Amazon Seeks '2-Click' Shopping Cart Patent 223
theodp writes "Looks like Amazon's really getting back in the patent game. Today, the USPTO published Amazon's patent application for conducting electronic commerce using multiple shopping carts. Using the invention, a shopper purchasing items for five relatives can set up one shopping cart for each relative, a shopper purchasing books for Johnny can name one of his shopping carts "Johnny's books", and a shopper can add items to multiple shopping carts with only two mouse clicks." This might also be a good time to point out to those who didn't see it the first time AOL's patent claims regarding "Instant Message" technology; you may be able to think of some prior art.
AOL Prior Art (Score:2, Informative)
Re:AOL Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)
I do also remember using "write" on Xenix. That was annoying, we pretty much all had "write n" in out .login.
Re:AOL Prior Art (Score:2)
Re:AOL Prior Art (Score:2)
Does this preclude the... (Score:3, Funny)
Click, click... pirouette, double-click, sashay?
Triple-click, behind the back, no-look double-pump click?
Re:Does this preclude the... (Score:2)
Click, click... pirouette, double-click, sashay?
Triple-click, behind the back, no-look double-pump click?"
Nothin but Net!
Re:Does this preclude the... (Score:3, Funny)
Just so you know, the click is releasing the safety on a pistol aimed at the patent officer who approves these idiotic Amazon patents. You can probably figure out the rest.
-FF
Inventive to the max (Score:3, Funny)
Instant Message Patent--Zephyr (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Instant Message Patent--Zephyr (Score:3, Informative)
We used to achieve this by use of the advanced commands
"who" which gave you a list of who was on the server. This refreshed every few minutes (sys admins didn't like the number being too low) then you could just use write. Everyone specified a write terminal and you just used that.
Now when we got TWO servers we had to modify the script to use rwho and unfortunately there wasn't an rwrite (is there now?) which was okay because we got X displays anyway.
So in X you start ONE instance of the application, and when people log-on you send a request to the main server (i.e. you send a special email) which fires up a window on your display. The email contained the name of the person, you could then do lots of things including writing to each other.
Oh and the application was called Emacs and we were trying to do a group project.
Pity we didn't realise that we could patent "Open on New Display".
So if its single server using thin clients then there is lots of prior art, if its multiple applications being aware when new people join there is, for me, and even better one.
Jini [jini.org] is all about joining federations, annoucing you are there, requesting services, starting conversations et al. This is surely proof that it fails the "not obvious" test as someone has written a whole environment that can do, in effect, IM between people, computers, printers, machines, PDAs etc etc etc.
I've now just decided to patent syntax highlighting.
The wonders of education.... (Score:2)
Then along comes a Sociology student like yourself to depress me.
I'm going to patent... (Score:1)
Next week on Slashdot: (Score:5, Funny)
We at AOL want you to not have to do *anything* to receive spam.
Re:Next week on Slashdot: (Score:3, Interesting)
If AOL would patent pop-up advertising, it would make all other pop-up ads in violation of patent, and AOL could demand all the money from any spammers who use pop-ups.
Could that work? I mean, IANAL, but that would rock if only AOL could do pop-ups, or at least we'd know that AOL charged an arm and a leg to let anyone else do it.
Next on the list: Flash ads, and e-mail spam!
Re:Next week on Slashdot: (Score:2)
Assuming that AOL invented popups (which is a stretch in of itself), they could not patent it because it's been disclosed to the public for >1 year.
Brief primer on patents. [frompatenttoprofit.com]
Re:Next week on Slashdot: (Score:2)
well of course (Score:2)
Re:well of course (Score:2)
Grandma (Score:3, Funny)
When I go shopping for my dear old grandma I use 2 carts, one for me and one for granny.
However, my grandma isn't called Johnny, so this probably doesn't count.
Re:Grandma (Score:2)
It is this fundemental idea that just adding a bit of technicality to something that is commonly done somehow makes it completely new/novel & so patentable. This is what needs to be attacked, rather than the stream of pitiful patents by money grabbing sharks.
The law makers need to be reminded that the purpose of a patent was for the common good, not to line the pockets of those that make political donations -- darn, I have just destroyed my own argument!
Why don't they just patent the mouse? (Score:2, Funny)
That would make about as much sense as this.
Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a slightly modified text of an email I sent to the author of the news.com article on AOL's patent on IM.
FYI, with regards to this article, I don't know how strong this patent is because of existing prior art. If you look at this article [technologyreview.com] in MIT's Technology Review, you will see that a form of IM called zephyr with buddy lists as well as chat-room style broadcasts existed since 1988. It would be great if you could also post this information in a future update to let everyone know.
