer fees by all the patents he's gobbled up like some braying pacman, and you've got enough lobbyist money to get some real patent reform, the lack of which is the reason behind his defensive patents.
Re:Self Defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Defense" where defense destroy any competition (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't use his rediculous "one-click" patent defensively against Barnes and Noble, unless your definition of defense includes either "a good offense" (which is effectively just doublespeak for negating the difference between two antonyms) or "no competition whatsoever," which is today's business monopolist's notion of "a free market."
Either way, Bezos is a despicable, disingenous, antisocial jerk who is working the system to the detriment of the internet, technologists, and the free market.
Re:"Defense" where defense destroy any competition (Score:2)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:2)
prior art (Score:2)
He doesn't need to patent it to do that. All he needs to do is publish the idea, then it cannot be patented by anyone else, as it then becomes "prior art." I'm sure he's is well aware of that.
Re:Self Defense? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:2)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:2)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:4, Informative)
From 35 U.S.C. 157:
A statutory invention registration published pursuant to this section shall have all of the attributes specified for patents in this title except those specified in section 183 and sections 271 through 289 of this title. A statutory invention registration shall not have any of the attributes specified for patents in any other provision of law other than this title. A statutory invention registration published pursuant to this section shall give appropriate notice to the public, pursuant to regulations which the Director shall issue, of the preceding provisions of this subsection. The invention with respect to which a statutory invention certificate is published is not a patented invention for purposes of section 292 of this title.
Basically it's a patent application without the examination part (and obviously you don't get a patent). It's probably a little better than publishing because:
1) the USPTO is more likely to be aware of an SIR than a specific article in a magazine, etc...
2) the disclosure required for an SIR is more than what most people include in an average-sized article
Re:Self Defense? (Score:2)
The patent office should reduce these fees to $100
Re:Self Defense? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:2)
We should be encouraging people to do this. There's no chance of making any money on one, so treating it as a revenue center in the USPTO is just wrong-headed from a societal perspective (but not from the USPTO's perspective!). The fees should reflect actual cost, or less. If anything, patent fees should subsidize it.
Re:Self Defense? (Score:2)
Re:Self Defense? (Score:2)
Ambrose Bierce had it right (Score:5, Insightful)
v.t. In law, to put the dice into the box for another throw.
if you're going to be pedantic (Score:2)
1) Not their definition, though it may be right onm. As noted in the post title refers to a quote by Ambrose Bierce (in The Devil's Dictionary)
2) If you are making a direct quote you need to leave it intact though possibly put in a (sic) to note an error in the original quote
3) In law, appeal [reference.com] is a transitive verb
Coming up.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Coming up.... (Score:2)
Re:Coming up.... (Score:2)
Re:Coming up.... (Score:2)
Furthermore, if you patent a customer, why would you want to remind them of the fact?
Curious...
Is there no prior art on this at all?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is there no prior art on this at all?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is there no prior art on this at all?? (Score:5, Funny)
That work of art neither forgets, nor hesitates to remind.
Re:Is there no prior art on this at all?? (Score:2)
I'm sick of every combination of existing computer technology being pattented.
It's just freaking math! It's like pattenting 2 + 3, then coming out and pattenting 3 + 2. Then 3 - (-2). It's all just permutations of the same god damn thing!
"Let's make use of the information we have stored about our customers to actually tell the customers things" is a great idea, but it hardly warrants patent protection. It's just a busin
Re:Is there no prior art on this at all?? (Score:3, Insightful)
And about birthdays, why the hell did you bring up that idea? Now it surely will be patented.
Re:Is there no prior art on this at all?? (Score:2)
Yes, my 3D FPS map site displays a list of maps that they've downloaded so they are reminded to rate them. And if you're not logged in, it reminds you to log in before downloading so it can keep track for you.
Hmm... now that I think about it, the site also lists maps "you might also be interested in."
Crap! I better get a lawyer
It's Going to Cause Havoc (Score:1)
That's why I boycot Amazon (Score:2, Interesting)
Stupid patents like that are the reason why I boycot amazon.
I use ist to look for books or movies, I read the reviews, then I buy somewhere else.
Sorry if anybody here works for Amazon. It's nothing personal.
Why Stupid patents? (Score:2, Insightful)
What happened to the yesteryear of well thought /. posts? This place has caught the DailyKos/LGF emotion over thinking meme. It's no wonder Maddox [thebestpag...iverse.net] and Kottke [kottke.org] are thinking that blogs are starting to suck ass.
Re:That's why I boycot Amazon (Score:3, Funny)
They are just too convenient with the 1 click shopping and a huge amount of merchandise. I just got my digital camera [amazon.com] from them.
