Amazon Gets Patent on Consumer Reviews 341
theodp writes "Review your local dry cleaner, pay $10 million? Among the three new patents awarded to Amazon.com this week is one that covers collecting reviews by letting visitors to a Web site fill out a form. Amazon.com spokesman Craig Berman said he couldn't speculate on whether the company would attempt to license its new intellectual property." From the article: "In one embodiment of the patent, the system sends consumers a message inviting them to write a review in a predetermined amount of time after the purchase. It's a method widely used by online retailers, including Yahoo Shopping. The patent also covers the method of tracking who returns to rate products by asking them to click on a unique link in an e-mail. But the patent even covers collecting reviews by letting visitors to a Web site fill out a form. "
This is getting stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is getting stupid (Score:2, Funny)
And this is *why* it's getting stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not primarily because the patent examiners are incompetent, as is often suggested. Instead it is the economics of running a patent office that make sure that it becomes like this.
Nowadays most patent offices around the world are "self funded", which means that they are funded by the fees that the collect from the patent applicants. This may perhaps seem like a sensible idea at first sight, but unfortunately it invariably leads to lower and lower standards for what is patentable.
A look at the USPTO Fee Schedule [uspto.gov] explains the underlying math.
The initial application fee for a patent is $300. In order to collect that money, the patent office has to do quite a lot of work: set up a file, do an initial formal examination, perform a novelty search, and quite often engage in correspondence with the applicant to sort out various issues. It seems reasonable to assume that initial applications "as such" do not cover their own costs for the patent office.
But once a patent has been granted, nice things start to happen to the patent office's profitability calculations.
In order to keep his patent valid, the proprietor has to pay maintenance fees at regular intervals. $900 is due at 3.5 years after it was granted, $2,300 due at 7.5 years, and $3,800 due at 11.5 years.
For a patent that is renewed throughout its full term, the maintenance fees add up to $7,000, compared to the $300 for the initial application.
And the renewal fees are the good part of the patent office business, since the PTO doesn't actually have to do anything for the money, except make a note in the file that the fee has been paid. So for those patent offices around the world that are funded in whole or in part by the fees they collect, there is a direct incentive to let the standards slip to the lowest level they can possibly get away with.
The result can be seen at a patent office near you.
Re:And this is *why* it's getting stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Not only is the patent office itself 'self funded', the actual patent system itself has nobody responsible for its budget. The money going into patent holders pockets doesnt materialize from thin air; the method of creating income through monopoly rent is comparable to product taxes.
So the patent-fee funded PTO joyfully assigns the equivalent of taxation rights all around, and the consumers and citizens are more or less powerless to do anything about it because theres nobody to hold directly responsible.
Of course, that was the entire idea from the start; when the kings of old wanted more income, but were reluctant to impose further taxes on an annoyed population, they instead handed letters of patent to merchants and nobility in exchange for funds or support, and the patent holders got to exact the funds from the population. Blame got shifted and everyone got what they wanted. Except the population of course.
Actually, its much simpler than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the patent office approves a request, they're "off the hook". It then becomes in the hands of the courts and the free market to actually determine the validity or legitimacy of the patent and the technology involved. When the patent goes to court, the patent office itself does not have to show up or be involved in any way at all. They're done, take the money and move on. Reviews like the Eolas "browser plug-in" one are extremely rare, and often simply keep the status quo.
If the patent office *rejects* a patent, they can be required to get involved. The clerk involved may be ordered to go to court or otherwise write up a document defending their decision that the technology was affected by prior art, triviality, or obviousness.
For a measly $35K a year, its not worth their time or trouble. Pass it and its no longer their problem, its somebody else's...
The process of approval itself encourages lazyness and haphazard investigation. As such, their modern definition of "prior art" is merely "has a patent application already been filed in the United States of America on this?". That's it. triviality and non-obviousness are beyond them because 1) they wouldn't know, and 2) they'd have to defend their decisions, wasting their time from doing their *real* job which is to process (and approve) patent applications, not act as surrogate lawyers far underpaid for that role.