Zephyr exists till today (and we here at Carnegie Mellon as well as students at MIT) use it on a daily basis. Even emacs supports zephyr
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:5, Insightful)
What matters is the actual creation of the thing. Anyone can have an "idea".
AOL's patent claims are, of course, absurd. Any patent claims on such an obvious functionality as the basic IM features is absurd. What they want is the right to retroactively stop all other IM services to fill their coffers with $$$.
No the idea is what counts. (Score:2)
That's not true. In a patent dispute, the important act is invention, not making a product. I believe TV patents were granted prior to it actually working (but I could be wrong on that). AOL would have to show that someone came up with the idea (though dated notebooks and designs) prior to someone who worked on Zephry. OTOH, I'm sure Zephyr didn't just appear from the ether -- there are probably papers / presentations which predate the release of the product.
This one is pretty embarassing for the PTO in my opinion.
Re:No the idea is what counts. (Score:2)
Simply having some "idea" and not bringing it to fruitation doesn't count for shit. I have an idea about a perfect User Interface which intelligently predicts what the user does/wants, and re-configures itself dynamically based around that. That doesn't count for shit: only the actual implementation of that idea.
Coming up with an idea for something that could be useful is easy and not worth rewarding. Actually doing the work to make that idea a reality is.
Re:No the idea is what counts. (Score:2)
First, only the rich can get patents.
Second, its fraudulently based on "when the patent office finds out" not when the idea was brought to fruitation. Someone comes up with an idea, but doesn't report it to the USPO, and somehow someone who later comes up with the same idea and reports it has a patent right over it? Nonsense.
Thirdly, the entire idea of patents is to encourage invention. Invention means things actually being invented: ideas being implemented in reality. I can come up with an idea to make a UFO, that doesn't mean it should be patentable.
This is a bunch of bullshit. The person who first implements the idea should get patent rights. At the very least, AOL simply having proof that they "had a working idea" prior to anything else shouldn't prevent others from offering IM services, because those others were working on that when they had no idea AOL had such a patent.
The entire patent system is based on unconstitutional and fraudulent retro-active action. This is a case of AOL trying to retro-actively prevent anyone else from offering IM services, even though IM services have been around before AOL's IM and have been around for quite some time (common) now.
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:2)
I agree that the claims are probably as groundless the 1-click stuff, but simply asserting that something existed in 1988 that implemented the same functionality does not disprove that AOL may have had it prior to that.
Yes, and... (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:2)
On that note, Project Athena, the umbrella project for zephyr, was kicked off in 1983. I have actually read some of the zephyr code (oh yes, GAIM also supports zephyr) and my guess is that the project was definitely started way before 1988. There is a very reasonable chance that if someone went through the code in detail, there would be information dating it prior to AOL being founded.
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:2)
Of course, this is all pretty academic. In slashback someone showed a PLATO system that was essentially IM in 1973 or so. That is pretty incontravertable prior art.
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:5, Funny)
Couldn't the USPTO application process be simplified by consulting the emacs docs for every single patent application? If emacs can't do whatever the patent is for, it's practically a certainty that the idea is new.
Emacs and D.E.Knuth (Score:2)
Make all patent examiners learn emacs, read Knuth and run unix and half the patent claims in the computer field would be discarded for prior art.
Re:Prior Art for Instant Messaging! (Score:2, Interesting)
How about RFC 821, published in Aug 1982, section 3.4 on the SEND command:
SEND <SP> FROM:<reverse-path> <CRLF>
The SEND command requires that the mail data be delivered to the user's terminal. If the user is not active (or not accepting terminal messages) on the host a 450 reply may returned to a RCPT command. The mail transaction is successful if the message is delivered the terminal.
As far as I can tell, no one impliments these commands... but they are in the RFC and they sound a lot like instant messages to me.
Re:DECnet "phone" is closer prior art (Score:2)
However it didn't do "buddies", and had no way of watching out for people other than doing a directory on a node (gets a list of logged-on users with PHONE enabled). It was instant and it certainly was persistent.
patent prior art? (Score:3, Funny)
New patent (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:more news today: (Score:2)
I'd realy like to know what the "Broad wording" of the patent exactly is, and how I can get around it with my own IM software.
I will own all of you (Score:3, Funny)
You know, just a couple at first, then as realization dawns, a flurry of hammers upon the mouse!
No! You infernal machine!*click* *Click*
You *CLICK* WILL *CLICK CLICK* PAAAAAAAYYYY!
*CLICK CLICK* CLICK *CLICK CLICK CLICK* AHHHHHHHH!
I'd like to thank Microsoft for giving me the idea...grr
What is the difference between... (Score:2)
The fact that the user can have multiple baskets is not new. What seems to be new is for the customer to be able to name their own basket.
