Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Bezos Seeks Amazon Honor System-Related Patents 117

Posted by Hemos from the ebay-comes-a-shaking dept.
theodp writes "When Amazon's Honor System debuted, some questioned if Amazon would try to patent it. More than 18 months later, the USPTO has provided the answer with the 8-29 publication of patent applications 20020120568 ("User-to-user payment service with payee-specific pay pages") and 20020120567 ("Hosted services for collecting payments from and providing personalized content to web site visitors"). Both list Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as an inventor and use the Amazon Honor System to illustrate a commercial implementation of the inventions." Hmm...wouldn't eBay's point system be prior art in this situation?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bezos Seeks Amazon Honor System-Related Patents More

Bezos Seeks Amazon Honor System-Related Patents

Comments Filter:

  • Well if it is (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MikeDX ( 560598 )
    Then what about all of the ad banners that are affiliate based and have been around for ages and ages? Pay per click affiliates?
    • Ah crap, monday morning "read what you think you see" kicks in.

      score -1 idiot :)
      As for paypal and ebay.. Amazon auctions!
    • HELLO...

      Prior to any of this WWW stuff we had the compu-serve and prodigy networks. If I remember right they had something similar to this in the middle 80's.

      It isn't rocket science after all...

  • Knock Knock. PayPal and eBay ? Hello?? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hello PayPal and eBay. What are they going to do to this one? Point system. User to User Payment system. Hrm. I wish that people like this would stop doing this as it impedes on the development of eCommerce and related business.
    • I wish somebody would one by one start killing all these frickin' idiots that are filing for these software patents. Eventually I think they would learn their lesson whenever they are the only ones available on the noc-list. Too bad its against my religion to do as such, but they deserve it.

  • Prior Art? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cenonce ( 597067 ) <anthony_t@mac.cRABBITom minus herbivore> on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:02AM (#4310523)

    Prior art!?! The novel and non-obvious requirement is what's gettin' me!!!

    -A

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:27AM (#4310586)
      Nearly all software creations fail this simple litmus test. It's about time that those of us in the industry lobby congress to establish that only copyright, not patents, should be the protection which software enjoys.

      As long as you are not stealing code, there is nothing unethical about writing a program that does the same thing as somebody else's program. The only "invention" involved would be the versitile Finite State Machine ("the PC", for you patent lawyers), which allows these applications to work.

      I can't take out a patent on a method of using my car to light my house. Likewise, I should not be allowed to patent a new application for my computer.

      IANAL, blah blah blah

      • Re:Prior Art? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hburch ( 98908 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:56AM (#4310681)
        I can't take out a patent on a method of using my car to light my house

        Are you sure about that?

        All inventions are new application of existing technology (ignore patents on DNA, since that is not always new). You take a bit of this, a bit of that, and pretty soon you have a car.

        Since I program, I think in terms of software. Libraries exist, but I can create a new routine that uses the functions. Just because all I did was find a new application for libraries does not mean I did not create something, nor that what I did not have value.

        To take your argument to the extreme: "I'm sorry, this invention is just a new application for atoms."

        I do agree that "do X with a computer", where X has been around forever does not seem very innovative. On the other hand, if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier? (no demand, no one pursued, no one had thought of it (but that would make it innovative)). On the other other hand, just because it is innovative does not mean that it should qualify for a patent.

        • Re:Prior Art? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by schon ( 31600 )
          Just because all I did was find a new application for libraries does not mean I did not create something, nor that what I did not have value.

          Nobody is debating that.

          You put work into your software, and you get recognition for it, in the way of copyright protection

          If someone else were to do solve the same problem you did, in the same way, why should they have to pay you? They put in the same amount of work, they created something - why should you be rewarded for their work if they didn't use anything you did?

          Patents are supposed to protect a specific solution to a problem - they are not supposed to protect the problem itself.

          if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier?

          Perhaps it was, but nobody thought that it was worth patenting, because it's so obvious.
        • Since I program, I think in terms of software. Libraries exist, but I can create a new routine that uses the functions. Just because all I did was find a new application for libraries does not mean I did not create something, nor that what I did not have value.

