Amazon Patents User Viewing Histories 430
Chris Cleveland writes "Yet another astounding patent from the USPTO. I was browsing the patent database, and discovered that Amazon received a patent today on using customer viewing histories to generate recommendations. If a customer views product A, and then later views product B, and you use that to infer a relationship between A and B, then you've infringed on this patent. This patent is a continuation of an earlier patent (#6,317,722) on using shopping carts to generate recommendations. When will this stupidity end?"
End? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:End? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:End? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:End? (Score:2)
I only wish it was that easy. However, the simple fact remains that Amazon will still be able to legally get absurd patents.
Re:End? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:End? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:End? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, some number of the tech-savy get (justifiably) upset over Amazon patenting the trivial. On the other hand, Jeff Bezos is a Web 2.0 darling, and Amazon Web APIs and so Hot and Cool and Hip and Now, so many of these same geeks cannot act as if Amazon can do no wrong.
The original Amazon patent and boycott uproar clearly had *nil* effect, and I expect there to now be a deafening silence from most of those who really should know better.
Re:..or just stop buying from Amazon (Score:5, Informative)
I have YET to purchase a single thing from Amason. Their prices (especially on nerd-type books) aren't that good anyway. I get mine from Nerdbooks.com [nerdbooks.com]. The services is always very good, and prices are outstanding.
Prices aside, I will NOT support a company that continues to rape the meaning of the word "innovation" by patenting rediculously obvious methods.
Re:..or just stop buying from Amazon (Score:3, Interesting)
I mostly deal with Amazon.co.uk, and I over the past few years found that their prices are a
Re:End? (Score:5, Interesting)
The obvious place to end the "madness" is to fix the source of the problem, which is the Patent Office's recognition of business processes as a patentable thing, especially where implemented by software. Patenting a behavior is logically flawed; how long before someone patents making a profit? Where do you draw the line?
Originality of a product idea is one thing; for example, developing a machine which automatically flushes the toilet and does so in a unique and creative way (I'd rather not develop the details actually)--this is probably a reasonable thing to patent. But patenting abstractions like GUI-based book ordering--that's absurd and bound to fail a prior art test, but will encourage lots of frivolous lawsuits and the wasting of the PTO's precious time and resources.
Re:End? (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be modded funny right? Apparently you and the people who modded this up do not understand patents.
If you are amazon and you start doing something, then some company comes along after the fact and patents that... tough tarts, all amazon has to do is claim prior art and that company can sit and spin. No need to get your own patent on it.
And if it wasn't after the fact, if this nameless company had already patented what amazon was doing, then guess what? Amazon's patent is invalid and they need to license this thing from this nameless company who owns the patent.
This patent was filed so amazon could prevent competition from using this "technology". It's got nothing to do with protecting itself from lawsuits and everything to do with amazon reserving the right to sue others.
Re:End? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though GP was only playing devil's advocate that's not how patents work.. These are not defense tactics but an offensive.
Re:End? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:End? (Score:4, Insightful)
This assumes that the other company actually produces software or services. However, from what I've understood, patent parasites simply buy patents and sue others. They don't have a product, and therefore can't infringe on anyone else's patents.
Sad but true: current software patent situation punishes producing and rewards parasiting. Free market does its job and sends money to where greatest profits can be made; but in this situation, this works against the overall wealth of the society and not for it.
Re:End? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're the one that should be modded funny; as in "naive" funny.
If you are amazon and you start doing something, then some company comes along after the fact and patents that... tough tarts, all amazon has to do is claim prior art and that company can sit and spin. No need to get your own patent on it.
If you are xyz and invest a great deal of your assests into R&D, and then, hmmm, let's se
Re:End? (Score:4, Informative)
Filing a patent in any country prevents anyone else from filing the same patent in all others but only provides legal enforcement in the countries where the patent was was filed. In most cases, inventors can file in other countries as necessary to extend legal protection but doing it incrementally can quickly cost more than an international filing.
(This is what I was told at a conference about a year or two ago.)
