Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Yet Another Amazon Patent 310

Posted by emmett from the noamazon.com dept.
Bender writes "CNet is reporting that Amazon has acquired the rights (at least in the USA) to 'Affiliate Programs.' This may have an adverse consequence on things like CDNow banners."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yet Another Amazon Patent More

Yet Another Amazon Patent

Comments Filter:
  • I want a patent for first posts....
  • i like em personally. good service
  • i own the trademark for "hot grits" in the state of colorado.
  • i'll take the patent for second posts...!
  • ...have been used for years by retail stores of all kinds.....

    i remeber sam the record man specials for stereo stores... that kind of thing.

    You can't patent something everybody is using, dammit.
    --
    Talon Karrde

  • Stop typing www.amazon.com.... (Score:5)

    by John Miles ( 108215 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:07PM (#1245025) Homepage Journal
    ...and start typing www.noamazon.com instead.

    This seems like a worthwhile time to call attention to the efforts of one of my office pals. Visit http://www.noamazon.com [noamazon.com] for some excellent links to alternative sites for the merchandise purveyed by Amazon.

    We've tried to get Slashdot to mention this site as a "quickie" news item, but apparently they are an (ahem) Amazon affiliate themselves. :-)
  • But I still got my coffee cup for the second year in a row.
  • In a move that could dramatically change the biological systems on Earth, Amazon.com has applied for a patent on air, at least in the United States. Air is a technology used by Amazon.com employees to import oxygen into their and their customers' blood supplies, where it can be carried to the vital organs for the exchange of som carbon dioxide.

    This "air" is commonly used by many organisms, including Amazon competitors, to sustain life. Amazon's possession of a patent on the technology could allow the company to prohibit others from using it, or Amazon could charge them a fee if they want to use it.

    "If they choose to enforce this, it may radically impact aspects of emerging lifeforms, natural and artificial," Rob Labatt, an analyst at the research firm Gertner Group, said Friday. "The vital question is whether they'll enforce it."

    "Are the going to patent affiliate programs next?" said John Segrich, an analyst CIBC World Markets, and frequent air-user, who follows Amazon.com. "I would certainly think this will be quickly challenged."

    Amazon wouldn't say today what plans it has for the new patent.

  • I hear they are working on patenting the word "book". Any day now, we should hear the outcome...
  • Does Amazon know that they are using my patented technique for patenting.......everything?

    Anyway, I've been researching new ways to transfer information. I've since come up with a revolutionary new way to transfer data between users, and I am applying for a patent on each step of it.

    First, data is transferred to a new material which is essentially just processed wood pulp. The data is then transfered to this material via a "printer." This new product is something which I will not call a book. Rather, I will call it an "organic data transfer device."(tm) Consequently, I can now sue Amazon for selling illegal goods which violate my patent. I can also sue for making it so darn worthwhile because of their "Affiliate" program, as well as suing for making it so easy, with "one click shopping."

  • Some analyst (Score:5)

    by / ( 33804 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:17PM (#1245032)
    "Are they going to patent air next?" said John Segrich, an analyst with CIBC World Markets, who follows Amazon.com.

    Some analyst this guy is! Everyone knows that patents only apply to processes, not physical quantities. Patenting the process of breathing, perhaps, but patenting the air itself? Why, that's absurd!

    On a more serious note, it seems Amazon.com has finally found its economic niche -- bringing down the entire global internet economy through frivolous patents and lawsuits. It's too bad it won't actually ever make them profitable. The sooner this company dies, the better.
  • This proves 2 things:

    * The USPTO's corrupt, and
    * The government and people of the country are now controlled by corporate interests

    No one in the general population even cares now (they all think this is Standard Operating Procedure).

    Let's hope the USPTO doesn't let it go through, and if you're really pissed, go boycott Amazon.

  • Trying to force the issue? (Score:3)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:19PM (#1245035) Homepage
    I'm in awe yet again... I can't believe that Amazon really expects to keep getting broad-reaching patents without something happening. My only conclusion is that they must be doing this to force the courts to realize how idiotic some software patents can be. And they get to make a buck or two along the way.

    I contend that a really evil company would be more stealthy in trying to take over the world. For instance, if Microsoft had been not -quite- so pushy in forcing hardware OEMs to bundle their OS, they might have been able to amass power longer without drawing negative attention, and thus be better prepared for the negative attention when it happened.

    Conclusion: Amazon is not a truly evil company?

  • And the winner of the rotten apple award for most undefendable patents is: AMAZON

    What does this do to Microsoft's ClickTrade Affiliate Program? How about BeFree?

    Amazon may not get away with this one...

    Visit uMoo - http://www.uMoo.com/ [umoo.com] 'cause if you don't, who will?

  • Thanks Amazon! (Score:3)

    by kijiki ( 16916 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:20PM (#1245037) Homepage
    I'd like to take a moment to thank Amazon.com for forcing the issue of patent reform. If they maintain their current rate of ridiculous patenting, the patent office will soon be forced out of their complacent attitudes towards patents on the unpatentable. Without Amazon exploring the frontiers of idiotic patents, this process might takes years longer, making the damage much worse in the long run.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled "i've patented xyz" posts.
  • - The unpublished preface to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

    Mycroft-X
  • In a recent release from the Associated Press. A spokesperson for Amazon.com (R) recently announced said company's pantenting of the "Finders Fee." The details of the plan are vague but basicaly are as follows

    • If a person or any person they know buys something that Amazon.com previously had listed...Amazon.com has legal rights to recover from both parties any money involved in the transaction.
    • Anything sold on ebay.com or any or any bn.com or barnesandnoble.com site is subject to an Amazon.com "finders fee."
    • Any children born in the United States are also subject to said "finders fee" and will be summarily taken into custody if the parents refuse to or are unable to pay. This is of course to cover the costs of implementation and research for "finders fee" v1.0.2

    Unconfirmed rumors state that in early march of 2001, Amazon.com will merge with AOL and Microsoft Corporation to consumate the largest merger in corporate history. While details are sketchy, a source inside Amazon told us, "...this will finally help us bring about a master race of albino "E-children" to take over the world..."

    -FluX
    flux is a renowned jackass columnist for such publications as slashdot.org and...um...did we already say slashdot?