Re:That's why I boycot Amazon (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you thoroughly investigate the business practices of everyone you do business with? If you don't shop at places where they don't do everything completely ethically and above board, you're going to have to be self sufficient.
The only reason Amazon gets
Re:That's why I boycot Amazon (Score:2)
You are a customer of the type that many businesses love. Ignorant of what is behind the product you buy, only interested in the things you can see easily. Means they can sell you whatever they like as long as they hide that its just a pile of shit.
In case you did not get it yet, you DO pay a price for al
Re:That's why I boycot Amazon (Score:2)
I never said they are actually selling you a pile of shit, just that they could as long as they hide it from you initially.
What price do I pay? Are they going to come round asking for more money?
It never occured to you that the price for companies having to pay eachother substantial amounts of money for 'the right' to use something ob
Re:That's why I boycot Amazon (Score:2)
>> Do you thoroughly investigate the business practices of everyone you do business with? If you don't shop at places where they don't do everything completely ethically and above board, you're going to have to be self sufficient.
No, I do not thoroughly investigate the practices of everyone I do business with. However, when I do, if I find out they are doing something unethical, I modify my relationship with them accordingly, including boycotting if called for. You do nothing you say? So you w
Re:Have a reality check (Score:2)
US competitors should use them. (Score:3, Interesting)
So it only makes sense that everyone outside the US should help Amazon lock down the US markets by buying stuff from them. They're also pretty cheap for books.
Re:That's why I boycot Amazon (Score:2, Informative)
Stupid patents like that are the reason why I boycot amazon.
I'm sure Amazon is not the only company to have stupid patents. Even so, how has Amazon used any of the patents offensively? The only time I can think of was when Amazon sued B&N over the one-click patent. Unfortunately, AFAIK the details of the settlement weren't disclosed and B&N didn't seem too affected by it. Also, they haven't sued anyone over a patent since. In fact, I believe Amazon has been more on the receiving end of patent
It's a sad day for Intellectual Property when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeff Bezos has to start reminding his customers that he owns patents on them
Re:It's a sad day for Intellectual Property when.. (Score:5, Funny)
This is just a friendly reminder from the USPTO that you have already tried to submit this patent over five (5) times. This could be an indication that what you trying to patent is completely lacking in innovation or that you are in fact not the first person to come up with this idea. Sometimes, particularly with entirely banal patent submissions, it is a combination of both.
You could check our online FAQ for more information on why your patent keeps getting rejected, or you could just "chill out and get the message finally". If you think you have received this reminder in error, please contact us at priorart@uspto.gov or try submitting the patent again. Its only the taxpayer's money your wasting, after all.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
The Patent Office
Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
4. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
5. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
6. Change another word and resubmit -> gets ACCEPTED.
Instead of:
1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a small fine.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a multiplying fine.
4,5,6,7...on the scheme of 3. etc.
Amazon is just flooding the USPO.
Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:2)
Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:2)
You can't just keep amending like that unless the examiner is voluntarily giving you an easy time, or he screwed something up. All the rules about amendments are geared towards making the PTO money. They will often do things just so you'll have to pay another fee.
Also, I don't know if you realize that they basically reject every single application the first time around. They are swamped with applications, so they are doing everything they can to reduce the numbers. The fact that something was rejected
Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:2)
Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
4. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
5. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
6. Change another word and resubmit -> gets ACCEPTED.
Technically it goes more like this:
1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
---Applicant Pays $790 for continued examination---
3. Change another word and r
Now we're getting somewhere (Score:2)
2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a small fine.
3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a multiplying fine.
4,5,6,7...on the scheme of 3. etc.
I would go even further. In court they have the concept of frivolous lawsuits. If you bring a suit which is found to be frivolous, you will face a contempt of court penalty. We need the same concept in patents (assuming that we are going to allow patenting
Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:2)
Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it sort of discouraging that so many intelligent people are on /., but somany oversimplyfy when it comes to patents in order to further a ri
Re:Use programing instead. (Score:2)
$_ = $patent; while (!$patent_accepted) { s/$word/$new_word/g }
Patent THIS! (Score:3, Funny)
C'mon, how about customer service? Must we rely on computers to do everything?
Re:Patent THIS! (Score:2)
Re:Patent THIS! (Score:2)
You know what... (Score:2, Funny)
A simple question is warranted (Score:5, Interesting)
You would think that after five rejections, the patent office would lend significantly less weight to the credibility of the patent, and presumably would not approve it.
Re:A simple question is warranted (Score:2)
Some money?
Re:A simple question is warranted (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A simple question is warranted (Score:2)
It was either that or a bribe... there's been a few scandalous patents in the past.
Re:A simple question is warranted (Score:2)
Fool! that would be the logical thing to do (Score:2)
little Hogwort? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't Hogwart the name of the school? What the heck would a little Hogwart be? Can any of you little Slashdots explain this to me?