Re:End? (Score:3, Informative)
I know a patent lawyer that would disagree, and actually proposes "patent first" on items in order to protect companies from getting burned. In fact, he worked with several mid-size companies when Unisys went nutty. Several of these companies were the first to use the
Patent Politics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Patent Politics (Score:2)
And the reason si that corporations who benefits from patents have all the necessary politicians in their pockets through legally bribery in the wonderful "democratic" political system here in USA. If you sincerly believe that american politicians care about the people who "elected" them, I have a beach-front property in Wyoming I'd like to sell you... Cheap too!
Wait (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
this has been going on for years. These same ideas are used in amaroK, on Audioscrobbler, all over the place. How can they patent something that's been in use for a long time and is probably already patented?
I am sure there is prior art all over the place. For example, most online retailers have blurbs saying "customers who bought this product also bought these..." and give a list. This is the exact same thing done in aggregate, and I am sure someone will use it to invalidate this dumb patent.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
How optimistic of you. While you are making predictions, care to predict who exactly is going to do this? I have a prediction of my own: this patent will stand and the other uses of the concept (like audioscrobbler) will be sued into submission. Or maybe just disappear even before getting sued. I think a well-drafted warning letter will suffice.
For example, most online retailers have blurbs saying "customers who bought this product also bought these..." and give a list.
Prior art is based on the date of the application, not the date the patent is granted. You will have to dig a bit deeper than that.
Re:Wait (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wait (Score:4, Informative)
recommendations, circa 1999 (Score:5, Informative)
At the time the patent was filed, it was extremely uncommon for systems to make automatic recommendations based solely on the behavior of users. When I did my work at Alexa Internet (which was acquired by Amazon) in the late 90s, I had to solve a number of issues which had not been dealt with, both from an engineering perspective and from a quality of results perspective -- few companies, and no academic researchers that I am aware of -- had both the amount of data and the technical talent required to process it in order to test and refine recommendation systems based on transactional information.
My work in this area became Amazon's "customers who shopped for X also shopped for Y feature." Greg Linden, the first name on this patent, is now doing interesting recommendation work with his site Findory [findory.com].
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu / blog [blogspot.com] / pics [flickr.com].
Re:The most common example of all... (Score:4, Funny)
"Would you like fries with that?"
Re:recommendations, circa 1999 (Score:3, Informative)
Specifically, CBR assumes a symbolic rich representation of prior cases, and a pre-built distance function for measuring the similarity of the current situation to prior cases.
Most of the AI in CBR is in 1) choosing the right representation, and 2) coming up with the right similarity metric.
In the technique that Linden et al have patented, they make no assumption about a representationally rich framework for describing events -- i
Re:Wait (Score:2)
Isn't this just a staple of old fashioned retail? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the algorithm is obvious to anyone who understands the process, and the process is too well known to be subject to a patent. (Even so, that patent would have expired sometime well before the USPTO was created.)
I suppose if Amazon can't put well run stores out of business by taking all their customers away, they can patent the concept of good retail instead...
-JMP
Re:Isn't this just a staple of old fashioned retai (Score:2)
Why damn "automation" as if it were nothing? All Henry Ford did was automate the construction of automobiles. All James Watt did was automate the production of power.
Re:Isn't this just a staple of old fashioned retai (Score:3, Insightful)
If the computer did something DIFFERENT then clearly something novel would be taking place. But because everyone who buys a PSP later buys a memory stick, you tel
Re:Isn't this just a staple of old fashioned retai (Score:2)
Re:Isn't this just a staple of old fashioned retai (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't believe that accomplishing the same thing faster isn't worthy of a patent? Before Visicalc, an account would create a large spreadsheet by hand. Then his boss would say, "what if we sold 3000 units instead of 2800" and the accountant would have to recalculate everything. Wit
Re:Isn't this just a staple of old fashioned retai (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this just a staple of old fashioned retai (Score:2)
Hammer, nail, head. (Score:2)
He also knows that if I look at sandpaper, I may need some other sandpaper or mineral spirits or screws or glue or something else. He knows what "something else" is by seeing what I've looked at on my trip th
Re:Isn't this just a staple of old fashioned retai (Score:3, Funny)
Simple.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Never..