    -FluX
    -------------------------
    Your Ad Here!
    -------------------------

  • Boycott...More? (Score:3)

    by waldoj ( 8229 ) <waldo@NOSpAM.jaquith.org> on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:24PM (#1245041) Homepage Journal
    Gosh, I'm already boycotting 'em as a result of their last patent.

    What's the next step? TPing Bezos' front lawn and putting a flaming bag of dog crap on his front porch?

    Amazon.com -- Helping You Explore Your Violent Tendencies(tm).
  • Yeah, I doubt the USPTO would think of reading at slashdot at "oldest first, threshold:-1" to look for prior art.

    --

  • The way I see it... amazon is in need of some serious cash, since they've already lost many many millions. All this patent BS is an easy way for them to sue people, or maybe even raise their stock if investors feel like they own the copyright to some cool technology.

    I think this whole thing is sad... amazon is such a great place to get books, but they keep doing things like this that I don't think is good business practice.
  • Hell yes we boycott them! Amazon can take their fscking patents, fold them until they're all sharp corners, and stick them where the sun don't shine (and I don't mean Barrow, Alaska in January). Who needs the barstids, anyway, when we've got Barnes and Noble [bn.com]?
  • This is nothing new. This is simply an age-old business method that has been applied to the web. There is no innovation, and there is countless, well-documented prior art, if that's the right term, since it's not really technology anyway. The second they sue another site that has alread had it is the second they prove how stupid this is, ignoring the fact that this is unpatentable anyway. My god, I thought the patent in my .sig was stupid.
  • I could see trademark on "affiliate program" in connection with online bookstores, but not trademark. It's too obvious, and it's been used in non-online settings before.

    --

  • Just think. Every business in the US will have to pay ME a fee to keep their books. I'll make billions from the IRS alone! (evil laugh)

    After all, its a business process. The people in the patent office probably don't realize that its been around for thousands of years.

    Maybe I'll just patent the concept of the EULA...

    Seriously Is there anything we can do to fix the problem?

  • Wow...patenting buddies. Amazing concept.

  • Why are these things patentable? (Score:3)

    by Coward, Anonymous ( 55185 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:30PM (#1245050)
    Why is stuff like this patentable? Why is it that someone can take an idea that is used in the real world, and add the phrase on the internet and get a patent?

    One click shopping? I go to the grocery store, when it's time to pay, I swipe my credit card through the credit card swipe machine thing and go on my way. This is the same as one click shopping, with the addition that you not only need to move your wrist (to position your mouse over the button) but also have to move your finger as well.

    And now they've essentially patented giving someone a commission on the internet. If I can't take an existing idea and add the phrase in the state of Georgia on the end and patent it, then why should I be able to add the phrase on the internet and patent it? If someone can patent gambling on the internet, shouldn't I be able to patent gambling in Las Vegas?
  • Since Amazon's business model is still losing incredible amounts of other people's money, it seems that suing other companies is the only way they'll get themselves back into black ink.

    So, if suing for patent violation becomes their new business model, maybe they'll patent *that*, too. Could be a good thing.
  • I really used to buy all sorts of books from amazon, they always had a very nice web site and an extremely comprehensive supply of books. After these fiascos, I am NOT going to buy from them any more. Richard Stallman's "Boycott Amazon" Essay [gnu.org] is a great location to start to find out what to do. I know this was brought up in prior Amazon discussions, but just as a reminder... I don't agree with Mr. Stallman's philosophies totally, but I sure agree with him on the Amazon issue!
  • You say that you can't believe that Amazon expects to get these, but put yourself in their shoes... if the USPTO is going to grant stupid patents, why not apply for them?

    What's the worst that's going to happen to them? The USPTO will revoke the patents? Big deal.

  • Someone's patented xyz? Does this mean I have to pay royalties every time I check my fly?
  • ... you'll see that it is 'noamazon.com'.
  • The abstract [ibm.com] reads, in part:

    The merchant site also implements an electronic shopping cart that allows the customer to select products from multiple different Web sites, and then perform a single "check out" from the merchant's site.

    Have they also patented the concept of purchasing from multiple websites through a single website, even w/o a referral program? IANAL, nor do I have the skills to pretend to be one, so could somebody explain this one?
  • Just wondering about this:
    http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-1558650.htm l?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.1007-200-1558650
    what's the deal? you guys seem to be going for the lowest common
    denominator with this sort of thing.
    first it's the "one-click" technology, now it's affiliate programs?
    these are not things you people came up w/. you may have brilliant
    engineers driving the backend functionality of the site, but apparently
    it's the finance department that's driving the decision making process.
    Lord knows it's not the marketing department, as this sort of thing can
    only bring about bad publicity as the particulars of the lawsuits (and
    I'm sure there will be plenty) are made known.
    I'm guessing that some one figured out that the "digital computer" and
    the "moniter" (not to mention the "internet") were already patented,
    huh?
    Just a bit of food for thought, get back to me and let me know how this
    inspired you.

    -Peter
  • No... no... no... They're trying to trademark the word book. See that way they get book.com, book.net, and book.org away from the real domain name owners for FREE. Thank you, ICANN [icann.org]. ;*)


    Visit uMoo - http://www.uMoo.com/ [umoo.com] everyone needs to talk about bull!
  • from noamazon.com [slashdot.org]..

    noamazon.com is in no way affiliated with or authorized by Amazon.com, or any other company for that matter.
    Since some booksellers don't call their analogs of amazon's program "affiliate programs", and since noamazon.com hides its link URLs behind a cgi script, that doesn't tell me that noamazon.com isn't making money from his links. If noamazon.com is making money, then I'm jealous of the person who came up with the idea (since he's probably making quite a bit), but he shouldn't try to hide the fact.

    --

  • because if they keep getting away with this crap, eventually everyone ELSE who once also offered good service will go out of business when amazon finally manages to patent the concept of business itself...

  • No kidding! The guidelines for what is patentable state that whatever it is must be "new, nonobvious and useful" (source [uspto.gov]). Ask any of the thousands of businesses/websites that have been offering affiliate programs for years, or tons of people who have been participating in affiliate programs (myself included) and you will find that they are not new. This method having been around for a while, I'd also say that it is no longer nonobvious. Back when affiliate programs first starting poping up they were nonobvious. Now, as common as they are, they are a pretty obvious method of advertisement.

    It looks like the patent judges (or whoever does the deciding for these things) are about as clueless as the rest of'em.

