Slashdot Log In
Amazon Patents Including a String at End of a URL
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Oct 23, 2007 08:40 AM
from the why-didn't-i-think-of-that-oh-wait dept.
from the why-didn't-i-think-of-that-oh-wait dept.
theodp writes "On Tuesday, Amazon search subsidiary A9.com was awarded U.S. patent no. 7,287,042 for 'including a search string at the end of a URL without any special formatting.' In the Summary of the Invention, it's explained that 'a user wishing to search for 'San Francisco Hotels' may do by simply accessing the URL www.domain_name/San Francisco Hotels, where domain_name is a domain name associated with the web site system.' Here's the flowchart that helped cinch the deal."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SomeStupidRandomSearchTerm [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Just one thing to keep in mind... (Score:3, Informative)
When you apply for a patent, that's the day the prior art becomes effective. So if wikipedia did it after they filed, then that prior art would not count. Not saying it is not a stupid patent, but just wanted to point out, as a general rule, these things can take 5+ years to become live, so sometimes prior art comes around after a company starts using the patent-pending technology and others copy it.
Patent Filed Date (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Patent Filed Date (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, that was more than a decade after the published HTTP standards included the PATH_INFO environment variable [uiuc.edu], which gives the program everything past the file pathname portion of a URL. This was essentially defined as a string that the invoked CGI [uiuc.edu] program would interpret however it wishes. If this doesn't qualify as "prior art", what would? Note that the last-updated timestamps on these specs are in 1995 and 1996.
So Amazon is merely patenting a part of NCSA's published HTTP CGI-invocation standard.
This mostly shows that the patent examiners are totally ignorant of HTML and related Web standards, and are thus unqualified to say anything about the patent application.
Parent
Re:Patent Filed Date (Score:5, Insightful)
I recommend that Kim, Chong H be fired.
Parent
Wrong approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless it was supposed to work that way - but then why pay anyone for examining the patents before they are filed? Maybe the Patent Office should just be a kind of notary who only records when someone came up with the idea, just to give him or her the legal basis for later defending his or her rights, but does not examine whether the idea is original.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Patent Filed Date (Score:5, Funny)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,287,042.PN.&OS=PN/7,287,042&RS=PN/7,287,042 [uspto.gov]
That's quite a URL. If only they'd licensed a search string at the end of a URL without any special formatting.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When you apply for a patent, that's the day the prior art becomes effective.
TFA says (as near as I can tell) that the patent was filed in Mar 2004. I'm not sure how long wikipedia has handled search strings in the URL, but it was created in 2001 [wikipedia.org]. Actually, this is a pretty common and simple thing to do. I have a website that does it. I wasn't the one who set it up, but I think it was just a 404 redirect to a script.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Has amazon been using this technique for more than a decade?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, those are page titles, not search terms... you can't just go to "http:/en/wikipedia.org/wiki/search terms", you have to go to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=search+terms&go=Go".
There probably ARE examples of prior art, but Wikipedia isn't one of them.
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Informative)
Did you test that link? It does work (after a redirect).
Parent
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm patenting some_words.topical_search_engine_domain_name.com
I'm pretty sure I had that search-idea a few years back though. Even if it fails the prior-art test, it's pretty friggin' obvious to anybody who has ever used mod_rewrite.
My own website has two mechanisms very much like this patent and has had so for quite some time now; "file.html" requests are parsed by mod_rewrite, then send as a parameter to a PHP where the named page is loaded (and integrated in a template).
My photoa
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, they probably can patent the things that you built years ago. Then they can sue you for violating their patent, and it'll be up to you to prove that you had the idea first. I hope you have kept enough evidence to convince the court, and enough money to pay your lawyers.
Fact is, the US Patent Office no longer does any serious patent examination. The huge expansion of patentable ideas back in the 1990s, plus dropping the need for a working demo, plus the decreases in Patent Office funding, means that they now pretty much just rubber-stamp patent applications and let the courts sort it out.
Parent
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Watch out (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Funny)
I think the flowchart makes that obvious.