Re:Actually, its much simpler than that. (Score:3, Insightful)
Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
On a more serious note, perhaps the more patents a particular entity (or related entity) submits, the higher the price should be? Amazon is on their
Re:And this is *why* it's getting stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Patents are NOT affordable by private inventors and have stopped being affordable a long time ago.
http://www.patents.com/cost.htm [patents.com], http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent_cost.html [ipwatchdog.com]
* Relatively simple invention - $3,000 to $5,000
* Invention of minimal complexity - $5,000 - $10,000
* Invention of moderate complexity - $10,000 - $15,000
* Invention of intermediate complexity - $15,000 - $20,0
Re:This is getting stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate otherwise, you grant Amazon.com and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reprodu
Re:This is getting stupid (Score:2)
Cheers.
Re:This is getting stupid (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:This is getting stupid (Score:2)
Hurm...atleast this will get rid of the grammar nazi's
No theoretical proof needed! (Score:5, Interesting)
Whenever I call for an end to copyright and IP, people ask for the theory behind a copyopen world. They say the world isn't black and white, that we just need more laws to balance copyright and copy rights.
What is a patent? It is lending government's monopoly on the use of force. It is completely incompatible with freedom. When some law is made giving 1 person in 10,000 the unique power of force, there is a problem. This patent hells ezos and the top shareholders, not the average employee of Amazon.
If I tell you that you can't eat an orange, you'll tell me to shove it. Rather than explain why eating an orange is bad and convincing you, I'm going to use government to force you to stop. If you don't, you go to court. If you refuse the court, out come the guns.
To those who believe their livelihood depends on copyright and patent, I call shens. I've written two books that are "freely" copyable. In both I request $20 to acquire my official version and help motivate me to write more. Guess what? I get the money. Often. With the web, it is even easier to make money this way.
Patents and copyright are dead. Use your talents to build and convince, not build and coerce. What you invent likely came from seeing the inventions of others and making a new or better way to do something. If you want to cut off others from bettering your idea, then make another, better version.
BTW, I stopped using Amazon years ago. I prefer buying local, and promoting my own businesses while I do. Local store owners, managers and employees then hire me rather than going online. It is a nice circle of barter and trade rather than padding UPS' and Bezos' pockets. I have no shortage of work for myself and any of my employees, who also refuse Amazon as they know their lives depend on our neighbors.
Re:No theoretical proof needed! (Score:2, Interesting)
But what if someone steals your work? (Score:5, Interesting)
And you would be OK with them reaping the profit from your work?
Re:But what if someone steals your work? (Score:4, Interesting)
Only the author can PROFIT from sale of his work. That would allow me to sell me book and allow anyone to copy it, but if someone else tried to sell it (excluding base reproduction cost), that wouldn't be legal.
Re:But what if someone steals your work? (Score:2)
You can download them on his website [craphound.com].
Re:But what if someone steals your work? (Score:2)
My writings contain a sizable portion of my proprietary ideas, but not all. I keep something for my live audience. Eventually I hope to webcast those public events (for a price). My books? I'd probably pay people to read them!
Re:But what if someone steals your work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why must we go through this same argument everytime the concept of a pay-after-viewing scheme comes up? Someone viewing your media without paying for it does not equal a lost sale.
I love to read. However, books aren't exactly dirt cheap (especially if you want the hard-cover versions), and combined with all the other forms of entertainment I enjoy (music, movies, games, etc), I don't have a lot of extra money to spend on lots of books. That means I don't buy books that I'm not very confident I'll enjoy reading. Now if I can get a book from the Internet for no cost to myself, I'd be much more willing to read it. Notice how I'm now able to read books that I would not have before because of the expense. Now, if I read through the whole thing and I like what I have read, I'm quite happy to jot down the author's name to look for future works and send them $20-30 for having read their book. More than once have I read a book online that the author gave away for free that I wanted to pay for.
I'm not saying that this is a perfect system, but it apparently does work in the words of this author himself. I mostly just wanted to point out that a free download does not necessarily mean a lost sale. Are there people who will download and enjoy the book without paying? Almost certainly. However, how much more might the author gain by people reading his book who otherwise would have passed it over because the risk was too high?
Re:But what if someone steals your work? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no problems letting others distribute my work, even under their names. 30 years ago? Maybe I'd mind. But with the web, I could upload my works to various "First Author" sites (which I bet WOULD exist in a copyopen world) and then readers would know who really authored it.
Right now, I am tempted by two publishing deals strictly for ego and fame. Yet the money is better in self-publishing and self-marketing. I can speak to 50 people at $10/head and sell 20 copies of my book, signed, at $25. I make $1000, spend $200, for 2 hours of work. $400 per hour!
Re:But what if someone steals your work? (Score:4, Informative)
They did not in any way conceiveable way or form come up with the concept of customer reviews just some extremely basic software to post it and track it, of course most of that already existed in the form of foruums, but I doubt they'll simply go after people who are copying their software, they'll go after anyone that puts outa similar result.
Re:No theoretical proof needed! (Score:2)
Like it or not, it's also a way to encourage innovation. You might argue that Amazon's latest patent doesn't merit 20-year exclusivity... and I, for one, wouldn't argue with you. But it sure would be nice to somehow fix the USPTO's technique without relinquishing their goal...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No Copyrights or Patents!?!? (Score:2)
Re:No theoretical proof needed! (Score:2)
Re:No theoretical proof needed! (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually would think the other way around is more correct; that is, patents were to protect things that had a high cost to implement. Early on, some guy in his garage coming up with a new idea but without the infrastructure to produce it could get stomped by a factory. (Indeed, think about how difficult it is to come up with an idea, then compare to how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next in the queue (Score:3, Funny)
Productivity lost because of patents. (Score:4, Interesting)
The time and money spent on such actions could be put towards far better activities.
Re:Productivity lost because of patents. (Score:2)
So many patents are defensive in nature (ie., patenting something that a company may wish to capitalize on at some point in the future), and as such it's really hard to measure the costs or benefits of the work that goes into creating these patents. It's highly speculative work.
Certainly legal teams cost lots of money. But companies wouldn't do it if they didn't have some reason to believe it paid off in the long run. Whether that reasoning is correct or not is a whole other subject...
Re:Productivity lost because of patents. (Score:2)
Patents, while extremely useful for development of pharmaceuticals (since they allow the companies to make profits), may be actually killing innovation.
Re:Productivity lost because of patents. (Score:2)
Yet we have billions of citizens needing meds. If you're the first to market, you've some time to recoup. By the time your drug is reverse engineered and the copy is proven to be equally effective and safe, you're closer to offering your produt at a discount.
Re:Productivity lost because of patents. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. In my study I found out that while researching this topic I was not productive at all. My productivity loss was 100% in fact. If I hadn't done that study, I'd have had at least 20% more productivity than total loss, which is my usual by the way.
Let me know if you need the paper. It has enlightened me a lot, hope it does the same for you.
Re:Productivity lost because of patents. (Score:2)
Re:Productivity lost because of patents. (Score:2)
At what point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At what point? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would guess this is the case today for a large application.
Re:At what point? (Score:2)
Innovation is one thing but we are soon approaching the point where doing normal everyday activities with a computer will infringe.
Re:At what point? (Score:2)
Re:At what point? (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll just be impossible to innovate in the USA.
Which will, in the end, ultimately serve to remove the USA from the competitive global market.
I'm sure India, China, and Brazil won't mind in the least!
Re:At what point? (Score:2)
Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, it could be... maybe.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only is there substantial prior art, but the concept is so bloody obvious, even to me, that this patent should never have been granted. This is just more evidence that the US patent system is irretrievably broken. Write to your elected representatives and let them know this is unacceptable!
What we really need is a system which
torn... (Score:2)
I'm torn. I like the system you're proposing, and it sounds effective. The only problem is that the socialist in me doesn't like the idea of having to sump a deposit - that would sumarilly reduce pattent applications from smaller busine
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
It feels bad to work for Amazon now, doesn't it?
Can anyone say prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like patenting the personal computer. Pardon me while I throw up...
Re:Can anyone say prior art? (Score:3, Interesting)
A technological revolution like the web opens the door to hundreds of new possibilities. Different people will come up with the same ideas within a short space of time. It should not benefit someone to have thought of something slightly before anyone else, and then be able to charge anyone else who comes up with the same idea at a later date.