What's next, being able to patent dividers into a single shopping cart where products can be grouped? (sort of like an ICQ contact list).
This is getting stupid... Sure its creative, but I think less then 5% of customers will use this.
And I shall file... (Score:5, Funny)
"A method, given an N-click shopping method, to convert it into an N+1 click shopping method."
Thus, I shall be able to stymie Amazon's 3, 4, 5
MWHAHAHAHAH!
Re:And I shall file... (Score:3, Funny)
Alright I'm getting ahead of the game. (Score:3, Funny)
Woohoo! No more multiple credit cards for me, time to sue people and make money!
Already Been Thought of, Still Patentable? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone actually know when an idea like this is patentable? Is it the prototype stage or just when the idea comes and the papers are filed? Could I have actually filed the papers a month ago? Or does the fact that the papers were published today mean that they filed it much longer before I thought of it (1-2 months ago)?
Just wondering, even if justified, I lack the resources to fight such a thing.
I just think having a patent would be kind of cool. Of course, I also spend half my day figuring out how to eliminate my own job at work, so . .
And the IM patent: I wonder of the
I don't have the whole answer (Score:4, Insightful)
The burden of searching for prior art should be on the applicant. We wouldn't simply take their word for it, but hold them accountable. If the prior art was easy enough to find, make it a punitive civil matter. And this is a perfect place for a jury, since John Q. Basementinventor has a little less resources to investigate prior art than someone like Amazon.
Obviously this is fraught with more problems than the actual USPTO, but the idea is there. Somthing (like money, or the fear of losing it) to keep people from filing all these frivilous patents.
Re:I don't have the whole answer (Score:2)
There should be penalties if they do not do this in a timely/honest/... manner.
This will never happen: if it did, lawyers would make less money - so this will never get voted in.
Obfuscation (Score:5, Insightful)
29. A computer system for conducting electronic commerce, comprising: a data component for storing information relating to a plurality of electronic commerce contexts for a user, the information relating to electronic commerce conducted while in that electronic commerce context; a component that receives from the user a selection of one of the plurality of electronic commerce contexts; and a component that, after receiving the selection of the one of the plurality of electronic commerce contexts, conducts electronic commerce with the user and stores information relating to the conducted electronic commerce in association with the selected electronic commerce context.
They are obviously trying to confuse a non-technical reader (like, say, someone in the patent office). All these words to say that you get to click on one of your shopping carts to check-out.
They can't even say "shopping cart". It's the all important, and brand new, "electronic commerce context." Ooooo.
Re:Obfuscation (Score:2)
Re:Obfuscation (Score:2)
Tim
Re:Obfuscation (Score:2)
Instead of just getting an n-th click patent, they should
next try for the internet itself...
Given a little reworking of the above quoted piece...
A computer system for conducting electronic commerce, comprising:
A computer system for managing connections to a specific service, comprising:
a data component for storing information relating to a plurality of electronic commerce contexts for a user,
a program for storing the information about all of a given user's connections to the service, for all users.
the information relating to electronic commerce conducted while in that electronic commerce context;
and for logging the contents of all past sessions for a given user;
a component that receives from the user a selection of one of the plurality of electronic commerce contexts;
and a program which, given the selection of one of a user's connections, and passes it to
and a component that, after receiving the selection of the one of the plurality of electronic commerce contexts,
a program which, after being given the connection,
conducts electronic commerce with the user
proceeds to provide the service to the user
and stores information relating to the conducted electronic commerce
and logs information related to the session
in association with the selected electronic commerce context.
along with information on the connection itself.
I could file a patent and cover phone systems, security/authenication systems, PAM, HTTP, TCP,
oh, and e-commerce.
they should file my version, much more general, and more profitable!
[the preceding was brought to you by the campaign to mock corporate america]
Re:Obfuscation (Score:2)
The page you made.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Multiple carts lets Amazon refine its recommendations engine. Before, if you bought something as a gift, it drove your recommendations, even if it wasn't something you personally would want. Now, Amazon can generate recommendations for other people based on what you buy them or even add to their cart.
Electronic world imitating real world (Score:3, Funny)
Anyways, I saw several people with more than one shopping cart. They were hauling two shopping carts around the store, barely fitting through the aisles. The two shopping carts were necessary because they were purchasing gifts for several people in their households. The gifts were large. Upon closer inspection, it appeared that one shopping cart was for girls (everything was pink, such as Barbie dolls), and the other one was for an adult (a BBQ grill).
There ya go, Walmart customer #98981663711 is what inspired this lunacy. Or maybe that customer got the idea from those genious Amazon'ians ?