During the course of the business day, most people will jot down notes about various things discussed during meetings or at informal cubicle conversations or whatever. Usually, these notes are kept for some period of time until they become no longer relevant, at which time they're either thrown out or shredded.
At my office, we throw such notes into little blue bins under our desks. The contents of these bins are then taken by a company who shreds them. In Amazon's case, the contents of the blue bins are apparently sent to the patent office.
So there you have it.
Parent
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Funny)
Then I guess if I worked for Amazon they'd be submitting a patent application for "An old newpaper with mustard and grease stains." They'd probably get it too.
Parent
STOP POSTING NOW! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:STOP POSTING NOW! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:STOP POSTING NOW! (Score:4, Funny)
SO FCUK YOU!
Parent
Prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
eg.
http://www.php.net/stupid%20patents [php.net]
My patent (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My patent (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Can you say mod_rewrite? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've not read the patent fully, but if the Slashdot summary is accurate then it's utterly ridiculous.
Truly a work of towering genius, that flow chart (Score:3, Insightful)
While in some ways this story is a dupe of the , "Some fuckwit given exclusive right to picking noses in an obvious way" story that seems to run every second day, the US does need to do something about this in the short to medium term as it is having the opposite effect to that intended by the framers of the original patent legislation through being inappropriately applied to things wich are either not original or not inventions.
I fully expect to see a large contingent of genuinely innovative tech companies moving HQ over to Europe and refusing to offer patent indemnity for their USian users in the medium term if this sort of crap continues.
Stop this madness now as they say.
Similar has already been done (Score:4, Informative)
With Ruby on Rails, it uses a similar technique for discovering actions. It even has facilities for creating custom URL maps so what would normally come across as ?search=blah would get converted into
del.icio.us uses that for tag search (ie: http://del.icio.us/username/blah [del.icio.us]).
For my internal invoicing system that I wrote in PHP (but never finished), you could search for invoices by going to
The trick involves a
Although I've never seen this specifically applied to search (a la google), it's been used for filtering with tags (like del.icio.us).
stupid software patents.
Prior art example #5294190 (Score:5, Informative)
(Ignore the date on the top right, which always shows today -- the talk's date of January 22, 2003 is listed on the PHP talk index [php.net].)
Well almost like wikipedia (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't%20it%20true [wikipedia.org]
If you ask me I'd use the wikipedia way, or the good old search box.
Because if you're typing into the address box in a browser, you're likely to have autocompletion. That means you're likely to start a search whenever you want to get back at the site, bad for the search engine.
Also your searches are accessible through your browsing history - as for all searches through get requests I think.
Having said that, this patent differs from the prior art of wikipedia by simply doing an additional step automatically. Where's the innovation, USPTO guys?
If you don't like it, boycott Amazon.Com (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't like this seeming madness? Easy: don't shop at Amazon or any of its affilates.
Maybe they'll stop filing these things.
Perhaps there should be additional legislation that says that patent trolls, having been outed by prior art, should be forced into receivership. There's no spanking these satanic IP holders.
That's mod_rewrite! (Score:5, Informative)
it has not patent number (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyhow Google URLs are acknowledged prior art. The idea is to use simply a free-form string of 1 or more words to perform a search. Wikipedia isn't a spot on citation (though it would help to refine the main claims) as, for example, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/write an article" simply leads to a page which allows a search to be performed. Granted that's not a huge inventive step but in such a well worked field it is significant.
What I'd be considering is for example the use of mod_rewrite (or similar) to perform a "search" in alternate directories if a file is not found with the specified name. At least the claims would need to be more specific as to what constitutes a "search".
So wikipedia isn't a spot on citation
Flowcharts (Score:5, Funny)
LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, lets talk inflation.
Inflation of the money supply, inflation of grades, inflation of patent numbers, inflation of job titles...