    Mike

  • A Dissenting View (Score:3)

    by Outlyer ( 1767 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:37PM (#1245063) Homepage
    I'll be moderated down for this, as are all views which don't seem to match the general consensus. But a great majority of patents are not filed for enforcement. Generally, patents are filed to prevent a competitor from doing it first. If you believe that companies who patent are evil, you're being naive. It's part of modern business, just like the endless lawsuits, and other related nonsense, but you can live, in disbelief, and post to Slashdot comments about how Amazon is patenting air, or whatever else, but perhaps you need to run a company that competes globally and see that it is probably the only safe way to protect yourself.
    If you don't patent it first, someone else will, and sue you into oblivion.

  • Great news: obvious even to non-technical people. (Score:4)

    by BigGaute ( 81475 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:38PM (#1245064)
    Don't worry. Be happy. While this might seem like just another ridiculous patent to me and you, it is more significant than that.

    Anyone with a certain minimum of knowledge about how computers and / or the internet works knows exactly how preposterous the one-click patent is. This patent is no different in that respect. The difference is that this patent is so much more blindingly obvious that anyone should be able to see why, with minimal rethoric required. This ought to make it a lot easier to fight the patent in court, and let's hope that Amazon's competitors do just that.

    The state of the US Patent Office has been long lamented, in places such as the GNU website [gnu.org] and the League for Programming Freedom [mit.edu]. I personally believe that although some of the examples cited there, such as the use of XOR to highlit information on a bitmapped screen in an easily reverisble way, are, believe it or not, not sufficently obvious to the population at large that the average man and woman can be easily convinced.

    Off course, being non-obvious to the average person is a subset of the legal requirements to obtain a patent--theoretically, a new patent may not be obvious, even if only to experts in the field. However, it has been obvious for a long time that the US Patent Office is blindingly incompetent in this regard. Maybe this time, we will have our day in court, and win it too.

    Until then, I suggest that we all chip in and make a link to the Boycot Amazon [gnu.org] page. Have you emailed Amazon to tell them what you think yet? I have.

  • So, I guess I see two paths here:
    1) Someone breaks the stupid patent, takes Amazon to court, and wins. Maybe it contributes to a review of patent law; maybe not.

    2) Amazon realizes it's a stupid patent and doesn't ever bother to enforce it. (They may go on to get more patents, until it is discovered that Bezos uses Emacs, and resigns in shame...)

    Option (2) seems more likely...in which case, does that herald the coming of stupid patents? Will we see e-whatever companies getting patents for the same reasons that they hoard Nerf (and, appropriately enough, just as effective)?
  • Exactly. It's a similar distinction between good hackers and bad crackers...


    Hackers find problems and bring them to the attention of the public so they can get fixed asap.

    Crackers find problems and then exploit them.

    Really bad nasty evil crackers find problems, but only exploit them when a really tasty target comes along so that the exploit doesn't get publicly known until it can be used to get lotsa $$$.


    So... amazon would probably rate somewhere in the middle of the scale... slightly above script kiddies, but not much.

  • Here's the text of the patent: http://www.patents.ibm.com/detai ls?pn=US06029141__ [ibm.com] .
  • Yeah, I noticed that B&N has revamped their site quite a bit. Unless you want to buy a video, they're pretty much identical.

    Okay, I have to say it. How the HELL did this get patented?! One-click shopping was bad enough, but the USPTO guys must have their heads way up their asses to let this one through. *sigh* I suppose we can expect a patent on e-commerce.

  • Well, I could be totally wrong about this, but isn't Amazon losing money almost daily? Aren't they pretty much not making any profits at the moment? If that is the case, then all of these patents make perfect sense. How else are they going to suceed as a business unless they make it almost impossible for anyone else to have a successful e-business?

    Also, doesn't anyone else kind of think it is odd that even though other companies also use similar "one click" transaction methods, Amazon only goes after their main competition online?

    It's times like these that make me want to dump the MPAA, the RIAA, DoubleClick and Amazon (along with the NSA, CIA and FBI) all on an island somewhere. They can then spend the rest of their days monitoring each other and trying to monopolize all expression and commerce on their island.
  • Can we now Patent hyperlinks?! I really want to read this patent! It's really a problem that the elected government is, by nature, set to a speed of learning that is 1/10th of the Technology development arena! Now we also have to suffer the joined ranks of the sub-structure on which laws are made and argued! Sad, sad day!
  • They filed a lawsuit against B&N, so what makes you think they won't enforce this? Hopefully you do get moderated down, because you're not thinking about the past actions of Amazon.
  • Actually, the links are cgi-trapped so that we can tell how many potential Amazon customers are being redirected to competing vendors.

    Experience has shown that complaining to Jeff Bezos about Amazon's abuse of the US patent system earns you a cheery "We are proud of our innovative business practices, and we believe that we're entitled to patent protection" spiel in reply.

    Our thinking is, if we can demonstrate to Bezos that we sent 10,000 people to Barnes & Noble [bn.com] or DVD Express [dvdexpress.com], he might be convinced to re-examine his company's "innovative" business strategy.

    That's the idea, anyway.
  • This just in:
    Amazon patents the "computer user". In a bold move, Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN) recently recieved a patent for the computer user. While Amazon refused to return calls for comment, the press release [amazon.com] stated "you can be darn sure that if any of our competitors think they can have free access to our users, they are only fooling themselves! har de har har!"

    Other patents pending for amazon.com include:
    software
    hardware
    air

    associated press

  • Actually, the links are cgi-trapped so that we can tell how many potential Amazon customers are being redirected to competing vendors.

    Ok, this is moving into flamebait territory, but you never said noamazon.com doesn't make money from the links.

    --

  • In my opinion, all patent laws should be abolished and copyright and trademark laws too for that matter. They were supposedly created to protect people from the big bad corporations, but they obviously are not working as intended since any corporation with a big bad bank account can just do whatever they want to anyway. If not totally abolish the laws, at least they could restrict patents and copyrights to individual owners instead of corporations.
    - Minister of Propaganda,
  • Gosh, I'm already boycotting 'em as a result of their last patent.

    What's the next step?

    Something more active, like informing others about what's going on and asking them to join your boycott. And I don't mean other Slashdotters, I mean people who think of Amazon.com first when they think "buy on the internet"; I mean your friends and family that mostly know about what's on the internet from the commercials on TV.

    I'm a college student, so I went home for xmas break. While there I told friends who had been looking at Etoys.com for gifts for their kids about etoy.com -- I was able to get from them the "that's not right" reaction I felt. Then I named other places they could buy toys for their kids online. I like to think I swung a few dollars away from a company I felt wasn't playing nice on the internet.

    So, if you feel your own personal boycott isn't effective enough, if you feel they are continuing to act the bully, if you feel they are becoming worse neighbors instead of better, then tell more people about it. Convince others (and not just others here, or on other forums where these discussions are the norm) to join you in your boycott.

  • Re:A Dissenting View (Score:3)

    by BigGaute ( 81475 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:54PM (#1245083)

    I'll be moderated down for this, as are all views which don't seem to match the general consensus.

    No you won't, and no they're not.

    But a great majority of patents are not filed for enforcement. Generally, patents are filed to prevent a competitor from doing it first. If you believe that companies who patent are evil, you're being naive. It's part of modern business, just like the endless lawsuits, and other related nonsense, but you can live, in disbelief, and post to Slashdot comments about how Amazon is patenting air, or whatever else, but perhaps you need to run a company that competes globally and see that it is probably the only safe way to protect yourself.

    If you don't patent it first, someone else will, and sue you into oblivion.

    This would be a good point, were it not for the fact that Amazon has by now got a history of using patents offensively. In fact, the Boycott Amazon page [gnu.org] goes some way to acknowledge this:

    Foolish government policies gave Amazon the opportunity--but an opportunity is not an excuse. Amazon made the choice to obtain this patent, and the choice to use it in court for aggression. The ultimate moral responsibility for Amazon's actions lies with Amazon's executives.

    Realistically, would anyone have complained if Amazon had not started trying to enfore their patent? Off course not. This is even is spite of the fact that even the pontential of a lawsuit can and often does have a devastating inhibiting effect to a business.

  • Re:Stop typing www.amazon.com.... (Score:3)

    by auntfloyd ( 18527 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @07:58PM (#1245085) Journal
    From http://www.noamazon.com/more.html [noamazon.com]:

    We would also like to make it clear that we do not accept kickbacks, advertising money, or bribes. This site is about freedom from bogus software patents and harmful litigation, not money. None of the sites on our list of links paid us, nor will we allow anyone to pay us for a link in the future. We will, however, listen to all of you when chosing sites as alternatives to patent-happy companies. Send your favorite honest Internet commerce site to us at links@noamazon.com.

    So yes, they do say that they don't make money.

    ~~~~~~~~~
    auntfloyd
  • I'm hoping if I don't go AC, the moderators will be nice tonight. I think that everyone needs to remember:

    www.noamazon.com [noamazon.com]
    www.noamazon.com [noamazon.com]
    www.noamazon.com [noamazon.com]
    www.noamazon.com [noamazon.com]

    Sorry for the repetition. Just thought it might be helpful to get the attention...

    kwsNI

  • Nonsense. First, as others have mentioned, Amazon has been quite clear in their intentions regarding the enforcement of their patents WRT B&N. The fact that they refuse to comment on the motives here is enough to make this latest move smell bad.

    IANAPL but...

    Patents are not intended to quash competitors from implementing a new technology, but instead to ensure monopoly rights on that tech. for a period of time. With "real-world" tech (for example, an engine that runs on water), this makes sense because it takes time and money (lots) to bring it to reality. Such is not the case with purely software inventions.

    In the case of software patents, all one needs to defend one's self against a johnny-come-lately patenting the tech. is to be able to show prior art, IIRC. Using patents to serve as a defense is short-sighted, anticompetitive, stupid, and yes, evil (although in a pathetic Dr. Evil kind of way).

    BTW, I have a patent pending on a barter system that uses pieces of paper, and bits of plastic and metal as a means of "currency". Oh, wait. Amazon beat me to that one too...

  • Re:Boycott...More? (Score:5)

    by sugarman ( 33437 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @08:12PM (#1245100)
    <i>What's the next step? TPing Bezos' front lawn and putting a flaming bag of dog crap on his front porch?</i>

    Sounds good...

    We meet at 11:30 at the 7-11 down the street, Waitaminute. It's Friday. He might be up late plotting his next fiendish patent (I hear "clicking a button" is still up for grabs). Better make it 12:30am.

    Signal11. You in? Thought so. You're in every thread. Alright, hit the PriceClub and get as much TP as you can. No, it doesn't matter what type. We're talkin' *volume* here, brudda.

    Kintanon, go get some grocery bags. Paper, not plastic this time.

    Kaminsky, you drive.

    Alright, now you guys. The Grits boys. We need all the dogcrap you can find. Lots of it. No, I don't know where to find some. I thought you guys knew all the best spots. Just get moving, and HEY!!! WAITAMINTUE!! Don't put the dogcrap down your pants! It's not Hot Grits. Whaddayamean ya wanted to see what it felt like? We need this shit for Bezos.

    *TICK*TOCK*TICK*TOCK*

    Alright. TP?
    "Check!"
    Paper bag
    "Check!"
    Dog Crap?
    "...and Hot Grits too..."
    Whatever.

    There's his door, right past the Naked Petrified Natalie Port...HEY!...Anyways.

    Grits boys, start with the TP. We'll get the bag ready.

    What?!? We forgot matches? Dammit, alright what was it Linus said. "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome?", shit no, that was Clint Eastwood. Dammit!

    Kaminsky, you wired? Good. Toss me your Palm V. Just one quick post to /.
    Waitasec...we need to make sure it gets read. Hey, Signal11, feel like burning off some Karma here? Whaddaya mean you need it all? You only have like 10,000.

    "Subject: GPL = Borg!!!"
    "Admit it. You're all just Jealous of JC Bill Gates cuz you wish you had the same amount of control!!.. you won't be happy until the GPL has assimilated everything, and noone can make money doing software stuff no more. Well, RoR, cuz the last laugh will be on you when you put yoursleeves out of jobz, and are all forced to learn VB cuz windows still Rulz, you freaking pinko commiez!!!

    Discuss amongst yourselves"

    That should do it. Luckily, there's no Katz threads on right now, or noone would have seen it from the background noise. Just give it a a little more time...

    Hey!! Grits Boyz!!! Put the TP in the TREES, not down your pants!

    *Don's Palm V begins to smolder, as Signal11's Karma takes a nosedive*

    Signal11: man, am I gonna have to post a lot tomorrow to get that back...

    *lights the bag*

    Alright guys! Hit the doorbell and RUN FOR IT! This'll show him that we won't take his bid for world domination lying down...

    *Bing-bong*

    Bezos: WTF?

    {to be continued...}
  • Patenting the process of breathing, perhaps, but patenting the air itself? Why, that's absurd!

    Yes, it's absurd. And that's the point he's trying to make.

  • Amazon to Patent Boycotting (Score:4)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @08:24PM (#1245105) Homepage Journal
    In a press release today Amazon.com announced that it has received a patent for boycotting. Now anyone planning on boycotting any internet entity will have to pay Amazon.com a royalty fee.
  • Maybe these fuckers could patent spamming. They seem to have perfected patenting technology that's either obvious or has a laughably large set of prior art (Maybe they could patent how they do it?) so patenting E-Mail spam should be a snap for them.

  • "This is pretty broad," said Walter Linder, a patent attorney with Faegre & Benson in Minneapolis. "I think there might be a lot of Web sites that will have to change their affiliate programs to get around this."

    Linder said the patent could even be broad enough to cover single links that would simply go from an affiliate to Amazon's home page, instead of to specific items. [The C|Net story [cnet.com].]

    Doesn't this patent banner ads? Think about it.

    Site A links to Site B's homepage or product page.

    User clicks link on Site A which brings them to site B.

    Site B pays Site A a fee/commision for same.

    IANAL but affiliate programs seem quite similar to banner programs. Looking at the above use case, I can't tell whether that is a banner or an affiliate

  • exploring the frontiers of idiotic patents.... (Score:3)

    by nmarshall ( 33189 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @08:39PM (#1245114) Homepage
    let me think about this, so Amazon is patenting air...
    well, seeing that the USPTO granted a patent for entertaining a cat using a laser pointer [ibm.com]. i guess it could happen.

    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
  • After all, he IS the man of the year [time.com]! And after seeing all these innovative processes he's invented (which he must have done in order to patent them, right?), how can anyone argue with anything he does? He knows best!

    He's probably under tons of pressure from stockholders who are starting to get pissed off that Amazon, for all its millions in sales, can't turn a penny of profit -- so he patents everything in sight in a bizarre plan to charge royalties for them. I guess... who knows at this point. How can they get a patent when there are so many, many similar programs that have been around for so long? I have been an "affiliate" of CDNOW's [cdnow.com] since at least February 1997.

    Doesn't Amazon care about the bad press it gets? If these patents don't stand up in court (which I would hope is the case), what does Amazon gain from the entire ordeal? If this is the future of "ecommerce," it's not anything of which I'd like to be part.

    _________________

  • O.K. So all Amazon is trying to do is end this evil patent system, by getting as many broad-reaching patents as possible. This is like me saying I murdered a person, just to expose the evils of the capitol punishment system. You would justifiably fry me for this.

    No, applying Ocram's razor, the argument that Amazon is trying to generate positive attention, to divert minds from their lack of profitability is a much stronger argument. If a investor thinks that their is even half a chance of winning the sure to come patent battle it increases the perceived value of their stock. They are going to face increasing pressure to turn a profit, the longer they can postpone this crunch the more they can cash out before the stock begins to fall.

    So Amazon behaving as such is not a truly evil company. They are simply a company acting to preserve their bottom line as long as they can.

    Nate Custer
  • Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes [theonion.com]

    You've all probably seen this before, but I'm posting it again. It seems rather prophetic, though not regarding Microsoft -- large corporation patents everything obvious. Plus it's funny.

    _________________

  • That cat-entertainment patent is not as obvious as you may think. If you read the abstract, it says that they are patenting the use of "invisible light" to cause the cat to exercise. I don't think that one person in a million would have thought to use light that the cat can't see for this purpose.

    (Hopefully this means that someone using a regular, visible-light laser pointer isn't covered by this patent.)

  • Why Boycotting Amazon Means Nothing. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Amazon.com'sFourth Quarter 1999 Financial Report [amazon.com]
    Pro forma operating loss for the fourth quarter of 1999 was $175 million, compared to a pro forma operating loss of $18 million in the fourth quarter of 1998. Fourth-quarter pro forma net loss of $185 million, or $0.55 per share, compared with a pro forma net loss of $22 million, or $0.07 per share, in the fourth quarter of 1998.

    They are already not making any money. It doesn't matter whether or not they make money. This is why boycotting them will have no effect. This is not to say we should stop boycotting them, but don't think it will change anything.
  • The
    abstract [ibm.com] reads, in part:
    The merchant site also implements an electronic shopping cart that allows the customer to select products from multiple different Web sites, and then perform a single "check out" from the merchant's site.
    Have they also patented the concept of purchasing from multiple websites through a single website, even w/o a referral program? IANAL, nor do I have the skills to pretend to be one, so could somebody explain this one?

    I am not a patent attorney, blah blah blah.

    The part referring to the shopping cart on the merchant site is not patented in and of itself. It is a non-patented piece of the patented system. It's much like patenting a design for an automobile and including "Rotational force is transmitted from the engine to the wheels via a driveshaft". If the statement is not a claim in itself, you're not patenting the driveshaft, but the automobile as a whole, which happens to use a driveshaft. In this case, Amazon's affiliate system happens to use

    So no, they haven't patented the concept of purchasing from multiple websites through a single website. But what they have patented is purchasing from one website through multiple websites, and where the multiple referring websites get a cut of the pie. So long as the associate doesn't get any compensation, it would appear that Amazon's patent is not being violated.

  • Calling all would-be public servants! (Score:5)

    by IronClad ( 114176 ) on Friday February 25, 2000 @09:31PM (#1245149) Homepage
    USPTO Employment Application

    1. Name ______________ 2. Date _______________
    3. DOB _______________ 4. SSN ________________

    5. I.Q. (check one)
    ( ) Moron
    ( ) Idiot
    ( ) Dim-wit
    ( ) Liberal Arts Flunkee

    (Y or N) Have you ever been affiliated with a terrorist organization or
    received a grade D or or better on an engineering examination?