Re:little Hogwort? (Score:3, Informative)
Not Defending this, But (Score:5, Insightful)
It seemed to me, based on the results they got, that it actually was somewhat novel. It hadn't been done before.
This one is a bit similar: it seems obvious. But really, I think the problem here is that most ordering systems totally suck, and this is a version that sucks slightly less. So it seems obvious and intuitive. But that doesn't meant that anyone ever tried to do it properly.
It is a bit like a well-designed product; it is easy to use. But a lot of effort and attempts to make it usable went into it. If you take the time to compare it to the sucky stuff that came before, then you'll probably think it is more novel.
Prior Art (Score:2)
He told me when I tried to pick up her latest prescriptions and some other off the shelf stuff she had ordered - last month your order included XX. This time you bought YY. Your new prescription conflicts with both of these. dont but YY, and dont use XX. Intead here use ZZ.
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
The Amazon patent does not have to do with pharmacies or drugs. It is constrained only to the web. They're not claiming a patent on the concept of reminding customers of previous purchases -- they're doing it only as a "computer-implemented method," constrained to "electronic catalogs" for an "online store" and "user-specific order histories." Arguably, you could implement the same thing for non-retail websites. Or non user-specific order histories. Or take it off the web entirely. So unless your grandmothe
Gag me (Score:2)
(This is going to come off harsh because I am exasperated not with you but with what seems to be a complete society wide cavein to thuggery)
Not defending it? And then you defend the indefensible? These Amazon patent turds are frivolous on the face of it. Any patent examining process with one tenth the common sense God gave a moth would make short work of rejecting this crap With Prejudi
Thank you Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
The more trival and stupid patents that gets granted in the US the easier it will be to show that software patents are bad, whenever the patent law issue pops up its ugly head the next time.
While american idustry spends their money on patent lawyers and courts, other parts of the world where software or process patents are not allowed can spend their money on product development, giving them a competitive edge.
Re:Thank you Amazon (Score:2)
Would this count as a software patent (a pretty fluffy term for such a precise arena)? Arguably, it's closer to a business process, along with the concept of one-click ordering, isn't it?
Next Amazon patent - "Selling" (Score:5, Funny)
There are also plans in the pipeline for saeveral other uniquie and novel concepts. Expect the following to be taken to the patent stage soon:
-Websites
-The number 5
-Presenting a product to a customer
-Telling people they can buy stuff
-Creating words from symbols known as 'letters'
-Only accepting orders if a payment is made
-Sending out orders in 'boxes', whatever they are
-Inhaling air, and exhaling carbon dioxide
I wish I had the brains of those guys - they am them most cleverest.
Re:Next Amazon patent - "Selling" (Score:2)
7 Years and Running... (Score:3, Informative)
7 years Jeff. 7 years of lost revenue that has gone to other companies because of your stubborn insistence on doing crap like this.
My boycott shall continue.
May I suggest some of Amazon's competition?
Barnes and Noble [bn.com]
Buy.com [buy.com]
New Egg [newegg.com]
Ebay [ebay.com]
Bryan
Re:7 Years and Running... (Score:3, Insightful)
And I find it really hilarious how you can boycott Amazon for their shady practices, then recommend Ebay as an alternative. Ebay make Amazon look like Jesus and his disciples.
Re:7 Years and Running... (Score:2)
Which disciples? I hear some of them turned out not to be so great.
Also, the thought of Jeff Bezos in sack cloth is amusing.
Re:7 Years and Running... (Score:2)
And I'm still waiting for Buy.com to credit me for the $149 they owe me for a defective scanner I returned in 1999. Despite the return receipt I faxed them after shipping it back on my own dime, they claim not to have received it.
It's just not worth the hassle of small claims court for $149, which I'm sure they're well aware of.
Re:7 Years and Running... (Score:2)
I'm surprised you mentioned Buy.com, which has had a 2.93/10 customer satisfaction rating at www.resellerrati [resellerratings.com]
Re:7 Years and Running... (Score:2)
Scanning the reviews at Reseller Ratings, there is a suspicious flood of negative reviews regarding canceled orders on or around 20 June. If these reviews are not outright spam, they are likely the result of a pricing error (e.g., a $1,000 item being sold for $100). That said, the rating history isn't all that great, either.
My experience has been satisfactory, and I will continue to buy
Re:7 Years and Running... (Score:2)
If everyone on Slashdot never bought from them, they wouldn't care one squirt, as compared to the benefits (regardless of how you morally consider them) of them protecting their IP.
The problem here isn't Amazon -- they are a public company and their sole responsibility is to their shareholders. These
Re:7 Years and Running... (Score:2)
What about Brick and Mortar? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know this is a common argument, but what if we applied the same patent rules to Brick and Mortar? Can we restrict people and businesses from using common business practices and logic? I.e. I patent "How may I help you?" as a lead question. Now no one can use that line. I know it is ridiculous.