          Your right, your program does have value, WHICH IS WHY THE KIND FOLKS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ALLOW YOU TO SELL YOUR CODE/SOFTWARE/PRODUCT AND MAKE A PROFIT. If you're too lazy to try to compete and create the best product that you can, then no, I (this is a judgement call) don't believe you should be able to kick back and make a profit just because you thought of it first. Henry Ford must have made much more money making cars than royalties on the assembly line if they're still making cars today.

          I do agree that "do X with a computer", where X has been around forever does not seem very innovative. On the other hand, if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier?

          Sure, I'll take the first part. The second part is irrelevant. In a lot of Amazon patent applications we've seen...it HAS been done earlier. One-click-shopping? I remember a lot of sites that did that. Honor system user-to-user transactions? Gee, eBay's been around since probably '98, a good 36 months before Bezos' patent.
        • I do agree that "do X with a computer", where X has been around forever does not seem very innovative. On the other hand, if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier?

          Is it that it wasn't done earlier, or is it that the people who have done it had better things to do with their time than turn their sense of self-importance into an abuse of the patent system?
      • Nearly all software creations fail this simple litmus test.

        Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the patent office is smarter than
        we give them credit for. It's possible they realize that these patents
        are all unenforceable and is granting them in the hope that the whole
        software patent system implodes from the sheer number of bad patents.
        When it becomes clear that 80% of software patents are bad then they
        will suggest to the congress that this part of the patent system be
        scrapped. So in effect they are letting the system fall apart by
        inaction. Lets try to patent the bubble sort and see what happens:^)


      • A little boy from Minnesota, aided by his father, who is a patent lawyer, has patented swinging [uspto.gov]. In the description of his invention, he clarifies that while "The standard method of swinging on a swing is defined by oscillatory motion of the swing and the user along an axis," his method involves pulling the chains, alternating between the two, in order to swing back and forth, i.e., parallel to the axis.
        • He must have done that as a joke to show the flaws in the patent system, because I'm sure there are thousands of super-8 home movies out there that demonstrate prior art. Just about every 3 year-old figures out how to swing sideways.
      • It's about time that those of us in the industry lobby congress to establish that only copyright, not patents, should be the protection which software enjoys.

        I tend to disagree with this.

        The basic idea of patent law is providing protection in exchange for publication of an invention, when this invention is novel and comprises an inventive step (or is non-obvious in US).

        Later, the patent system is viewed as a 'reward' for the R&D investments.

        Do not forget that large companies, but also smaller ones, put large amounts of money in R&D. In the electronics world, the result would be a circuit with resistors, transistors, capacitors, etc. According to your statement, this should still be patentable.
        Currently, this kind of inventions is implemented in software in an OTP or EEPROM memory on a PCB. It does the same as the other (patentable) invention, the only difference is the implementation.

        Can you please explain me why the second implementation would not be patentable?

        Still vast amounts of money are put in R&D. Without patenting, companies would not be able to get back this money. This would mean they have no money for future research. End of progress (ok, I'm making a statement now).

        The problem in this specific case is that we are faced with a patent application (it's still no patent yet) for an invention that's probably obvious over prior art. But in what way can be proved that it's really obvious?

        This also gets to the point what all the fuzz is about on software patents: prior art is not well described and therefore not searchable by patent authorities.

        Add this to the incompetenty of the USPTO (according to a US patent attorney colleague of mine) and you have a lot of patents not worth anything.

        IMHO, this is the real problem with software patents, especially in the US.

        Groote Ka
        no patent attorney (NL and Europe) yet

  • Prior Art (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tuxedo-steve ( 33545 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:04AM (#4310524)
    Hmm...wouldn't eBay's point system be prior art in this situation?
    If someone does have evidence of prior art in a case like this, is there some procedure for bringing it to the attention of the patent office? I mean, we obviously can't rely on the good people at the USPTO to do their homework - surely it's in the best interests of the tech community to do it for them, in cases like these?

    If someone knows of prior art, posting it on Slashdot is not going to help. It needs to be nipped in the bud, by putting it in the face of these patent-happy bureaucrats.
    • As I understand it, prior art has to be brought up during legal proceedings.

    • Re:Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)

      by PatentLawyerCraig ( 605388 )
      Prior art can be cited to the Patent Office pursuant to 35 USC Section 301 and 37 CFR Section 501. These sections specifically relate to issued patents, however, so it is unclear whether anything sent to the patent office would be placed in the file wrapper of the application. It is worth a shot, anyway, and should also be sent directly to the applicant so there can be no claim that the applicant wasn't aware of it during prosecution. I glanced at the published application and at least the first claim seems to be related to paying for "content" with the one click system through an external service provider.

      • Re:Prior Art (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        www.DummyNews.com uses PayPal to bill for it's content. 1 Dollar donation to http://mamefans.metropoliglobal.com/lista.php give you quicker downloads (by not waiting in a queue) so it's content is dynamic based on payment as well. I'm sure there are like 1,000s of other sites
        • I know PayPal gets a (perhaps deservingly) kick in the nads every now and then for various reasons, but they really seem like a better alternative than whatever scheme Amazon is coming up with. Not only are they already much more ubiquitous, but you can "donate" as little as one cent through PayPal.

          PayPal even has a membership system through which you can opt to provide your customers a monthly recurring payment.

    • If a patent is accepted by the PO and later rejected in court, because of prior art or obviousness, then the responsible people at the PO should pay all the legal fees from their own pockets. Maybe this would help increase their awareness in the examination process.
      • Who are the responsible people? The examiner? with his limited time to examine a patent application and a limited library or resource materials to work from? The commissionier? who must deal with a Congress that already takes fees paid to the Patent Office and uses them to fund non-PTO matters? The citizen? such as yourself who only criticizes rather than calls his congressman to complain about quality and states a willingness to be taxed more if that is what it takes?

        • The citizen? such as yourself who only criticizes rather than calls his congressman to complain about quality and states a willingness to be taxed more if that is what it takes?
          ... or sends a $50,000 check to the [D|R]NC if *that's* what it takes?

          To get back on track, however, I think the previous poster was referring to the filer of the patent. In other countries, if you fuck with the system and get caught, there are stiff penalties. In the U.S., if you fuck with the system, there's no real loss for getting caught, but there's big profits to be made if you get away with it.
        • The examiner? with his limited time to examine a patent application and a limited library or resource materials to work from?
          I admid, there may be cases, where the prior art is really hard to find. Here an examiner may be excused. Anyway, I suspect, the examiner has at least brain enough, to see obviousness. A patent like the discussed one, or "one-click", or the "y2k-window" patent shouldn't really pass the test.

          The commissionier? who must deal with a Congress that already takes fees paid to the Patent Office and uses them to fund non-PTO matters?
          Does he sign the patent claim to become a true patent? - If this is the case, see above.

          The citizen?
          We pay anyway.

          such as yourself who only criticizes rather than calls his congressman ...
          There is no such thing as my congressman. Yesterday I voted "void", because non of the available candidates represented a position that I share.

          to complain about quality and states a willingness to be taxed more if that is what it takes?
          I am quite sure, if we can keep the EU from adapting patents on software and business methods, there will be no need to increase taxes.
          sign here [eurolinux.org]

    • Submitting Prior Art... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      (* Posting as AC in order to protect the innocent *)

      I have a friend who is a patent attorney. Someone in an open source software project that I work on recently discovered an application for a patent that looked like what we were doing. So I asked my buddy about submitting prior art. Here's what he said:

      Below is the rule (37 CFR 1.99, if you want to look it up) for submitting prior art. Summed up: you pay $180 plus you have to serve it upon the applicant's attorney, which will cost a few dollars, too. As far as the submission deadline, 2 months from publication [of the application - AC] or prior to notice of allowance, you have no way of knowing if a notice of allowance has been sent. So you have no choice but to send it blind.

      I assume that a notice of allowance occurs before the granting of a patent. (Maybe it is the granting of the patent....??)

      In our case, it turned out that the patent application was for something substantially different than what our project was doing. Although we do some things in common, since we don't do everything that was claimed in that patent application, we could not be infringing on that patent. And there are some things in that patent application that we will never do. So we decided that we had little to fear from this patent application.

      As far as the Amazon stuff, submitting prior art

      1. costs money
      2. has deadlines
      I have no intention of paying $180+ to submit prior art for a patent application that I'm not personally worried about infringing. In this case, if this were just a patent application, I'd want to let ebay know about it and let them decide whether or not they want to pay the $$ to submit the prior art.

      Second, if the deadlines on the submission of prior art are expired, I would think that the only thing to do is to wait to get sued and then collect evidence of prior art for the trial. Again, this is only something that someone who is possibly infringing has to worry about.

      If you consider the cost of the prior art submission and the cost of defending a lawsuit. $180+ doesn't sound like much anymore...

      $.02

      • One minor correction. You can actually find out the status of any application for which you have the correct reference numbers at http://pair.uspto.gov [uspto.gov].

        This will let you know if a Notice of Allowance has been sent and a patent is about to issue.

        Balam

    • Re:Prior Art (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The procedure is detailed in section 1.99 of the following document:
      Title 37 [uspto.gov]. Note that there is a $180 fee.
      I'm sure there are members of the slashdot community that would
      be willing to contribute. As would I, unfortunately I have to post this AC.

  • Donations / Payments (Score:4, Insightful)

    by z_gringo ( 452163 ) <z_gringo&hotmail,com> on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:06AM (#4310529)
    From the article:

    Dubbed the Amazon Honor System, the new payment method will allow Web sites to solicit small donations from visitors or charge for content on a pay-per-view basis. The system will tie into Amazon's one-click payment feature and Amazon's customer database, meaning that third-party Web sites will seemingly recognize Amazon customers and make it easy for them to donate money.

    That makes it sound like it's just for donations. However, with a "user-to-user" payment system that really works, It sounds like a great market might be in international money transfers. I mean Wester Union charges $30 and up to send money. A few others are somewhat cheaper, but this would be dramatically cheaper.

    Oddly, from reading the article, it doesn't sound like anyone over there has even thought of that angle..

    It sounds like a good idea to me...

    • Re:Donations / Payments (Score:1, Interesting)

      by e-gold ( 36755 )
      e-gold also does user to user, and has worked well (without media fanfare*) since 1996. The fees [e-gold.com] are lower than Amazon's, too. Amazon payments can be called back for a while, but with e-gold when you get paid, you'll STAY paid. The only problem is getting people to think about grams instead of dollars and to understand that an exchange transaction is therefore required to obtain the stuff. Once that's done, it's easy to use.

      If anyone here wants to try the system, create a free account and email me the number so I can click you a bit of it. Thanks.
      JMR -- Speaking ONLY for me, as always.

      * Compared to both 'beenz' & 'Flooz' -- RIP.
    • There is a great market in international money transfers. Of course, the honor system/trust system I have in mind is called, colloquially, hawala. The US government is pushing to stamp it out. Money laundering, you see, is Case for : http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/hawala.htm Case against : (little less emaotional than the Time article) http://www.interpol.int/Public/FinancialCrime/Mone yLaundering/hawala/default.asp I'm just waiting for the day when Amazon's patent lands it in Mr.Ashcroft's coils. (IANAL, so std disclaimers apply)

  • Simple answer (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nagora ( 177841 )
    I don't buy from Amazon and neither should you.

    TWW

    • Amen to that, but it's not a simple answer: it doesn't make the patents go away. Even if Amazon goes bankrupt, someone will pick up the patents and probably be even more litigious about them. The best we can do is send a message that this sort of nonsense is not appreciated by customers.
      • Amen to that, but it's not a simple answer: it doesn't make the patents go away.

        If companies that take out trivial patents like this kept getting punished by losing their customers then the patents would go away. But I'm not holding my breath.

        TWW

    • Amazon sucks for so many reasons, not the least of which is that they put small booksellers out of business, they are the M$ of books. Try Powells.com (Powell's World of Books). They have a technical book store that is just bar none.
    • Or, as Dave Winer has put it, "No more pesos for Señor Bezos!"

      Alternatives include Barnes and Noble [bn.com] and The Tattered Cover [tatteredcover.com].

  • How about these guys? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by melvin22 ( 523080 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:06AM (#4310531) Homepage
    I think their ideas [stanford.edu] are dated back to April of this year. Now the question is: can their stuff be interpreted as pretty much being the same (therefore prior "art"?) as the Amazon patents? Or do I just not know what the hell I'm talking about at 7AM on a monday?

  • *sigh* (Score:5, Funny)

    by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Monday September 23, 2002 @08:09AM (#4310535) Journal
    I can see it now... Now anyone who transacts personal business on the 'net has to pay Amazon for the privelege if they use the "honor system" for payment and shipping... basically, trusting someone will no longer be free.

    The Patent Office has become ridiculous. They'll grant a patent application for just about anything because it generates filing fee revenue.

    I'll file the following Patent now: "Method of generating income by filing obvious patents and suing everyone in sight." That way, I can pay off my student loans....

    *sigh*

    • Can you patent the patent application process?
    • > The Patent Office has become ridiculous. They'll grant a patent application for just about anything because it generates filing fee revenue.

      Don't they keep the filing fee even if they reject the patent?

      • Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Informative)

        by DragonMagic ( 170846 )
        Yes, they keep the filing fee even if it is rejected, however, they lose filing fee revenue if people know they can't file patents based on a certain structure.

        Take away software patents, you lose software patent filing fees.
    • THey will grant an application because ANYONE can send in an application with a filing fee. Should they reject all applications from particular inventors. It is STUPID to blame the patent office on anything about these patent applications because the patent office, in all likelyhood, has not examined these patents at all. Because of the delay of examining patent applications, almost all patent applications are published before they are even given a first examination.
    • Amazon.com's not alone in patenting stupid stuff. Remember the Satiewire bit CDNow Wins Patent for Loss-Based Revenue Model [satirewire.com].
  • I suspect Amazon is trying to *avoid* a patent battle with this one, rather than trying to start one. Maybe eBay does have prior art, but I highly doubt they're going to bother each other.
    • Yes, but you can expect some greedy jackass exec use it to curb stomp any other companies that try using it now, especially little ones.

      "Call the lawyers! It's time for a bonus!"
    • Amazon bothered Barnes&Noble over the one-click patent. Expecting them to be benevolent is slightly optimistic.
      • I'm curious as to what everyone expects companies in these situations to do if not patent these things? If I owned a company I'd be patenting everything I could knowing that if I didn't some lamer like British Telecom would patent them and then they'd sue me for royalties.

        For example, say Bezos doesn't patent the system, and later eBay does and sues Amazon for royalties. How does a company protect itself from this besides patent everything in sight?

        The real problem is allowing patents like this to be put in place in the first place. The problem, once again, is the government, not the companies.
  • with payee-specific pages ... isnt that a checkbook?

  • Oh no... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 )
    ...now I can no longer be honorable as being honorable has been patented. Crap. Anyone out there have any good advice on how to be a scumbag? How about getting into the software patent game... that sorta takes the honor out of ya.
  • What about the International Starcraft League, and all the other leagues that were up in WArcraft II days that all used points and ranking systems based on your games won. But also had points based on your sportsmanship.

    THis is definitly an idea that came out of the gaming and Forum community.

    Karma anyone?
  • It seems that the USPTO is getting beaten at its own game. I know of several people who have left the USPTO to go into "patent research and application" consulting because there is more money in it. These former employees know all the backdoors to getting a patent through and the system seems to be getting a little carried away.

    Would be nice if the USPTO would get a larger budget and smarter people.
  • At the end of the day, what we're battling with is the continued ignorance of the general populace, and most of the patent examiners, on some of the most simple IT topics.

    I've often dreamed of the idea of mandatory computer certification courses (something like the driving test); without a certification, one would not be allowed to create policy, pass laws, or permit patents which related to these topics. The field is sufficiently complicated, and we shouldn't have to expect a judge to understand how a program loads, or the GIF file format, without helping him/her out a little.

    Incidentally, can anyone show me an example of a "big" company (like IBM or Amazon) which has had a patent knocked back? I'm beginning to wonder whether tired patent examiners just rubber stamp important looking documents originating at these companies...
  • This is simply one more example of why the current patenting system in place does nothing but give people who come up with it first royalties.

    Such a sad state of affairs...

  • What I find odd.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by glh ( 14273 )
    Amazon is patenting the way they collect money through a web site. How can a patent even be allowed for such a thing? What value-add / innovation are we seeing here? Why haven't we ever seen patents for the following:

    1. Selling trinkets on the front lawn for marked down prices. Information is available via salesperson (aka "home owner") at cash register. (In laymans terms, a "yard sale")

    2. Purchasing commercial grade food and retail products by using a specialized magnetic storage device. (aka grocery shopping and paying with a credit card).

    Ok, well hopefully you get the point. Aren't patents were supposed to be for improvements in technology? It seems that companies like Amazon are only getting patents because "we thought of it first, and we'll sue you if you think of it too, nanny-nanny boo boo".

    I think it is time we need some patent reform laws. Why should Amazon, who may have some good ideas, force everyone else to have sucky/inconvenient e-commerce web sites because virtually everything possible is patented (okay, this may be an overstatement, but probably not too far from the truth)?

    In the case of Amazon, if someone else tries to implement an Honor System like functionality. This is a patent on ORGANIZING INFORMATION. So does that mean if I am running an e-commerce site and want to provide the same kind of info to buyers (ie, how sellers behave or whatever it is) that I can get sued? Probably. That is messed up in my opinion.

    • I think a lot of the trouble with recent patents is that now people/corporations are allowed to patent "Business Processes". This eliminates a lot of the innovation that used to be required in patents, because now you can get a patent for putting the same old puzzle pieces together in a slightly different way.

      Pretty soon I think we'll all have to have patent attorneys on retainer to find out if it's legal to wipe ourselves with the paper folded instead of crumpled. (or vice versa).

  • Publication != Patent! (Score:2, Informative)

    by pjw1 ( 610765 )
    As a law clerk at a patent firm, I would like to clarify that all patent applications filed with the USPTO must be published after 18 months regardless of whether or not a patent will issue. (Exception if you intend to file only in the US). The publication of these applications affords no protection to the applicants. Only in the event of a granted patent will this be recognized as novel by the USPTO and granted the protection of the patent system.
  • The sites referenced in this article make it sound like this is the first and only way for small web-sites to get payments. This clearly isn't the case; Paypal [paypal.com] has been delivering this functionality for a couple of years now, and even Amazon's earlier zShops [amazon.com] worked for a lot of small-time web stores.

    What is important to point out is that not only are the technology and methods of all these approaches different, but the legal standards and rules of conduct all vary as well. For example, lots of folks despise Paypal and Amazon's zShops never really took off, in part because they closely regulate sellers (but for other reasons related to Amazon's fundamental business model too.)

  • Both list Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as an inventor...

    It's good to be the king, eh Jeff? God Bless non-disclosure agreements and contracts with IP ownership clauses.
    • Actually, the inventor is the one who has the concept(s) which are new and novel in the invention.

      If Bezos simply said "I want ...." and had 100 IT people implement it over 6 months - so long as none of the implementers had to solve any problem that hadn't been solved before, then Bezos would be the only inventor.

      On the other hand, even if the solution took 1 hour, if the implementer created something new as part of the implementation, he or she would be a co-inventor.

      That is the state of the inventorship issue under current U.S. law.

      To not reflect the inventorship accurately as above is fraud. Patents can and are lost for this kind of fraud.
  • You don't suppose they'll rely on the honor system for license fees, do you?
  • Is it time to start calling your congressmen? Perhaps we can do something to try and help this process rather than sit here and bitch to ourselves. To me, this is an even larger issue than CARP or DMAA, or whoever's the bad guy in the Internet Radio realm, as patenting will start to (if it hasn't already) hurt creativity on the net. I'm starting to pull up out my congresspeople's addresses as we speak...
  • Since when has it been possible to patent a business model? Sheesh!
  • here is the other bit of ebay/amazon patent news...
    http://news.com.com/2100-1017-956638.html [com.com]
  • http://www.savekaryn.com [savekaryn.com] is a site where Karyn wants visitors to her site to pay off her credit card debt via donations.

    Doesn't that sound like an infringment of Amazon's patent?

    If so, then this could be a good thing!
  • Since when is art "invention"?

    Since when is invention inspiration-less?

  • I use both systems to collect donations and payments - both work very well for me, but I am sure that the technology between the two differs.

    Hopefully, the patent is for some technical detail and not the whole P2P payment concept.

    I totally agree with previous posters who call for a review of software patents - Copyright seems like the right way to secure rights, both for GPL/Open source and commercial software.

    BTW, the latest Linux Journal has a great article on why even "free" software needs a license agreement.

    -Mark

  • It's *Just* An Application (Score:5, Informative)

    by hawksmoor ( 596095 ) <(ten.knilhtrae) (ta) (xoclmada)> on Monday September 23, 2002 @11:15AM (#4311733) Homepage Journal
    As an assistant to a patent attorney, I think I can say that everyone is being a little bit alarmist here. These are patent applications, not granted patents. You can file an application for any old stupid thing, and it will be published. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the patent will be granted. And, while I'd be the last person to say the USPTO is a flawless organization, I can assure you that the examiners do not rubber stamp applications which come from large entities--although I sort of wish they would.
    • The USPTO is like congress. If you pay them enough it will happen. They know Amazon will come back for more if they make them happy. They will make Amazon happy. In America, cash rules. Corporations have all the cash. Corporations can patent taking a leak standing up if they want.
      • This is a nice little paranoid fantasy, but Amazon pays the same large-entity fees as every other large entity. Unless, of course, you have some proof that corporations have been bribing the PTO. I'm sure the attorney I work for would love to see it, so he could, too--it might result in an improvement of service.
        • I am a little paranoid, but I wasn't thinking of this like a conspiracy with bribes, but rather like a business move by the USPTO. Here's my bias, in a nutshell. The USPTO should take an idealogical approach to patent granting, making sure it meets all the idealogical standards they define. However it seems to me that they don't really always do that. In fact, it seems that they are driven by an effort to make money - or more correctly save money, not an effort to do the right thing. It's not as bad as if they were a private enterprise, but it is pretty bad. When a large corporation with lotsa money applies for a patent, you're right,they pay the same fee as everyone else. But much like a bartender will cater to the rich looking well dressed man, the USPTO wants to keep the large corporation coming back, and so it makes it happy. Maybe not. But then why else would they fail to investigate prior art and obviousness more diligently. It's an assumption, but I'm assuming it's easier and cheaper to simply take the money and grant the patent, than to research the patent app more diligently - especially if it comes from a big corp with money to pay a good lawyer to write it in a nice little package. (Note, I know that on slashdot we claim to find prior art without even reading the patent. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the really broad patents that cover really generic and obvious devices - especially software.)

  • If anyone's read Lawrence Lessig's book "The Future of Ideas" about intellectual property and innovation on the Internet, this is exactly the kind of ownership which he warns about.

    Patents like this stifle innovation, and favor narrow profit channels over widespread cultural advancements.

    We should be afraid.

  • I switched from Amazon to other on-line book sellers after their one-click patent; I recommend you do the same.
  • things from amazon ? Wierd....I've not used amazon since one-click patent days....Fark em
  • We'd be able to patent plot lines.

    I'd patent the following plot line:

    "The method of a boy meeting a girl, getting the girl (sexually or romantically), losing the girl (due to bad hygiene, jealousy, warts, phlegm, obnoxious action, or kidnapping), then winning the girl back (through charm, plastic surgery, re-kidnapping, or winning the lottery)."

    Then I could collect a royalty on every Danielle Steele novel from now to eternity.

    Seriously though, if folks are allowed to patent everything under the sun, eventually no one will be able to write software. Furthermore, I have to be an expert in every software patent ever granted just to do my job as a developer, or else I open up my company to infringement lawsuits. Simple, obvious things that I think of during the course of my day may be patented, and I have no way of knowing.

    I mean, if the patent office itself can't even do its own research worth a hoot, how am I supposed to know what I can and can't do?

    I just had another thought.... if Microsoft lobbied strongly against software patents, would they win over the slashdot croud?
  • I wonder how long it will be before Amazon patents "a method of using a gullible technical books publisher to generate free press". Will Tim O'Reilly be "working with" Amazon to "resolve" this issue this time?
  • Subject says it...
  • Von Neumann was the subject of many dotty professor stories. Von Neumann
    supposedly had the habit of simply writing answers to homework assignments on
    the board (the method of solution being, of course, obvious) when he was asked
    how to solve problems. One time one of his students tried to get more helpful
    information by asking if there was another way to solve the problem. Von
    Neumann looked blank for a moment, thought, and then answered, "Yes.".

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Top Deals

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Close