    (Y or N) Can you be trained to operate a rubber stamp within a period
    of 16 weeks?

    (Y or N) Are you able to employ a method and process for inducing
    condensation upon a reflecting surface?

    (Y or N) Do you agree that you deserve a patent for the above?

    (Y or N) Were you alive when Al Gore invented the Internet?

    (Y or N) Do you agree he deserves a patent for that?
  • I'm not sure where these patents are going. It almost seems too risky to call companies on silly patents like "one click shopping" or affiliate programs. (Although I think affiliate programs, if they do, in fact, have a patent on it, is more protectable than one click shopping). When they call on shaky ground because their IP may not be protectable, they are just testing the gov't to finally get softwarre patents done correctly. Which will really screw them.


    -- Moondog
  • Notice, though, how it says the comments won't be posted for a good few days? Probably while they check to make sure it's legit.
  • I'm not one to write letters that would be seen by most companies to be basic editorials, but I couldn't help, this time.

    The content of my letter:

    Hi there.

    I realize that the person who will be reading this will not be a person in any capacity to do anything with this. However, I feel that Amazon is about to lose a customer it has had almost since it began.

    Why?

    Because your company is taking advantage of an overworked, underpaid patent office using a poorly designed, poorly regulated patent system. Your tactics are unethical -- I don't care if they're legal or not.

    You are not "protecting your business from competitors" by disallowing such common practices as affiliates programs or the "one-click" shopping idea. I thought a boycott would be silly because it accomplishes nothing, but your company has proven that they just don't care one way or another about fair competition or even the future of the Internet. What your company has shown by these actions is that they are primarily interested in the bottom line, no matter how dirty they have to become to do it.

    I'm highly disappointed in your company at the moment and will cease to support you with my hard-earned money until the point at which you both rescind your rights to the patents you currently have and also announce the intention to never file a spurious business practices legal patent again. I will also do my very best to ensure that other friends of mine do not use your service as well.

    I cannot stress to you how angry this makes me. You are taking advantage of American taxpayers' money and you are taking advantage of _me_.

    Regards,
    --
    Kenneth G. Cavness

    Not that it makes a difference. *sigh*

  • Is it the patent office's fault for stupid patents? Amazon's? I'd say Amazon is 100% at fault for trolling the patent office with intent of destroying its competitors. They are doing it to harm competition, not to promote business technology. If anyone beleives they have invented some novel process, they are being snowed. Its all about money and greed. They will get away with it until they are no longer allowed to troll the patent office.
  • Read the full story at http://photo.net/wtr/dead-trees/53002.htm [photo.net]

    From that page:

    • "I sent people to the amazon site 2,651 times. Only 4 of those people ignored the 25 extra links and bought books off the very first page. One of them bought a special order book for which the dogs at Angell got nothing. Bottom line: The standard Internet price for a clickthrough is 10 cents; it would have cost amazon.com $265 per week to get these users by purchasing ads on other folks' sites; amazon got them from me for $3.95."
    'nuff said.
  • To the non-net-centric public Amazon is not neccessarily a bad company, they just have their pocketbook on the brain. Companies will register patents to protect themselves from a semi-original idea being patented by a competitor. However Amazon has demonstrated that they only wish to crush their competitors the only way they can: infringement. Any really good company is going to win out with quality and not legal wrangling.

    Unfortunately the legal wrangling will win more times than not. Decency has been lost in American companies. A lot of American companies see customers as dollar signs and will cut corners and compete at the worst level, all in search of the next nickel.

    Microsoft is a prime example of companies that win not through a superior service or product, but trying to crush the competition using any number of underhanded means at their disposal.

    Look at your favorite ISP that you love to hate, they provide crappy service, but because the barrage the customer with ads, the customer has no clue that it's relative shit.

    Now those same crappy ISPs are trying to lock people into 3 year contracts. You get locked into a 3 year contract when you buy or lease a car too, draw your own analogy.

    Amazon is just another company that is using their perceived upper hand to crush their competitor, it has nothing to do with providing better service to their customers. Besides, you don't use patent law for that, you use tradmark law for protecting the customer by preventing bastardization of the interface.

    Amazon has just hit the mud-slinging stage of their timeline. I hope they have a good garden hose, because the shit's gonna get deep.
  • The long wordy abstract can be summarised thus

    Its an internet referal system that lets people link to amazon as an associate Asociate sets up a web site about a part of amazon's catalogue (possibly with reviews or something). Amazon's website receives the referal link and the product ID from the link. If the customer purchases something then tha associate is payed commission. Amazon also has a shooping basket system.

    When you look at it like this, it seems very obvious and trivial. Surely there's always been sites that offer reviews and link to a site that sells the things being reviewed.

  • some thoughts on this and other patents (Score:3)

    by jetson123 ( 13128 ) on Saturday February 26, 2000 @01:03AM (#1245191)
    I think people generally misunderstand the meaning of these kinds of patents. The patents are not intended to make lots of money from licensing fees. Rather, they are needed for trading with other companies with big patent portfolios. If priceline.com gets silly patents, amazon.com needs to as well, so that they can trade their patent portfolios. No money changes hands.

    The net effect of this is, of course, not innovation. Rather, it increases barriers of entry to new companies who don't have patent portfolios to trade (this is seen as an advantage by established companies). Furthermore, it increases the cost of doing business, because all that patent activity costs lots of money and time. I estimate that in a corporate environment, each patent that is filed probably costs around $50k (there are a lot of highly paid lawyers and engineers involved in each patent).

    Ultimately, the US patent office needs to stop this kind of abuse by reviewing patent applications more dilligently and not expanding notions of patentability as they go along. Individual companies are ultimately powerless: if they try to be high-minded about it, they'll simply go out of business.

    And it's pretty clear that the US patent office is at fault. Apologists for them say that there is really no basis on which to criticize them. But there is actually a pretty straightforward metric: you can simply look at the kind of technical and legal comments you get from the US patent office vs. the European patent offices on the same patent application. The European patent office generally make competent evaluations, understand prior art quite well, and impose clear limitations on claims. The European patent offices are also much more reluctant to expand notions of patentability, usually only being pushed along by the US. From those, direct comparisons, it's pretty clear that there is a lot of room for improvement at the US patent office.