Re:Can anyone say prior art? (Score:2)
Bureaucractic efficiency > correct application of law and common sense.
Re:Can anyone say prior art? (Score:3, Interesting)
"My point is that people who work in IP and patents pretty unanimou
Re:Can anyone say prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
Despite what Slashdot groupthink might have you believe, it is not relevant whether their is similar art *now*. It IS relevant as to whether there was similar art before the patent was filed -- which is years before the patent is ever granted. Furthermore, objectives are NOT patented; methods are. Thus, unlike what the summary might have you believe, Amazon has not patented a generic method for getting product reviews.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/neta
Amazon, for instance, obtained US Patent 6,963,848. This was granted on November 8, 2005. It was *filed* March 2, 2000. PriceGrabber only started grabbing reviews in May of that year, and that by partnering with ConsumerReview.COM -- which may or may not have used methods specified in the patent. Amazon's VERY FIRST CLAIM, for instance, specifies that the covered system must do the receiving of the order AND the later solicitation of a review AFTER a reasonable period of time to allow for an initial experience. Unless ConsumerReview or PriceGrabber itself TAKES THE ORDERS, they would not appear to constitute prior art that would invalidate the first claim.
In fact, ALL TWENTY-EIGHT CLAIMS have this stipulation -- that the system itself takes the order for which a review occurs. Does Epinions take the order, or merely send you to someone else? Does NexTag? Does PriceGrabber? Did you read the freaking patent AT ALL?
Go vomit at your own laziness, and at the Moderator that would declare you Insightful.
Re:Can anyone say prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your argument is kind of like saying that even though people have sold spoons for ages, selling spoons AND GIVING A STICKER AS WELL should be patentable.
Bad news for LiveJournal (Score:4, Funny)
For what its worth (Score:4, Informative)
Still another dumb ruling by the USPTO, though.
MAD and it's close tie to proliferation (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this mutually assured destruction style of research does little to progress the state of the art. It does a good job of cementing the current technology as an ad hoc standard, but it acts as a chilling effect on new technologies.
Not that I blame any company for doing this. It is the rules of the government that created this situation. Companies must learn to play by those rules or face elimination by competitors who understand the system and manipulate it successfully.
How Amazon could be my Hero... (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt it will happen, but if that was there plan it would make me prefer them above all other online retailers..
Hello America! How ur patents? (Score:2)
Re:Hello America! How ur patents? (Score:2)
Moderators (Score:2, Funny)
Write your Congresscritters (Score:5, Insightful)
How many examples do we need (patenting story lines, genes, methods of evaluating employees) of the idiocy that is allowing business process and software patents?
Write them. Call them. Fax them.
Somebody else karma whore with the contact info, I have to go somewhere and be ill.
Re:Write your Congresscritters (Score:2, Interesting)
The only way copyright and patent law will ever be "reformed" (and by reformed I mean, dismantled as hopelessly broken) is through civil war. And nobodies going to die for the "I want free movies and free ideas" cause (and yet, on the other hand, greedy corporations will probably have no trouble justifying to themselves the use of force
Patent Time Limit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patent Time Limit (Score:3, Informative)
35 USC 102(b) states:
Re:Patent Time Limit (Score:2)
I really want to see a class-action lawsuit against the USPTO.
So Much For Those Bezos Reassurances! (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon needs to focus on profit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Amazon needs to focus on profit (Score:4, Insightful)
They're trying to establish a very legal monopoly. It's just sad that our laws allow it to be done so easily.
Re:Amazon needs to focus on profit (Score:2)
Boycott Amazon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Patent Reform. (Score:5, Informative)
We need reform, and we need it NOW. I'd say the two biggest issues that the Federal government is failing in right now are Patent reform and Illegal Immigration.
If the the law doesn't stop soon, we will see our economy tank. When you stifle creativity and innovation (like these abuses do) then a free economy no longer exists, and that society will fail.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My Review (Score:5, Funny)
Did you find this review helpful?
[yes] [no]
come get me, Amazon.