When will this stupidity end? (Score:4, Insightful)
When you realise that democracy is just a veneer over a system where big business writes the rules and calls the shots.
When this knowledge makes you get out of your complacent "everything for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds" attitude and makes you start organising.
When the revolution comes.
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2)
Can't we get some sanity back?
No. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to flying off my roof...
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:3, Interesting)
You see, the colonists hated the royalty because they were money without work, and the royalty hated the coonist because they had money buy no culture. The colonist for some reason thought that money made them equal.
So Even t
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2)
But anyway, thanks for backing up my central message that the US is not run by the people and for the people but instead by big business for their own purposes, which is why they get to patent and turn into property knowledge and ideas which (as Thomas Jefferson said) should be free to us all.
Patent THIS, Bezos... (Score:5, Funny)
I claim ownership and patent to the entire process of human indigation of all ridiculous patents that are OBVIOUSLY based on prior fscking art.
Patents are stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
But in the majority of cases in software, patents effect independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement.
Why should society reward that? What benefit does it bring? It doesn't help bring more, better, or cheaper products to market. Those all come from competition, not arbitrary monopolies. The programmer that filed the patent didn't work any harder because a patent might be available, solving the problem was his job and he had to do it anyway. Getting a patent is uncorrelated to any positive attributes, and just serves to allow either money or wasted effort to be extorted from generally unsuspecting and innocent people or companies.
Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. Its basically mugging someone.
- JC
Re:Patents are stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Using your scenario,any solution at which a bunch of programmers could independently arrive would, under most circumstances, be "obvious" and therefore not patentable. The problem is not the patent laws, it is the implementation.
There aren't sufficient examiners skilled in the art of software programming to determine in most cases when something is obvious. Those examiners who are skilled are overwhelmed and can only do a very cursory job of searching in the time alloted to examine every application. Most of the time, the only search done is of patent prior art which in the field of software is sparse.
As much as I hate saying this, this is one of those problems that does require money being thrown at it in order to solve. We need to hire more and better examiners. We need to pay the skilled examiners better to retain them.
That is not to say that the USPTO does not have other problems. But lack of funding is certainly one of the biggest. Of course, the reason for this is that nobody in aposition to do something about this really has any incentive to do so.
Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
When will this stupidity end?
When you manage to coerce your elected representatives into.. I dunno... representing you?
Amazing (Score:2)
hmmm..... (Score:2, Funny)
It may seem stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
However, look at it from Amazon's point of view. They're trying to make their business as unique as possible, and if it takes a few of these patents for them to keep their edge over their competitors, why not?
A lot of school's don't teach this side of technology to their students. Sure we learn how to implement ideas, but rarely do we realize that something we've developed can be patented and protected. I'm not defending them or anything, but just giving their point of view. They're smart for doing it, but it's damn annoying that we have to put up with it.
Re:It may seem stupid (Score:2)
Fair enough. The morons working at the USPTO are just as much at fault. But they will lose some customers over this kind of nonsense. I for one will avoid buying from them whenever possible. The one-click patent was bad enough, but these rat bastards were just getting started. I've had enough. They are not the only site for books, music, and movies. I'd like to see a geek boycott of Amazon. Hopefully a more effective one tha
Re:It may seem stupid (Score:2)
Exactly. The patent system is an absurd one, but also, it IS the environment we live in. Expecting Amazon to do "the right thing" by not filing absurd patents when everyone else is doing so is simply not reasonable. If anything, their filing of absurd patents is a good thing - once the absudity reach
Q. How many patent law suits has amazon filed? (Score:5, Informative)
why doesn't slashdot print a story for every google or transmeta or
Re:Q. How many patent law suits has amazon filed? (Score:2)
Thank you!!
Thank you!!
Someone gets it! It apparently hasn't become very clear to people that getting a patent affords you very little benefit. The patent is only worth something if it can be used to protect an idea. And even further, that only applies when the company is even interested in using it.