    Nevertheless, I find that even by the currently low standards of patentability used by US businesses, priceline.com and amazon.com are pushing the limits. They can be justly criticized for that. It's one thing to go along with the crowd because you have to, it's quite another thing to try to deliberately push the boundaries. For that reason, I boycott Amazon, Priceline, and similar sites (I spend several thousand dollars in books and airfare each year, so this isn't an empty threat).

  • Who'd have believed, six months ago, that you'd be reading "Are they going to patent air next?", not on Slashdot as usual, but ON CNET as a quote from a stock analyst?

    Tells you something about how the mainstream perspective is being affected by this rotten Amazon behavior. Now we need a _judge_ going "Don't tell me, next you're going to patent the 'click'?" Then we'll be getting somewhere.

  • Just had a strange coincidence, right before coming to Slashdot. I was reading this page
    from a pissed off customer

    http://cyberreviews.skwc.com/amazon.html

    Aside, from that corporations have been ripping of the public for along time using the inept patent
    office is just one of the ways. Some excellent observations on how corporations play games with
    the law are given by R.Buckminster Fuller

    http://www.bfi.org/grunch_of_giants.htm

    This is an online book that he wrote in 1982 (old but relevant) his observations and suggestions may be very helpful to us in combating the fleecing of the American public by the inhuman and unfeeling legal
    entities called corporations. Like all good things we the people finance the endeavor (the internet/arpanet)(nuclear research) then corporations like Amazon.com come in and rob us of our freedom
    and our money by litigating and intimidating all but the most wealthy of us through our archaic and inept government.

  • FYI: what I got back from feedback@amazon.com (Score:5)

    by guerby ( 49204 ) on Saturday February 26, 2000 @03:24AM (#1245204) Homepage
    After I told them I was happy with their flawless (from my experience) customer service, but that this patent stuff was not acceptable. This was a while after RMS call for boycott. Well, it looks like they don't get it. May be they're loosing hope of making money the regular way, so they turned to they lawyers, pffff.

    Dear Laurent,

    Thank you for taking the time to share your views with us. Not surprisingly, we have received a variety of reactions from customers about the preliminary injunction awarded to Amazon.com in its patent infringement lawsuit against barnesandnoble.com.

    Because the case is still pending, we are unable to discuss the specifics of this litigation. As a general matter, however, we agree with United States District Judge Marsha J. Pechman's ruling that "granting Amazon.com's preliminary injunction will serve the public interest" in part because "protection of intellectual property rights in innovations will foster greater competition and innovation." To that end, Amazon.com will certainly continue innovating on behalf of its customers.

    Judging from some customers' e-mails, there appears to be significant confusion about the scope and nature of Amazon.com's patent. For more comprehensive information about the patent and the circumstances of the lawsuit, the full text of the federal court decisions in the case may be viewed at: http://www.mccutchen.com/are/ip/ip_001.htm

    We appreciate feedback from customers about this lawsuit and other important issues concerning Amazon.com, and we carefully consider all viewpoints expressed. We hope you will continue to let us know how we can improve our service to customers.

    Best regards,

    Kerry Rutherford
    Amazon.com
    Earth's Biggest Selection
    http://www.amazon.com
    ==============================

  • What are you talking about? Amazon can't have the patent on air-- it's taken.
    Microsoft got the patent. About five years ago, about the time they bought the Roman Catholic Church [spunk.org].

    How were you not aware of this? Apparently you were not a USENET reader, or you definately would have heard about it.
  • Go to Cheapbooks search engine [satori.com] and you find that Amazon seldom has the cheapest books anyway. Just use things like amazon and borders and B&N to use their excellent search facitilies/reviews, get the ISBN number and enter it above. I recently saved $9.50 on a plumbing how-to book I bought.
    ---
  • | I don't think that one person in a million would
    | have thought to use light that the cat can't see
    | for this purpose.

    | (Hopefully this means that someone using a
    | regular, visible-light laser pointer isn't
    | covered by this patent.)

    Nope, it's a laser pointer. Read the patent again, particularly claim 3: "wherein said beam remains invisible between said laser and said opaque surface until impinging on said opaque surface." Elsewhere in the patent they talk about a "bright pattern of light" which you get when the laser hits the wall, etc.

    Presumably, the patent wouldn't cover using your laser pointer to entertain your cat in a smoky room, though. :)

    (Reading that particular patent, I think it almost HAS to be a joke. Someone with a little too much money and time on their hands ...)

  • Man, dont a few thousand websites do that sort of thing?

    Yup

    How the Hell can Amazon think of patenting such a broad idea?

    Maybe because the US Patent system gives inventors the right to patent something they invented. One thing I know for sure is that Amazon was very early on the web as a ecommerce company, and their affiliate program got a lot of press as being innovative when it first came out.

  • Okay, here's the plan... we'll file for a patent on the concept of being a patent office, and then sue to put the Patent Office out of business.

  • Why can they patent this? (Score:3)

    by gotan ( 60103 ) on Saturday February 26, 2000 @06:12AM (#1245227) Homepage
    I don't understand it, even the article states, that These "affiliate programs" are commonly used by many sites so it's obviously nothing amazon has innovated. I thought that patents can't be granted for things/processes already in wide use or already published. I even wonder if it isn't possible to sue Amazon for hurting (american) economy with such patents. If they get this patent in court, next i'll try and patent bricklaying, baking bread, brewing beer and some more things which come to my mind (i mean as of now nobody has a patent on that) perhaps someone shuold really go and try to push through such a ridicoulous patent just to draw some public attention to the subject.
  • Take a look at the article... Check out this qoute from it - "We never speculate about what we may or may not do in the future," company spokesman Bill Curry said. The company applied for the patent on June 27, 1997 and received it Tuesday."

    They applied for the patent 2.5 YEARS ago. This was well before anyone even started doing this kind of thing so they weren't thinking about shutting other sites down for violation at that time, they wanted to protect what they invented. Seems rational to me but I just wonder why it took so long to go through.

    - 8Complex
  • Unfortunately, this will not improve soon. I keep in touch with a former colleague at the PTO and he tells me how truly sad thigs have become (He doesn't work on software patents). Over the last 30 years, PTO management has emphasised production and meeting timeliness deadlines over quality; after all, the former can be quantified, but quality can be subjective (you have to go to the heart of the matter to really evaluate quality vs. any dumb beanco^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H manager probably has the mental ability to look at % of expectency, Number of amended applications over two months not acted on, etc. Years ago, the top managers claimed that their push to get more work out more quickly would be accompanied by an INCREASE in quality, yet, years later, a former high official was forced to retreat from this claim, stating that quality had not increased. Nevertheless, management pushed on, ratcheting up the requirement to increase production to even higher levels. The operative word" TAKE LESS TIME ON CASES. The managers then used another approach to "encourage" an allowance over a rejection. It was tracitional for examiners to use a shorthand in making rejections; the presuption was that everyone incvolved in the application process was technically skilled and could understand how The multiple references were being applied in an obviousness rejection (35 USC 103). This, of course, could be abused by the examiner in some cases, but generally had been satisfactorily used for decades. The Patent Bar, however raised a big stink over it, saying the quality of actions were not enough to legally establish a Prima Face case of Obviousness, which is required since the PTO has the burden to prove it ("A person shall be entitled to a patent unless..."). The net result was more, verbose office actions. With no real improvements in helping to meet this added burden (Well, after years of hand writing office actions on yellow legal pads to be submitted to a typing pool, Examiners FINALLY got NT PC's to work on; this did not exist in 1991 when I left the PTO) and with less and less time to allocate to searching and analyzing prior art there was a disincentive to really goint the level of detail required to meet this new requirement. The net of all these factors: Fewer rejections on substantive grounds, more allowances, an increasing number of them on the first action, fewer appeals, happy managers pointing out how much "work" had been accomplished, happier applicants geting broader claims then they used to, and happy examiner, at lest the ones who got awards and ouststanding ratings for high production, now renamed "Quality". My friend told me of a recent briefing by a high lever manager who had just returned from a conference at an industry group, who transmitted the message "We want our patents fast, so don't waste time with searching and beeing a bulldog on broad claims let the courts take care of the dirty details of patentablity" This mindset will only changed by appointment of a reformist Commissioner willing to clean house and lay down the law; the probability of this, give the current political climate, is unfortunately zero.
  • I think people generally misunderstand the meaning of these kinds of patents. The patents are not intended to make lots of money from licensing fees. Rather, they are needed for trading with other companies with big patent portfolios.

    The trading card view of patents is often correct, but Amazon.com's lawsuit against B&N suggests that it doesn't view its patents as strictly defensive.

    Having said that, I think that companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to use the patent system to their best legal advantage. If you want to get rid of software patents (and I do agree that they are a bigger barrier than help to innovation right now in the software industry), change the laws. Pressure on Amazon is likely to just go ignored.

  • I don't understand it, even the article states, that These "affiliate programs" are commonly used by many sites so it's obviously nothing amazon has innovated. I thought that patents can't be granted for things/processes already in wide use or already published.

    Patents can't be granted for things that are in wide use when the patent is applied for. This patent was applied for years ago. I believe that Amazon was the first associates program I ever came across. Your mileage may vary.

  • Taking out a patent costs money. Given the fact that Amazon has yet to actually make any, I'd be pretty pissed if I held any of their stock and saw all these patents which are basically useless. If Amazon ever takes one to court, they'll lose. Then they're out the cost of taking out the patent and the cost of the legal fees for taking the patent to court (Which is a hell of a lot more.)

    Right now Amazon is playing the patent lotto. All they have to do is pick up one winning ticket and they get a much needed infusion of cash. It looks to me like they're betting that if they send a bunch of letters out, enough people will just cave and pay them rather than going to court. Too bad you can't pro-actively sue someone over a patent they took out (Maybe we should sue the patent office for malpractice.)

  • OK, I have a very limited understanding of how US patent law works, but I was under the impression that if other people have done / are doing what you're trying to patent, your patent is rejected. Am I right? If so, it seems the patent office is being run by 3 preschool kids and a trained mouse. The fact that we can all think of at least *one* "affiliate program" not run by Amazon should make it obvious that this patent is bogus.

    OTOH, if "other people are doing it" isn't a valid reason to reject a patent then:
    1. heaven help us
    2. yet another reason for me to oppose ALL patents

    MoNsTeR
  • I just sent this to CDNOW's Cosmic Credit program [cdnow.com] (cosmicmail@cdnow.com [mailto]):
    Amazon.com was awarded a patent recently for "affiliate programs." The text of the patent is here: http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06029141__ . This patent is, to say the least, a very bad thing. This seems to be exactly what CDNOW does with its Cosmic Credit system. So my question is, what are you going to do about this? I am a member of Cosmic Credit, am I somehow violating a patent? Or is it just CDNOW? Are you guys going to sue them, or bring them to court to show how stupid and *wrong* this patent is? Patents like this should be illegal, but that apparently doesn't mean anything to the USPTO. Affiliate Programs, just like One-Click Shopping, are obvious uses of internet technology, and should not be patentable. Please tell me you guys are doing something about this.

    _________________

  • Yeah, but at least they report things on DoubleClick at all. This way, they can at least say that they are unbiased. But I agree, it is very hypocritical -- they acknowledge that Amazon and DoubleClick engage in highly unethical practices but they still support them. And didn't CmdrTaco invent AdFu so that he wouldn't have to pay DoubleClick? Now he does. Some things about Andover's takeover were very bad.

    _________________

  • Which does birng to mind a question...

    Considering their lack of profitability, how long could they actually maintain a 'Patent battle' in the courts? (as they may innevitably have to face).
  • Companies that spam invariably turn out to be scum in general. It wasn't surprising the first time, and it isn't surprising this time either.
  • Curious - I got back a similar version except that the second paragraph contained some idiocy about how they hadn't patented cookies but merely their usage in 1-click ordering. Of course, my original message had no mention whatsoever of cookies and was about their [ab]use of software patents. I wonder when one of these large companies will realize that sending back an off-topic boiler-plate response doesn't exactly improve matters from a customer relations standpoint.
  • Your quote comes from a 1997 article. Read down and you'll see the following added from a reader in August 1999:

    Amazon has updated their program since this was published. If someone goes to amazon.com through your site and purchases the book/cd/video you recommend, you get the full percentage commission. If they purchase a different book/cd/video, you get a lower percentage commission.

    Having said that, the affiliate plan is probably still pretty bad (for the affiliate) only not as bad as you're painting it.

    Regards, Ralph.

Slashdot Top Deals

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Close