Amazon Slaps Orbitz and Avis With Patent Lawsuit

theodp writes "Amazon has sued Cendant for allegedly infringing four patents covering electronic commerce at its Orbitz, Avis and other Web sites. Cendant, the biggest U.S. provider of travel and real-estate services, knew 'or should have known' it infringed when using the tools to secure credit-card transactions, handle customer referrals and manage data, according to the lawsuit filed June 22 in federal court in Seattle. Amazon itself was sued by Cendant last year for patent infringement over its recommendation technology. So much for five years of Amazon patent reform."

Could be an interesting case

[Flyboy Connor]

...it infringed when using the tools to secure credit-card transactions, handle customer referrals and manage data

The (very short) article doesn't say what exactly Cedant is allegedly infringing, but "secure credit card transactions", "customer referrals", and especially "data management" seem trivial techniques which should never have been patented in the first place. If this goes to court, the judge might think so too. It could be the start of patent reforms.

Re:Defensive lawsuit

[Jeffrey Baker]

I can't seem to scrape together a lot of pity for Cendant here, either. Cendant's patent is for "System and Method for Providing Recommendation of Goods or Services Based on Recorded Purchasing History." Doesn't anyone remember FireFly circa 1996 and subsequently bought and murdered by Microsoft? The entire point of FireFly was to recommend stuff based on how well you liked or disliked records. In fact, it's possible that Cendant's technology shares a common ancestor with FireFly's: Chris Bergh, a technologist at FireFly and NetMarket.

As far as I am concerned, Cendant drew its sword and now they cannot avoid battle. Tough shit for them.

Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* I have seen this happen at so many big companies. The leaf nodes of the company are honest, hard-working people while the people at the top are complete scum. Usually the head shark (oops I mean lawyer) reports directly to the CFO or CEO. These guys are usually pretty chummy and the head legal guy needs to justify his job... often that means taking proactive slimy legal action just so other companies dont fuck with them in the future.

It's a pathetic game because software patents are in reality dead for most people, but not lawyers, and not the USTPO. Asking the USTPO to reform patents is like asking the fox to design the hen house. The outcome is only going to favor the fox (USTPO). Europe and other countries are moving towards a better patent system than that of the US. It is sickening to see lawyers who have no respect nor appreciation for technology and science make a quick buck off of others' work.

Not only that, couldn't Amazon's budget be put to better use ? Honestly, that lawsuit probably costs about $20000 after you include all the lawyer fees, etc etc. You could buy 4 servers for that kind of money. Or pay a consultant for 3 moneys to improve the UI for their most visited page. Come on Bezos, just because you are worth billions doesn't mean you should piss away the money of your shareholders.

bleh - I hate lawyers.

I wish you would here more about lawyers that want to end racial, sexual, and age discrimination. It seems business men only demand lawyers that will sue the competition because they have nothing else better to do.

patent my brain

[rocketman768]

This whole patent process is getting out of hand. Trying to patent a mere IDEA is not what the original creators of the copyright had in mind. If Amazon.com wants to recommend you a product, fine. If Amazon.com wants to patent the recommendation, then this statement will get me in deep water: "If you like Neil Stephenson, you might like William Gibson."

I'm just saying that the courts need to realize when companies are going too far with copyrights. Otherwise, my truly original and creative ideas may turn out to be nothing more than a vault of copyright infringements.

Re:Considering Software Patents are...

[TrappedByMyself]

software by its very nature, is NOT patentable

I don't see the argument. I see a bunch of fancy words and broad generalizations that magically conclude that software is not patentable.

The key lies with this sentence: "Currently patent granting organizations have no solid reference point of "abstraction physics" from which to test software patent applications against, or re-evaluate granted software patents."
You need to show that this is the directive of the patent office by further explaining the concept, providing references to the patent office documentation, and showing examples of how non-software patents meet the criteria.

Right now, you're just oversimplifying the issue and playing logic games. You need to show a clear argument instead of trying the "I'm correct because I write better than you read" approach.

Lawsuits cost the economy jobs

[riversky]

I was involved on the fringe with an investment group here in Seattle that had US$2.5million to invest in a tech startup/small company. They scoured North America and the world for the "best" opportunity. They ended up investing in a mobile data company in Zanzibar just of the Tanzanian coast of Africa. (Yes and the principles live in Seattle) They will broadcast data for vacationing Europeans and Indians mainly. Why not in the U.S.??? The American legal system makes doing business here much more expensive and in the end for a small group like us prohibitive. Of the US$2.5m almost 60% would be upfront legal costs in many instances in terms of patent checks, labor regs, insurance, and various regs that require a lot of expensive lawyers to sort out....In the end this costs the US jobs and increases the wealth of those in America who have the means to make a huge return overseas....The patent system must be fixed.

I say let the warfare begin

[suitepotato]

It is about time the critical mass of absurd patents was hit and battle between these patent whores began. Let them fight, let them drag each other down publicly in spectacle, let them drag the condition of their making into the light and let them be seen by the public for what they are and what they're doing.

Perhaps if it gets absurd enough, congress will finally step in and do some reform however half-assed if only to cover their complicity in it all via the back door of campaign contributions and looking the other way.

Whatever happens, I'm rooting against Amazon until the day they go Chapter 13.

UPDATE: Details on Amazon's Patent Lawsuit

[theodp]

According to documents filed in the case [uscourts.gov] by Preston Gates & Ellis (yep, Bill G's dad!), Amazon is joined in the lawsuit by A9.com in demanding injunctive relief and unspecified triple damages for "irreparable injury and damages" as a result of Cendant's infringement of the following patents:

Secure method and system for communicating a list of credit card numbers over a non-secure network [uspto.gov] (5,715,399), which is held by Bezos and covers displaying "the last N digits of the credit card number, where N is an integer,"

Internet-based customer referral system [uspto.gov] (6,029,141), which is also held by Bezos and covers Amazon's affiliate program,

Electronic commerce using multiple roles [uspto.gov] (6,629,079), which covers the use of "multiple electronic shopping carts," and

Navigating within a body of data using one of a number of alternative browse graphs [uspto.gov] (6,625,609), which describes how one might sell "a Pez candy dispenser in the shape of the Marvin the Martian."

BTW, Bezos' '399 patent was the subject of a curious 2001 Prior Art contest [archive.org] run by the Bezos-funded BountyQuest - ties to Bezos were never disclosed and the contest results were never revealed.