Re:Q. How many patent law suits has amazon filed? (Score:3, Informative)
Patent Lawyers may be the key (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell Me About It Dude (Score:2)
Corporate Takeover (Score:4, Insightful)
When the corporate takeover of the government ends. The USPTO is acting in the interest of the technology industry, not the public. Same with the FDA [fda.gov]. The FDA sees pharmaceutical companies as clients -- it doesn't even know it's supposed to be a regulatory agency. OSHA [osha.gov] is basically asleep. Until public campaigns are financed by public dollars [publicampaign.org], the situation will only get worse.
actually, a detailed patent (Score:3, Informative)
It details not only the weighting system used to generate the recommendations (recently purchased + highly rated = higher weight), in the same category, but in other store areas as well. It weights differently based upon whether an item is placed in the cart, searched for, placed on the wish list, bid on in online auction(?), purchased as a gift, or merely favorably reviewed.
So, Amazon is basically saving their customer's viewing/browsing tendencies as data. Now, they've patented the usage of this data to generate more sales. It seems like a good idea to me.
Accountability (Score:2)
End of Web Usage Mining? (Score:2)
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Point number one -- 1! the FIRST! Numero UNO! -- is this:
A computer-implemented method of using online browsing activities of users to identify related products, comprising:
So, then, why are so many people suggesting that Amazon has patented suggestive selling at the brick-and-mortar level?
I get it! I see the parallels! But I think f
Hang on a minute (Score:2)
Re:Hang on a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)
Getting this absurd patent overthrown would be absolute child's play for anyone familiar with mapping taxonomy systems to observation logging and user ratings, which were common practice for anyone using systems such as Broadvision back in the late 90s.
Amazon should license this patent to USPTO (Score:5, Funny)
New Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
If you liked (Score:3, Funny)
I think im starting to understand patent law: (Score:3, Insightful)
"A method of encoding information or data into structurally organised units, visually represented by a set of symbols which can be laid out to form a mentally recognisable concept. Such a method would is not limited to one set of symbols or organisational rules. Storage of encoded information can be achieved through the use of look-up tables to produce a short binary code for each symbol. In addition to the aforementioned method of symbol layout or 'text', the use of space between symbols will denote separation of symbol units henceforth known as 'words' and additional symbols to support the separation of related 'words' into logically coherent blocks or 'sentences'. Symbols or 'characters' will be given phonetic properties to aid audible transmission."
I think you should all be aware that my patent passed this morning, please cease and desist.
What would have happened if.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The kind of obvious stuff that is being patented today is the equivilent of the nuts and bolts kind of stuff back then...
Prior art (Score:3, Funny)
Look at a small television.
Look at some RCA cables.
Watch as salespeople try to sell you a huge plasma tv and/or component cables.
[ profit? ]
Prior art (Score:3, Funny)
It would seem that the entire field of machine learning is prior art...
Prior art? (Score:3, Funny)
I am browsing in the bookstore. I see a really cute girl pick up a book that I have read. So I walk over and say, "If you like that book, I think you will like this one".
The good news (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately this is a patent, not a copyright. It will expire in ~20 years. (I can never recall the rules, but it is 17-20 years depending on a bunch of factors) Most of us are likely to live that long. There is no long history of increasing the length of patent terms over time to keep things patented.
Compare that to copyright. They will last longer than any of us have any hope of living. Everytime they are about to expire they increase the terms, so even things that are "close" to the end of their term are unlikely to get out in our lifetime.
This might or might not be bogus, but at least it will expire and be used by everyone in 20 years.
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to prior art?
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2, Interesting)
It will be difficult, I imagine, because Amazon is one of the pioneers of ecommerce, so much of what they have done has been original within the context of the Internet. Many technologies used by Amazon were mimicked by other online retailers, so it ought to be no surprise that there were various examples of it implemented while the patent was pending.
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:5, Insightful)
But let me pose this question.
Why should a business practice that has been around for thousands of years be deserving of a patent simply because the retailer in question operates a different type of store? Mom & Pop shops have been making suggestions to customers based on past shopping habits forever.
Why does attaching the word "Internet" suddenly make this a new and novel idea?
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:4, Interesting)
More concretely, another poster mentioned that all Ford really did was automate the manufacturing process for cars. Are you diminishing his contribution to the industry? Are you suggesting his work wasn't a contribution?
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:5, Interesting)
I will, however, claim that he didn't "automate" jack shit. He didn't have machines doing the work that people used to do, he simply arranged things so that one person did the same thing over and over, all day long.
I'll also claim that your argument is irrelevant. Any way you spin it, taking an established practice and simply implementing it in the programming language of your choice is not "new", "novel", or "innovative". It's simply shifting old ideas to a new platform. Yes, it's important work, and needs to be done, but it's not deserving of a patent.
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2)
But that's what automation is. Each person was an unthinking cog in a machine that uses humans as parts. If it wasn't automation, then the assembly line workers could not have been replaced by robots.
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2)
Sure, it made automation a simpler task to accomplish down the road, but it wasn't automation.
By your line of reasoning, anybody with a job at less than an executive level is "unthinking". That's not a fair assesment. I, for one, have had my share of "mindless" jobs, especially in my youth, but I have never considered myself to be "unthinking".
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2)
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2)
(Although they should.)
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2)
Searching for prior art is the primary function of a patent examiner
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that the rules read that way on paper, but it doesn't take too much intelligence to look at the patents that they've been granting lately to realize that "the rules" mean very, very little to a patent examiner.
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2)
It is because of the spread of disinformation like that in your OP that people fail to see what is br
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:3, Interesting)
Please explain to me how the process of "making product suggestions based on the prior purchasing habits of the customer" is not covered by prior art.
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:4, Insightful)
When the bell rings, the big company lawyer steps in to shake hands, grapple, and decide if he's facing another professional heavyweight.
If so, they go seventeen rounds, make money, and provide entertainment.
When you go to work for a company and they hand you a contract full of boilerplate taking ownership of any idea you have now or ever afterward, it's one of those events.
When a company gets one of these obvious patents, it's another of those events.
IF NOBODY FIGHTS BACK, the big company wins by default.
THAT is our legal system. They claim whatever they can imagine -- and wait to see if there is a comparably entertaining and well paid legal team on the other side.
If you sign their first draft employment agreement, you lose.
If you don't fight their patent, you lose.
What y'all are missing is the fact that the referee does NOT work to protect you in this kind of event.
The referee is there to keep the entertainment going.
The big companies expect to win some of their absurd essays in taking everything, because nobody objects.
The Patent Examiner is part of the show, folks, part of the illusion that keeps people watching the show instead of saying, hey, this is just a big bully stomping people. Oh, no, it's a refereed match.
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:When will this stupidity end? (Score:2)
Re:Getting Worst... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Getting Worst... (Score:2)
Re:Getting Worst... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:2)
What kind of property did you say? 'Intellectual' property is a contradiction in terms. You can't own an idea. Although you are free to try.
I think it's just sour grapes from those people that didn't think of
Patenting an obvious idea like this does not serve the public good in any way and neither amazon.com nor Bezos as any 'right' to it whatsoever. Can anyone seriously argue that Amazon would not have developed the system if they knew they coudn't patent it? Bullsh
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
Without even looking at the patent, I imagine it covers this basic idea:
Person A looks at Product 1, Product 2, and Product 3.
Person B looks at Product 2, Product 3, and Product 4.
Person C looks at Product 2 and Product 3.
Along comes Pers
Re:This seems reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
The world you live in has nothing to do with capitalism anymore.
Capitalism was, MAYBE, present during 1950-60's, but what people are experiencing now is something so deformed it needs a new name.
Re:I've patented patenting absurd patents. (Score:2)
Is this something to be proud of..?
Organized Crime Game (Score:2)
Re:OT ... but I'm curious. (Score:2)
Re:Here's how you end this madness (Score:2)