What a crock of shit (Score:2)
Re:What a crock of shit (Score:2)
Great. That has absolutely nothing to do with the legal concept of "obvious" as defined by 35 USC 103, Graham v. Deere, or any other legal precedent defining patentability.
This is crap, it's nothing, it's not an "invention," it doesn't deserve a patent, and Amazon should be fined for filing a ficticious patent application.
A compelling argument, sir. I must point out, how
It's about what is ridiculous or sensible (Score:2)
For me, such decisions tend to cause me to favor the view that patents of non-physical items are a significant barrier to innovation and we should consider ending them as a means of encouraging innovation.
Re:It's about what is ridiculous or sensible (Score:2)
So the discovery of the method to make steel should not be a patentable invention? A new process that can manufacture amazing new hard drives should not be patentable? A new process that produces an existing product for 10% of the cost isn't an innovation that promotes science?
Just asking, because it
Re:It's about what is ridiculous or sensible (Score:2)
Out of touch. (Score:2)
Boycot Amazon? I don't know... (Score:2)
Re:Boycot Amazon? I don't know... (Score:2)
And let's face it, Amazon.com has consistently been a big innovator in e-commerce. They developed, popularized, or combined a lot of techniques that have been widely imitated -- because they work.
But to see them going back to this patent n
Discovery Channel Store patent.... (Score:2, Funny)
Insane technology? (Score:2)
So..they patented an SQL insert query?
Re:Insane technology? (Score:2)
Jolyon
Your copywrite is only as good... (Score:2)
-Rick
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Actual Patents (Score:3, Interesting)
To anyone submitting a story about patents:(1) Make sure to mention whether it is a patent or a published application, (2) link to the friggin' patent or publication, which is easy to do since they are all rea
Stop the Insanity! (Score:2)
USPTO must be as well staffed as FEMA (Score:4, Informative)
Prior artPrior artPrior art (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Are patents worth it given Mutually Assured Destru (Score:2)
A few important details (Score:3, Informative)
Here [uspto.gov] is the patent in question.
For those too lazy to click, here's the primary claim:
One thing that's common to all the claims is that the system estimates when the user will have evaluated the item, based on what kind of item it is. So if you always send the review request three days after shipping, you're not infringing the patent. OTOH, if you figure that books take longer than DVD's to evaluate, and therefore don't send a book review request for a week, then you may be in trouble.
Also, note that the patent application was filed in March 2000, so any prior art would have to predate that.
Interesting that the article omits these kind of details.
Speed up the cycle (Score:2)
Standard patents last, what, 20 years? And it usually takes a year or two (sometimes longer) to get approved, by which time everyone has either moved on (if it's specific enough to be worth patenting) or it's become so widespread that it threatens to throw a wet banket over the entire Internet. (Think
Choke them out (Score:2)
Most websites? (Score:2)
Possible Business Model. (Score:3, Insightful)
Did anyone but me notice that McDonalds introduced their 'McFlurry' at the same time Dairy Queen celebrated the 14th anniversery of their 'Blizzard'? 14 years being the length of a Patent in those days?
I guess DQ patented putting chunks in ice cream.
My only problem with Patents is that they were made longer, 20 years instead of 14, instead of shorter, when the pace of technological advancement has increased.
Software patents should be cut to 7 years, because 7 year old software is basically obselete. (Windows 98 anyone?)
Along with a 'Submarine' defense. If a patent holder participates in a standards group, and later claims that the standard infringes on their patent; their claim, in reguards to that standard, is void. However they could still pursue infringment outside of the standard. It would allow standards to be made with protection for both the Standard and the Inventor.
The benifit to the consumer? Think of DRM 'protected' 'CD's, that not longer meet the official 'CD' standard. The other companies that make True CDs could sue the producers of those discs for infringing on their patents that they contributed to the standard.
Wordage (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
Re:cha-ching... (Score:2)
Re:Patent Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your question is a bit similar to the question "can I drive 100 mph on the main street of my town". Technically you can with many stock vehicles. Theoretically you cannot but actually chances are, you won't get caught. It's similar with patents - theoretically you can't get a pate