I am in favor of people protecting their unique inventions and developments, but securing patents for the obvious and mundane is a typical symptom of US litigious culture.
It comes from allowing lawyers to make laws (Score:2)
Re:What about Brick and Mortar? (Score:2)
I'm just glad I'm in the UK where none of these stupid patent shenanigans apply.
Re:What about sporting tactics? (Score:2)
Their reality or your reality? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, patenting software is also bad, but since that bad thing has been allowed, it's a good way of getting the other bad thing allowed via this back door.
You think being able to start a business, selling something and making money is something that should be ok for you to do? Not in "their" reality. In their reality any competitor is something bad and needs to be destroyed in any way possible. After all, what's better for profit than having no competitors right? right!
In their reality, the big corporations are the emperors of the business world now and especially in this political climate it looks like it's going to stay this way. They see a world where there will be no more extra competitors incoming anymore and they will be the ones offering most of the goods and services that the people need, the ones they don't need we'll make them want, simple.
HEY, if we make a couple of acquisitions we might be the only company left in the country, won't that be nice? No competition at all, just like "The Company" in the movie "Aliens" although we'll have to somehow make the rest of the world heel to our reality as well, for even more easy profit!
This is the feeling I get when I read news out of the, shall we say, "corporate empires of America". Will it really turn out this way or do you have your own reality of how you see the world, of how you see the world changing in the future? A lot of you do but is your reality as strong as "their" reality? And are you busy making your reality happen or are you just focusing on pointing out the flaws in their plan (which means the only reality under discussion is still THEIR REALITY (there's no such thing as bad publicity eh Mr. Cruise?)).
Take a leaf out of their strategy book: don't waste all your energy on countering their propaganda and instead focus on spreading YOUR ideas into the world, self-replicating memes via the internet work well and don't take much effort except using your brain to come up with the concepts and vectors. Spreading something good instead of reinforcing the bad will improve how you enjoy life as well as how others enjoy it. The main theme of your life will not be negative but positive.
It sounds cloudy but it makes psychological sense.
You could, for example, take the recent rejection of software patents in the EU as something positive. The businesses in Europe will be able to do anything they want to do and in doing so will out-profit USA businesses, especially in an internet world. They'll be able to use any software they want and still sell in the USA, they'll be able to use any business method and still be able to sell in the USA, they'll be able to patent any weird idea in the USA and block out US businesses from competing with them.
Pretty soon, the corporate "emperors" will be left with invisible business suits and somehow "arrange" for the laws to be changed.
That's just a concept, a reality I hastily described during the typing of this post, it could do with some more positivity. Do you like it or would you like to construct one of your own? Be my guest but make it visionary and positive. It'll spread with a little "marketing" and if it's concepts are powerful enough.
How about the concept of changing voting behaviour? Whatever it is that's in your head, start typing.
You don't have a reality of your own? You've been watching a lot of TV haven't you? I pity a lot of North Americans, I wish for something better for them.
Anyway, I want every response to this post to have arguments against OR for this view of mine maybe coupled with how you see things, and not just any argument, it can't be some bullshit argument that just makes you FEEL good even though it doesn't make sense. It has to be a logical argument!
Good luck in making it happen guys!
Drug Interactions (Score:3, Interesting)
It's already working! (Score:5, Funny)
WARNING
----------------
You're about to purchase Linux Bible, 2005 Edition, which should not be read in combination with Windows XP for Dummies that you bought last week.
This item has been made unavailable for your purchase for the next 10 years, when the effects of the first item are completely gone!
Might as Well Go Ahead and Patent Other Things.. (Score:2)
Well shit. (Score:2)
Lovely.
Bitch where it counts! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bitch where it counts! (Score:3, Insightful)
What good is that going to do if the "bitching" is based in fantasy land and misunderstanding? On numerous occasions [slashdot.org] I have posted informative material on the US patent system. I can count on one hand the times someone has said, "Wow, you're right,
Re:Bitch where it counts! (Score:2)
I'm certainly not qualified to describe the Patent Office workings, so I couldn't generate a guide today if my life depended on it. However, I'm having a fanatasy about a wiki-type guide with workflow/process flow diagrams (possibly interact
a better patent (Score:2)
Whew! Thank God I Misread... (Quite OT) (Score:2)
What happened to *process*? (Score:2)
So Amazon could patent their way to remind customers, but anyone else could do the same if they use a different method.
Either this is being blown out of proportion, or the US patent system is even mor
Silly rabbit... (Score:2)
But I herebye patent saying "Hi" on the internet. Suck on that!