It's really all the same thing. The more there is of something the less any individual item is worth. Money, grades, patents. Yet the vast majority seem to have some significant difficulty with that concept. More is better than less. Thing is, you don't actually have more, you have less but with a bigger number. Interesting. I wonder if there's a level of I.Q. where people simply can't understand that concept... Maybe they'll be happy when they earn a zillionty dollars per year each, have a PhD and are titled "Captain of the World".
By creating thousands, tens of thousands of patents you aren't actually producing anything of value, you're simply throwing doubt on the value of all patents.
Real value is relatively unrelated to inflation. The economy only grows for real (real stuff like chairs, tables, cars) at a couple of percent a year. Real academic achievement is still hard, only a small proportion are up to it and only a small number of patents are really innovative and being captain of the world doesn't help much if you are still sweeping streets.
Essentially, inflation is deceit. People who inflate are at the very best, liars and more usually swindlers planning fraud.
USPTO is the problem here (Score:4, Insightful)
But the USPTO is the problem. Granting a patent like this just reinforces the grabby, greedy behavior of the big companies and creates an environment where companies are pitted against each other not in services or products but in ownership of intellectual property. If my company can get the edge in my industry by patenting something my competition uses (prior art be damned), there are going to be a bunch of businesspeople and attorneys within my company (not to mention shareholders) who are going to insist I file the patent. It's up to the USPTO to call bullshit on these things, and it's not doing it.
Not to mention that the big companies seem to get these things to go through while little guys seem to come up empty when they try to do it. If you have enough attorneys, you can pretty much do anything anymore. But that's a rant for another day
I did this in 1999 (Score:3, Informative)
I am sure there are many, many, other cases where people mapped 404 to a search, which is the same thing.
In short, not only is this obvious, it is defeated by prior art.
I did this in 1996. (Score:3, Informative)
I had just joined a startup company, "Hells's Kitchen Systems", or "hks.net". We were an e-commerce startup. Our main product was CCVS, a credit-card processing system for Linux and other versions of Unix. But our first product was a shopping mall written in PHP. Not a simple store, but a mall -- it could contain multiple stores, each of which had multiple departments, each of which had a variety of products.
So, the web content was driven from database searches. But we did not want it to look like that was the case -- we wanted it to look like a family of hand-crafted web sites.
So we did exactly what's described. We appended strings to the end of URLs, and parsed the URLs and used them to search in order to build the pages. People would go through an ordering process, and an order was composed and faxed to the warehouse so it could be fulfilled. It was meant to be a cheap way to get any company that could take catalog orders onto the web without forcing them to change their business processes too much.
It was originally written in PHP/FI2, and then ported to PHP3.
Two different stores that used the system made it into production and were up for years. I am going to wrack my brian to try to remember their names, and if I can, I'll find them on the wayback machine so I can point to them. I bet a bunch of my comments made it into the delivered HTML, and so we might be able to actually prove my claim.
Use RFC 2606! (Score:4, Informative)
No need to freak out, folks (Score:4, Insightful)
The issuance of a patent only provides a presumption of validity. If Amazon decides to sue someone for running afoul of this patent, the defendant in such a case will be able to marshall all kinds of evidence that the patent was at the very least, precluded by prior art and was obvious.
Remember that issuance of a bad patent isn't the end of the world. The patent system was designed to be fault-tolerant. If Amazon wants to sue on the basis of their bad patent, they'll face difficulties in court, not to mention in the court of public opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that the first defendant in such a case may not have the financial resources to defend their use of the technique in court. Once a court precedent is set it becomes more difficult for subsequent defendants to challenge the patent.
http://www.amazon.com/Fuck Off (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Karma to burn (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously, I have not licensed him the procedure to apply for the job, so he can not apply without the threat of being sued. Quite naturally, I would only sue if he got hired, and then it would only be to get his job.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not early enough. I have prior art in 2003... because my boss wanted exactly this sort of behavior. ISAPI extensions in C++. This was one of my first bits of web development - and if it was obvious to me then... well... I'd hardly call it novel. He did not want to type a ? or add in any search=... parameters. Just parse the url an
Re:No prior art and innovative? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent