Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

BountyQuest vs. Stupid Patent Ideas 103

Posted by CmdrTaco from the your-chance-to-score-some-green dept.
Sara Winge pointed out BountyQuest which (not surprisingly) allows people to post cash rewards if people can find prior art on a patent. Tim O'Reilly has posted a bount on Amazon's notorious 1-click shopping patent. If you can produce a document describing one click purchasing that was published prior to September 12, 1997, you can earn the $10,000 bounty.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BountyQuest vs. Stupid Patent Ideas More

BountyQuest vs. Stupid Patent Ideas

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Does not end corruption (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Clearly you don't understand copyright. It has nothing to do with patents. I'm the last to defend the Cult of Scientology (or trivial patents), but copyright is something you get automatically when you create a work. That doesn't stop you or anyone else from brainwashing millions with weird stories about how we all evolved from clams and all our troubles are caused by memories of being blown up in volcanoes, but you can't plagiarize the Cult's books in order to do so.

    However, I do believe patents are good when they are non obvious and are granted to an original inventor. These people have the right to protection from the cheap knock-offs that would otherwise flood markets and destroy any chance of commercial success. In some cases that would mean there was no product X, because nobody would ever bring one to market knowing there was no money in it.

    Anyway, it's clear where you're coming from - just another clueless big-business-is-always-bad karma whore. Gee, if we could just change basic human nature and stop people liking to have money, and organize the workers to seize the means of production, and form regional soviets to oversee... oh, hang on.

  • Wanted Dead or Alive (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Murderous patent has been destroying on-line websites around Amazon in the .Com system. BountyQuest offers 10000 credits to a hunter who can stop the madness.

  • Re:The prior art does not include clicks. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    at lunch today I walked into a bar and with one nod to the barman I had my usual drink. billed to my tab.

    --andy
  • I have no objection to the money. I love money, I use it all the time :-).
    The issue I was pointing out is that this is a big enough problem that cooperative efforts would seem to be useful. Posting a single monetary reward would seem to discourage that effort; people will "hoard" their ideas in hope of being the only one to figure out the solution.

    I'm not saying it might not be successful. I just thought it was interesting in a psychological way to ponder what this might lead to.
  • I own the patent for a device that allows people to post rewards for a successful patent search. This website clearly is in violation.

  • No, I've never heard of Bloom County, Outland, or Oliver W. Jones and his Banana Computer. :)

    Seriously, though, Breathed had some great strips that pinpointed what's wrong with corporate America. One of my favorites is when Steve Dallas gets his spine broken by after taking a picture of an enraged Sean Penn he decides to sue the camera manufacturer because he couldn't get serious money from any of the other people involved (Penn, Madonna, or Opus) without getting hurt more.

    Now if we could only cut out the middleman and place a bounty on IP lawyers themselves ... :)
    -jdm

  • How come in Al Gore's reply is totally aimed at defending Prince (the guy from Minneapolis)?

    For those who have not read the actual takes from the politcal runners, Gore uses the words "the artist" alot.
  • Why not make it mouseover+click shopping? First you have to put your mouse over the buy button, which makes it change colour. Then, you have to click to confirm your order. Ok, it's not lynx/w3m friendly, but apart from that. (BTW, does anybody even _want_ 1-click shopping???)
  • > If you can produce a document describing one click purchasing that was published prior to September 12, 1997, you can earn the $10,000 bounty.

    There's an ever so slight possibility that I would be tempted to hold out for a few more zeros on that.
  • I haven't seen anyone post this [aful.org] rather amusing method of fighting bad patents and committing market manipulation at the same time.
  • Please moderate the above piece down.

    It clearly does not warrant it's high rating. The standards on Slashdot are in fact, slipping.

    I came to this newsgroup hoping to find original thoughts *actually on the subject matter* posts with additional information that not everybody knew. Instead I find this content-free post and I'm wonderring where all the moderator points went.

    Perhaps someone could have added more patent ideas that could be bountied for. Or told us about the origins of the site. Or proposed another set of bounty sites for copyrights.

    Here's one idea, just off the top of my head: "We could set up a bounty site where bounties are rewarded for good attacks against bad IP in general. One in which people are rewarded for actually giving a good reason why Microsoft or CO$ or any other big corporation should be denied their current tax-free and IP-endowed state." A bounty on the head of Microsoft and CO$, now that would be worth a lot to me. Put me in for some money (about $2000 I might spare).

    See, that wasn't so hard. An original idea. Now please moderate posts without original ideas down, like the parent post of this one.

    -Ben
  • True, some people would decide to go it alone. An individual may even succeed. But a group of people splitting up research efforts are more likely to accomplish the goal, and many other people would realise this.
  • That was actually Doonesbury where Boopsie gets a VR headset from the Home Shopping Network. She also buys BD a puppy a little while afterwards with it.
  • otherwise.. try the jetsons cartoon... if it's in there it MUST be obvious..

    //rdj
  • spiralx.... trollbusting?!?!?!?

    This day has been getting wierder by the minute.

    What'd sips do? Post to whatever the modern equivelent of the "inchfan" pirate forum is with his real login, and get it discovered and closed? Fail to moderate up another troll's posts? Break with the troll party line in some other way?

    Oh, the humour...

    john

    Resistance is NOT futile!!!

    Haiku:
    I am not a drone.
    Remove the collective if

  • What if your mouse does not have the mechanical feedback of a "click"?

    Does that even count as "clicking" on something?

    Mojotoad

  • If you can produce a document describing one click purchasing that was published prior to September 12, 1997, you can earn the $10,000 bounty.

    Hey, that's easy! Just set the date back on your PC and host a personal web server...

  • Here is what patents do:
    (from Popular Science) Some guy came up with an ultra-effecient engine, which uses two-thirds the amount of fuel used by conventional engines. He patented this device, but could not negotiate royalties with engine companies, so he just sat on the technology.
    That was 15 years ago. He still hasn't found a buyer. If this technology had not been restricted, consumers would be using less gasoline now. (This doesn't mean a third less, as users of this engine would drive more, but that's not the point) If the technology was freely usable, there would be more oil left in the world.
    Now, a researcher could easily come up with this idea, even independently. However, this patent stops all progress of research into these engines. Now we must take the long path around this invention. It's holding everybody back.

    So, why should one man be allowed to hold back the entire automotive industry with the silliness of "I thought of it first so therefore I own it"?

  • You could make the price subject to how hard the click is (as a measurement of the buyer's level of excitement).
  • Then again, a fraction of an award, shared with your collaborators, is better than no reward and your donation of time besides. I wouldn't mind $5000 out of the blue if I only had to put 2 and 2 together and call up a friend in the business.
  • Yeah right. They don't even make Tab anymore, for chrissakes.

    A man walks into a bar and says ouch.

    Pete

  • That's 84 Charing Cross Road [amazon.com] , by Helene Hanff.

    Marnanel-- ironic hyperlinks a speciality

  • From the US Patent Office: [uspto.gov]
    If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it has been in public use or on sale in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost.

    I'm not sure on the definition of `printed publication' (must it be `wide-spread' or `public'?), but there are time-limits on patent applications. They also need to update those rules (or at least that web page), as `printed publication' would not, as I read it (IANAL), include web pages or e-mail.

  • <tosses AC a pi>
  • Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, is participating in this effort yet unwilling to retract their overly broad One-Click patent that started all this uproar?

    I smell a rat. What a wonderfully devious way to feign openness and reform while getting the public to provide prior art information at cost less than the standard retainer for a patent attorney. All the better to help them fuel the defense of their ludicrous patents.

    Are we really dim enough to be taken in by this?

    I am all for any genuine effort to curb or--even better--eradicate patents. However, this will most likely encourage the further application of patents by underscoring the importance of needing to identify prior art, an irrelevant concept in a world free from patents. Wish I lived in one.

    Remember when Microsoft and SGI got together to create Fahrenheit, the new "standard" 3-D graphics
    API to succeed OpenGL and Direct3D. Everyone said that Microsoft had finally conceded and
    acknowledged the value of OpenGL. I said HA! Classic embrace and extinguish. It was just a maneuver to make Direct3D even stronger. So where is Fahrenheit today? It's gone. Big surprise.

    It is these subtle manipulations that are the most dangerous.

    Arc
    World Fusion
    SIGTERM patents, SIGHUP world
  • Actually, I specifically remember an episode that the crew was gambling credits in a "lottery" type scenario. Starfleet officers, crew and others were participating. Quark runs a bar in which he collects credits of officers as well as passers-by. It's not free, it just appears that way which is why this is a representation of what Amazon patented. Money may have been abolished, but for luxury items -- those are require credits and a transaction which is completely behind the scenes inside the ship's computer.
  • They are called replicator rations. Crew members are allowed to use the replicators to create whatever food items they want and depending on how hard the request, the more rations it takes. These ration credits are what is used when they make a request with a single command.
  • I can't recall which book, so I will have to invest the time to reread .. I vaguely remember a scene where Son comes home, and Mom is ordering groceries / dinner online, pushes a button and it either gets delivered or pops out a chute onto the dining room table...Red Planet? Farmer in the Sky? Space Cadet? Star Beast? Anyone?

    Sure could use $10k

    3C
  • amazon.com did but the patent in question came from the company after it was already very well established.

    Protecting "on-click" wasn't about protecting their investment in the invention (such as it was) but rather was about holding back their competitors imo.

  • Yes, a reward might theoretically decrease the incentive to work as a group, but this isn't some open-source OS kernel. It only takes one memo or other document showing prior art, and finding and providing that document should only require the effort of one person who is (or was) in the right place at the right time to find that document. Besides, the reward doesn't seem to have reduced the number of "Wasn't there a..." posts about vaguely remembered prior art.
  • The patent is not ... on '1-click' shopping, but on single-action-to-purchase' shopping

    Well that's fine, if a button press is one action, and a button release is a second action....


  • Basically they are further legitimizing the sytem by creating this prior-art database. Why even bother with prior-art, why not just get rid of the patent system all together and allow people to manage their own intellectual assets. Basically, if you don't want someone to know something don't announce it till your ready. And if someone finds out your 'secrets' and can create something better than what you did and faster, yes then maybe it will seem unfair, but thats competition my friend. And you will be allowed to do the same to others. Now for those leechers out there, im sure there will be a way to publically humiliate them. Not only that, but if you have spent copious amount of time understanding a concept or system you are better suited than any who may have copied you to further improve upon it. A deep understanding of the underlying concepts of a system can not be copied, that takes a lot of reading and due dilligence. No one can take that away from you so don't worry about it.
  • Gee, I'm sure no one has ever tried to find prior art on *that* patent before.
  • dunno but we're gonna have a look =D
  • i built one of the first e-commerce websites in the UK back in 1996, i can't remember when we got something like the one-click system on it though, some time in 97 anyway! i don't think we can prove smeg though...
  • Too bad that this one isn't up for a bounty - i can predate it by almost 10 years...

  • Hmmm... It [webword.com] looks to me like a close-up, very grainy picture of a person's left eye. But that's just my opinion.
  • I dunno if the 1/2 click would fly, because you still have to release the button eventually. Well, maybe not. How about "0-click" shopping? onMouseOver="javascript: submitme();" If minimizing clicks is truly innovative, eliminating them must be genius.
  • Is there a patent on BountyQuest?

    Hey, this can help get kids to read. They will spend all their times in libraries trying to get the bounty.

  • What if I patent 2 clicks? and 3, 4, 5, etc? Then anyone would be able to click to buy without paying a fee! Omar

  • OK, I'll throw in the 26 cents.

  • Sure, this is a good idea, but the problem with many of the patents is not prior art. It's that they shouldn't have been issued because they're obvious to anyone working in the field, not because someone else did it earlier.

    I agree. We implemented at least one of the patents before the date at a company I used to work for (Database copying) without ever considering it anything less than the obvious way to go and at least two other I talked about with a business partner as an obvious way of how to leverage the internet for business (Double click, Sight sound).

    One-click falls squarely in this category. Once you are logged in (via password or cookie) making a sale without request of further information is obvious. Access any intranet site. Are you asked time and time again for your password? Or rather the system keeps track of who you are and shows you only those things you can look at? This is esentially undistinguishable from One-click, and the fact that money is exchanged at the end of the transaction is not non-obvious in any way.

  • Not quite true. The concept of a patent is that in return for being allowed a monopoly on your idea for a while, you have to publish your patent for all to see, and it has to be done with enough detail that another company or person "skilled in the art" can reproduce the patented engine.

    Why bother? Because what you ARE allowed to patent yourself are new ideas that build on the original patent. Therefore, if I took that engine idea in his patent, and based on it, created yet another engine that only used 1/4 of the fuel (or whatever), I could patent that.

    I was recently the lead inventor on a software patent my former company filed. Part of the application was a section wherein we tried to predict all the improvements one could make on our idea and patent them as well, because if we didn't think of one and someone else did, they could one-up our patent and patent their own, better idea based on ours. And that's ok, as far as how the system's supposed to work.

    So, the patent process is actually supposed to spur on innovation because it forces these ideas into the public domain. Why doesn't somebody look over the engine patent and base some new idea off it that makes it even better? Then they could patent that and move things along...

  • Finding complete published documents which describe all steps can be hard.

    Finding published documents which describe each step is often easy. AFAIK, it's not prior art as such but is does go towards proving obviousness, now doesn't it.

    eg. The SightSound 1995 Patent for selling digital downloads of audio and video.

    easy to find CS documents on streaming audio and video (1991 was the earliest I found on Citeseer)

    Also easy to find documents on taking money for a digital service over a telecommunications link (Minitel in France was doing this years before).

    I think Prior Art has to demonstrate all claims - anyone fill us in on this?

    But finding these documensts shows that it was pretty bloody obvious at the time, no?

    Cheers
    James
    ps. Anyone shooting for the money could do worse than start at Citeseer [researchindex.org]

  • Is it okay if I bring it back encased in carbonite?
  • It seems the Slashdot editorial body disagrees with you [slashdot.org].
  • Who remembers anything from 1997?

    - The 2.0.x Linux kernel was all the rage.
    - M$ launched Office 97.
    - The MAME emulator was launched.
    - Michael Schumacher tried to punt Jacques Villeneuve off the final race of the F1 season and thus showed all the world what a sore loser he is.
    - OJ, of course.

  • Man, it wure would be great if I was the first guy to "invent" that endless flood-trap of popups that occur when you try to close a porn site...think of the all of that sweet lawsuit money...



  • Actually, I count three actions: Moving the mouse pointer to the button, pushing the mouse button down, releasing the mouse button. One could argue that "action" could be perpetually redefined to treat whatever the user just did as atomic. It's not inconceivable to broaden "action" to refer to the more generalized task of "buying an item on a web site (despite multiple clicks; just how driving a car could be construed as a single action despite continuous modifications of the car's input devices over a span of several minutes)" or as narrow as "applying X newtons of force to the mouse for N seconds along vector V".
  • I take that back. The patent they refer to is completely different [164.195.100.11]. So it's bogus.
  • Much of the prior art in both computer-enabled business methods and computer science will be in the existance of computer programs that were written before the priority date. However, the prior art requested in the BountyQuest postings is exclusively looking for "published documents".

    I realize that the easiest way to invalidate an existing patent is to come up with published information that exactly matches the patent. Does this mean that programs that are extremely close, and were in public use, but whose source code was never made public, should be excluded? As an example:
    I wrote a program in 1980 that accepted orders for "Think Ahead - Impeach Reagan Now" buttons (hence I can be certain of the date). I still have the source of this program available, and the program was used by "the general public" to order buttons. It was essentially one-click: you ordered the buttons, your identify was stored, and I would deliver the buttons to you and accept payment (because I either knew the person or could look them up in an on-line directory to find out where they lived, and could contact them through the system). It was a reverse auction (actually, more like a dutch auction, as I understand the term) because you specified the price you'd pay and how many buttons you'd want at that price. Later on, I (the vendor) accepted or rejected the price (as it happened, I chose to set the price the same for everyone, at the profit-maximizing level for me; I don't see anything in the priceline patent that requires that the decision as to whether to accept a price or not has to be any particular algorithm, nor that the offered price can't be lowered by the vendor). No, I didn't accept credit cards, and no, I didn't offer services to other "vendors".

    Assuming I can prove that the program existed, was used and was publically available in 1980, would that qualify as prior art for these two patents, or be useful in showing that either or both patents are "obvious" (as used in patent law)?

    I see no way that BountyQuest is enabling the consolidation of this kind of information. I'd be perfectly willing to submit such information even without the carrot of a bounty.
  • What would it need to make up a document of prior art (for this thing).

    The question really is whether it's possible to make up a fake document that doesn't look fake. this one-click shopping has been around for too long and shouldn't exist...

  • i program for an isp. we sell consumers access to information (advertisements) from third parties. this site is really about paying people to dig up information that will allow others to pirate methods of delivering advertisements to my consumers. somehow everyone in the mix makes a profit on the deal... how funny....
  • "It is the same exact technology, except amazon links the cookie to CC#, a brilliant idea I might add."

    While "one click shopping" sounds like a good idea to Joe AOL, those of us who are concerned with secruity realize that this requires storing user's credit card information on a central, easily accessible server. This poses a serious threat to attacks from hackers/crackers.

  • Are you also so critical on grammar as well? Bet you're really fun to be around.


    Haven't you realised it by now? If you need further proof, look at this comment, in which he cocks up his HTML like he always used to, and is still posting the same sort of rubbish as before.



    This better for you? Good grief you think some people would grow up.

  • Hmmm getting money which is the means of bartering and survival in this world is a bad thing? And people are *not* going to compete because of this? How do you figure?
  • Why do people need to bribe others to get information that is most likely out there already?


  • Very true, very true. You would think that certain people would grow up after certain experiances, but no, what do they do? Carry on going, that's what.



    I refuse to toe the part line on slashdot or anywhere else. As far as being some other poster you have no definable evidence to prove or disprove your statements.

    I for one find such presumptious rambling like that little troll faq to be a laugh. Any sociologist could have determined such "facts" in roughly an hour or less.

    A nickle's worth of free advice for the future. If you wish to critize my statements do so with some logical base for argument and then we will talk.
  • You see in America and supposedly in the majority of the world at large people have a right to their opinions. Where I come from research is done with the goal of determining information and with it honesty.
  • You know, where Opus puts on teh VR gear, points somewhere, and buys a forklift?

    There must be some older /.'ers that remember Bloom County, IIRC Berkeley Breathed really incorporated Open Source ethos into his cartooning, before Open Source had a name (cf. his figures in the clouds strip).
  • And then you have the option of pressing the space bar, or enter, or whatever else the browser might let you do to select the link. (IE is enter)

    Anyone browse Amazon with Lynx?

  • Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly? Together? No fur flying and blood gouting?

    Okey-doke. Lemme make a quote for ya. "You know runaway patents have gotten really scary when even rich men oppose them."

  • Some company uses this to search for prior art for their own stuff? Seems to me it might be cheaper than highering a couple of patent lawyers...

  • That's the problem with proof. Information on the web is so fleeting, pages change daily, and there are very few ways to know what a page said yesterday let alone 3 years ago.

    The best thing you could have is dated backups, though I doubt those stand up in court. Very easy to fake a date.

    What would it take to prove prior art?

  • Didn't Amazon.com get started in some 'crazy inventors' garage?
  • The problem with business system patents is that you can take a business system that's been going on without a computer for centuries, make a single change of using a computer to perform it, and that is granted a patent. There is no real invention and no patent should be granted.

    Uh, right.

    This is the Computer, which Changes Everything, is the source of the New Economy and the New Intellectual Property and the New Licensing and the New Social Paradigm and the New Media and the New Politics, right? This is what you're talking about?

    Given that this is what you're talking about, and, from what I hear, none of the tried-and-true wisdom of the offline world works in the online world: what, exactly, is so trivial about putting a computer into the process?

    Bruce

  • How about the zero click. You just hover your mouse over the button long enough to trigger the action. Wait! Never mind. I didn't say anything. Hello, Patent office...
  • Yes.

    BountyQuest Launches Patent Reform! Featuring: * Charles Cella * Jeff Bezos * Tim O'Reilly This is the story of how a group of people who share a vision of a market-based patent reform, including the Time Man of the Year, one of the world's leading computer book publishers, and Bounty Quest's CEO (that's me, Charles Cella) launched a product that we believe will * revolutionize the way people search for high value information * transform prior-art searches related to the validity of a patent. * release the value of untapped knowledge all over the world. The story is just beginning, but if you love knowledge and want to harness it to change things for the better, come along... we think you'll enjoy the ride! Read on to learn more of the story...

  • As was bought up before (weeks ago), you can get prior art on a patent even if that came from publicly distributed literature. One company could not get a patent for a waterbed because (I believe) Heinlien already envisioned it in one of his books. I would suspect that comics would be usable too since they are dated and copyrighted, and therefore a claim of prior art can be validated.

  • The problem with patents is that something that is filed way back when may seem mundane at filing time, but suddenly years later, is a big thing. The BT patent on linking is a great example, since they filed it before the WWW was invented, as innocent as it was then, but now is threatening tons of royalities.

    To this end, any questional patent needs to be researched effectively. In a project like bountyquest, this means that any bountied prior art should be given equal priority, even if one is as important as the Amazon One-Click and another is the use of an animated gif to submit a form (which may or may not be patented, just the first example of something that might seem utter useless now). Placing more money on one patent than other would lead to people activity grabbing the bigger patent rewards and ignoring the small ones that 5 years from now, could bite back.

    Ten thousand is certainly NOT an unreasonable number for the average trouble-making patent, and given the breadth of the site and general ecommerce field, is probably about as much as they can afford to give away without being a loss-leader. It's also enough incentive for anyone to get involved ($1000 may be low to some folks).

  • Posting a reward is only going to lessen the chance that people will put their heads together and find a provable instance of prior art. Isn't the greed to be the only one to find it going to make it unlikely that people will collaborate on this?

    I mean, how un-open source can you get? Think about it...

  • This one would require special hardware: if 1/2 click is the act of holding the button down, what about the part where the button is going down but has not reached its lowest position yet? An apparatus comprising a computer system and an input device ('mouse'), whose triggering device ('button') is sensitive to acceleration.

    Even better? Fraction of a click shopping! This one requires an analog mouse button. The sale is triggered at a variabble amount of pressure.


    --

  • Not really. It requires the storing of a tolken that represents a credit card number on a central, easily accessible server. Transactions can be dumped from this central server every so often, allowing batch processing of orders, where tolkens are matched with the actual credit card numbers offline in the course of the processing.

    Of course, this doesn't allow for real-time processing of orders, but it has been my experience that most online transactions are not performed in real-time anyways.

    This would prevent en masse abuse of credit card numbers if this central server is compromised (like the CDUniverse incident last year). Without a better understanding of the protocol developed to process orders, I can only guess, though.

    I'm writing a paper for review on this subject, based on systems I have developed. I'll post a link to it once it's completed (although I'm sure my hosted site can't handle the Slashdot effect).

  • No sense of humor?

    DUH must be a word they use in the Windows world. I'm not familiar with it.
  • For example the reformulated gasoline patent stands to give Unocal over a BILLION in royalties
    and interest if it passed the supreme court.
    $10,000 for a bounty- hogwash.

  • That reformulated gasoline patent was absolutely bizzare. And I'm currently designing reformulated gasoline production facilities. The claims were basically a set of specifications with no real novel method of achieving them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised a patent was granted for this. After all the weird computer related patents brought to light, it's odd to see one for such a mature technology.

  • Well, in the pharmaceutical industry the major abuses occur through blocking of any development at all of certain things. The pharmaceutical companies develop something, patent it, go through a profit analysis and decides there isnt a big enough market for the substance to be profitably developed to a finished product. They still retain the patent however, and for one reason or the other may choose to block development by other corporations or public funded projects.

    For that type of development I'd rather see a 'develop a product within a certain time or lose the patent' kind of rule.
  • Darn, I thought it was some multiplayer RPG involving Boba Fett.
  • Let's say someone does the legwork, finds a company that was using one-click shopping before Amazon, and wins the 10,000 clams. Why couldn't that company then rightfully patent it, and we're back where we started? Perhaps that company can then make a kajillion dollars (and their attorneys a nice contingency fee) charging Amazon for back-royalties for infringement, like the guy who invented the delay circuit for windshield wipers.

    Can BountyQuest explain why this can't become just another game where the lawyers win? I'm not pointing fingers at the distinguished staff at BountyQuest, but have they unintentionally fallen into a "Break SDMI" sucker job? The real goal should be not to prove that Amazon (or any other particular company, deep pockets or not) doesn't deserve the patent, but that the concept is not patentable. Perhaps BountyQuest should consult their own attorneys about the patentability of a SETI@Home analog for legal research.
  • Bust Patents [bustpatents.com] -- "Should the Patent and Trademark Office be issuing 20,000+ new software patents every year? Is there that much novel and unobvious, unpublished, innovation in the software industry? Are biotechnology patents really avoiding these problems, especially as biotechnology patents incorporate more and more computer technology? Probably not, and thus your company or law firm will need resources and tools to cope with the growing legal problems associated with tens of thousands of patents of questionable validity being issued every year. If you are a victim of these patents, or want to make sure you don't victimize others with patents of dubious validity, these Web pages will help your efforts."

    Bounty Hunter E-Commerce Experiment [webword.com] -- "I'm going to keep this simple. Look at this picture [webword.com]. Now that I have your interest, here is the scoop. I will give $25 to the first person who can correctly identify the object. You don't get any clues and you have to be exactly right."

    John S. Rhodes
    WebWord.com [webword.com] -- Industrial Strength Usability
  • Because if so, then there are some questions as to why they are searching for prior art.

    Once an inventor has recieved a patent, he/she might ask the patent office for a "reexamination" of his/her invention once he/she realizes that there might be some prior art existing to invalidate his/her invention.

    He/she can submit an application for "reexamination" to the patent office along with the prior art, and the inventor's argument as to why it is not prior art and the patent office can then decide whether or not the patent is still valid. This is a cheap way of strengthening a patent as when a patent has proceeded through a "reexamination" it is often considered to have more validity by courts.

    Anyway, just a thought.
  • has anyone been nailed for being a bitch yet? that's the sort of morale boost that'd be good pr too
    --
    Peace,
    Lord Omlette
    ICQ# 77863057
  • The problem is not that one-click shopping has been done before. The problem is that software patents should not be granted period.

    What happens if no one ever finds prior art for one-click shopping? Haven't we then basically proven that Amazon's patent is valid?

    We need to focus on fixing the patent system. Then the these patents will automatically be invalidated.
  • The problem with that argument is defining "obvious". Which is my excuse for a math joke:

    The math prof turns away from his thickly scribbled blackboard to his frantically scribbling students: "Now, it's obvious that..." He hesitates. Turns back to the blackboard. Scribbles for another five minutes. Finally turns back to his students: "Yes! I was right! It is obvious!"

    __________

  • i think that you're right, and it's also a sign of a larger problem in our society. everyone is so afraid of lawsuits, that we've legislated common sense out of existence...
  • Actually I had the same idea, and posted it to Slashdot. Oddly enough I had come up with the idea a few minutes before reading Slashdot and an article was just posted regarding the Amazon patent.

    Unfortunately someone thought it was a troll and moderated it down to -1, and its now archived.

    Here is the basic idea, buy a product only using the mouse down message. It is clearly more efficient that previous single or multiple clicking techniques (1/2 the time required). I suggested that someone (perhaps the EFF) patent the technique and place the patent into the public domain.

    Note that the half click technique ignores the mouse up event therefore it is compatible with the patented one-click process yet because it uses a different process and is not covered by their patent (patents protect processes, not physical things, however our patent lawyers have found some really creative ways of stretching this).

  • sure, the 1-click patent may be something thats totally stupid, but, lets consider what happens when a person with some form of disability uses the computer for online shopping?

    does the notion of using an accessibility feature (of Win9x or whatever) have any meaning here? there is no "clicking" being performed. the purchase could be issued with a pressure sensor/voice recognition/brain wave tap.. who knows? i am no lawyer, but surely these types of issues should mess up the pot :)

  • EASY!!! Star Trek - "Computer, Tea, Earl Grey" (Score:3)

    by SL33Z3 ( 104748 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @07:04AM (#696807)
    For years Star Trek has allowed clients to order whatever they want with a single command. Knowing the clients STORED voice print, it knows who's credits to charge for the item. (No, items are NOT free onboard the enterprise). Sounds dumb, but Star Trek replicators can "order" anything" with a single command based on stored information about the client/person requesting the item. The original series ran from 1966-1969. ST The Next Generation ran from 1987-1994. Deep space nine was from 1993-1999. ST Voyager has run from 1995 to now. All of these (I think with the exception of the first series) showed people making purchases in this way.

    If I win, donate my money to EFF.

  • no longer useful? (Score:3)

    by dkh ( 125857 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @05:39AM (#696808)
    It is an interesting idea at least.

    It does conjur up visions of the old west.

    The need for such a site is indicative of the failings of the patent office and perhaps the concept of patents in general.

    Do patents really serve a viable purpose anymore? It would be interesting to know what percentage of patents are held by struggling "inventors" and what percentage are held by huge multinationals who really don't need an inducement to invent. Their existance is dependent on their abilities to perform/provide servics/things to generate profit.

    Perhaps we should leave patents as they are for individuals but shorten their duration by more then half for large companies. (perhaps something inbetween for small entities)

    In the realms of technology and especially software the patents seem to hurt more then help.

    Is it as bad in other fields? What about materials engineering and genetics? Are the same kinds of abuses occuring with the same frequency as in the technology field?

  • Re:Sloth in research? no efficency (Score:3)

    by bmongar ( 230600 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @05:10AM (#696809)

    The body of information is too big to research by yourself. There is no place you can go and see what technology everyone came up with. If you want a piece of information that is not readily indexed in an "In a nutshell" book, information like did anyone ever do this, ask the public, they have the widest knowledge base.

    This isn't sloth this is efficency.

  • soda pop machine! (Score:3)

    by oconnorcjo ( 242077 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @05:53AM (#696810) Journal
    I remember in the 1980's they had these machines where you put quaters into it and pressed a button (just once) and out came a can of soda pop from the bottom of it. It wasn't over the internet though and you did not have to pay for "shipping and handling" but the delivery happened in seconds!

  • Excellent. (Score:4)

    by pb ( 1020 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @05:05AM (#696811)
    Oh, that's beautiful! Let me know who gets the check.

    However, here's the best one:

    $14,159
    POST: 10.18.2000
    EXP: 1.18.2001

    BountyQuest's Business Method

    An internet-based, broadcast reward service for finding prior art relevant to the validity of a patent.

    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
  • Sure, this is a good idea, but the problem with many of the patents (at least in the computers section) is not prior art. It's that they shouldn't have been issued because they're obvious to anyone working in the field, not because someone else did it earlier.

  • Stupid. (Then, how many patents aren't?) (Score:4)

    by Parity ( 12797 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @07:18AM (#696813)
    The patent is not, actually, if you read it, on '1-click' shopping, but on single-action-to-purchase' shopping.
    You could patent button-press shopping (that's what the first half of a click is, a press-event; the second half is a release-event; your OOP library may vary in terminology. ;)) , however you'd have to cite the Amazon patent (because it covers in general, any single event to initiate a purchase, including a mouse-button press), and you'd have to license the amazon patent before you could even use your patent.
    This also applies to one-word-voice-activated shopping, 'point-and-buy' gesture-recognition-shopping, etc, etc.
    Amazon's -PATENT- may be stupid, but their Patent -Attorneys- are not, and they covered the bases.


    --Parity

  • A great joke! (Score:4)

    by Rayban ( 13436 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @06:29AM (#696814) Homepage
    Look at the bounty for the patent describing the BountyQuest patent for $14,159.

    This brings the total from $300,000 to $314,159. Does that number look familiar? :)

  • I have prior art! (Score:4)

    by Will The Real Bruce ( 235478 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @05:17AM (#696815) Homepage
    Amazon.com's patent directly conflicts with my more general patent on "1-Click-Credit-Card-Fraud'.

    Now give me my money.
  • Remember the book (I hope I get the title right), 34 Charing Cross Road? I must have read it 20 years ago. If I remember it correctly, it's about the relationship that a an American customer has with the staff of a British bookstore during World War II. It's in the form of their letters to each other, which of course include business transactions - although the customer gets to know the people in the bookstore, he's writing to buy books.

    The point of this is that the people in the bookstore know the customer and will send him what he asks for in a letter. Although he usually repeats his address in a letter, he doesn't have to - they know it. They know his payment history. This is essentially the "one-click" business system, without the clicks.

    The problem with business system patents is that you can take a business system that's been going on without a computer for centuries, make a single change of using a computer to perform it, and that is granted a patent. There is no real invention and no patent should be granted.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • Does not end corruption (Score:5)

    by Benjamin Shniper ( 24107 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @05:14AM (#696817) Homepage
    This does not fix the basic problem of too few patent clerks going over a growing number of bad patents. I also don't think that this will solve problems like the Church of Scientology's copyright on all information about their cult. Nor the growing amount of information being stolen from the public domain for a very long 17 years by corporations demanding everyone else standardize on their products (like Microsoft).

    Large corporations like it this way - small businesses are more or less excluded from the patent trade and they can have thousands of jargon-filled patents over their section of the economy. It's a government enforced monopoly system that rewards larger corporations over innovation. What we need is fewer patents. Far far fewer, and better decisions up front.

    And who said the patent people have to pay for it all up front? How does this help poor inventers who go all out for their invention and don't always have money for patents (and who therefore have to sell their ideas to GREEDY investors who are more interested in finding a big pile of money than using the invention as intended)?

    -Ben

  • Stupid or smart? (Score:5)

    by AtariDatacenter ( 31657 ) on Wednesday October 18, 2000 @05:27AM (#696818)
    I don't know if this is really stupid, or really smart. But what if someone patentened the 1/2 click? No, this isn't a troll. Read on.

    If a "one click" is defined as clicking on the mouse button and releasing it (as is needed for any web browser), then a "half click" could be defined simply as the act of clicking on an object (without regard to releasing or not).

    Make a javascript a submit button, and viola! You've got 1/2 click shopping. Amazon's patent becomes irrelevant.

    [Note: Devil's in the details, tho'.]

Slashdot Top Deals

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.

Close