Why not just take it all the way? (Score:2)
claimed from when? (Score:2)
i don't know the first thing about proving prior art, but i happen to know i came up with the idea of saving multiple shopping carts w/ names roughly around 1998
proving it is going to require showing some spaghetti that i'm really not that proud of though ;)
Using the Get Smart model? (Score:5, Funny)
*silence*
Would you believe two click buying?
*silence*
Would you believe five clicks and and clack?
Two shopping baskets... (Score:2)
And someone tell me how this is different from "save for later" but with "save for later" detailed as "Johnny" ?
Hell doesn't everyone already do that ?
Perhaps I should patent the way I sit on the couch (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps I should apply for the way I sit on the couch. You know leaning to one side with one leg up on the ottoman. I could then sue anyone who sits in anyway similar.
Patents shouldn't be granted for such general and vague concepts, period. Greed. Greed. Greed. Can we all say greed?
-Slashdot Junky
Re:Perhaps I should patent the way I sit on the co (Score:5, Funny)
As a prelude to the 'one cheek sneak'.
Covering their butts (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon is playing smart, I think.
Not too terribly long ago I read about some guy that is a patent lawyer that is going around patenting processes that the actual inventors have not bothered to file patents on, and then demanding license and royalty fees. eBay is one of his targets, and he patented their process of concluding auctions in the manner that eBay was doing. (Anybody got a link for that?) Now he's trying to extort from eBay, based on this after-the-fact patent.
If Amazon does not patent this idea, they're likely to have the same kind of crap done to them. No, I don't think they should have to patent their process like that, but if it keeps them from getting sued, they're being smart, not greedy.
Will they sue others using one-click purchasing? Dunno. That's a different issue.
Re:Covering their butts (Score:3, Informative)
If Amazon were to patent everything it does, and then publish the fact that they won't enforce the patents, the would would be a better place.
Re:Covering their butts (Score:2, Interesting)
You almost have a point there. If they were to license their patents for, say, $1 USD, I'd tend to agree with you. However, they not only patent their ideas, they turn around and sue those who are infringing on their IP. They're not just "covering their butts." They're either trying to maintain a "competitive advantage" or exploit a new "revenue stream."
Re:Covering their butts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Covering their butts (Score:2)
Actually, they most certainly CAN be sued. They would probably win, but when you get into a court of law, anything can happen. Any sane CEO in the world would want as much legal protection on his side as possible. The argument that "we're pretty sure we'd win a lawsuit anyway, so we don't need a patent," isn't going to fly with investors.
Much as I would like to be filled with righteous anger at Amazon, it's really not their fault. They're just taking the rational course of action, given the insane patent process.
Jeez, I wanted this feature 2 years ago... (Score:2)
Grrr...
Winton
p.s. I wonder if they added the collaborative filtering using multiple shopping carts
Real life prior art (Score:2, Interesting)
My wife and I go to the supermarket. We each get a cart. We call mine 'groceries', we call hers 'this weekend's picnic'.
At checkout, we charge both carts to my credit card.
Amazon, get real!
Anti-competitive? (Score:2)
Perhaps that investors in Amazon are getting a bit weary of the fact that they still cannot turn a profit, after, how many years has amazon been around? Five? Amazon has gotten NONE of my business since their first little charade with the 1-click crap. This pretty much puts it to the point of going over to Jeff Bezos' house and flogging his Mother with a clue-by-four for not teaching him the difference between right and wrong.
Greedy Fscker, I hope you get hit by a bus.
The n-Click Shopping cart Patent (Score:2)
Else in 5 years we will still be seeing "Amazon Seeks '10-Click, three Jumps and a Crtl-F' Shopping Cart Patent" headlines here.
Re:The n-Click Shopping cart Patent (Score:2)
Re:The n-Click Shopping cart Patent (Score:2)
Two articles after the "10-click, Ctrl-F and Three Jumps shopping cart patent sought by Amazon" article.
Tack enough clicks on there... (Score:2)
Think I'll patent 'four-clicks and above' and put a cap on this crap.
I had IM prior art in Hypercard on a Mac in '93 (Score:2)
I guess it worked a bit more like a chat room, but it was still a form of instant messaging and I think it could be considerer prior art.
Now if I could only find which 3.5" floppy the source is located on...
I think what we really need is for the Patent Office to publish the patent BEFORE approval to allow anybody with prior art to come forward, say within 7 days of it being posted. There are certainly enough vigilant geeks to keep an eye on what would be posted, have a story here so we could dig up any existing prior art on stuff like this and shoot it down before the patent was even granted.
First IM prior art that comes to my head... (Score:2)
But, long before ICQ there was IRC and you could do everything in IRC that you could do in ICQ. You could use scripts to see who was on the server (or just have all your buddies in the same room),
I would like to say a few other things about ICQ.
Why the hell is it that now, 5+(?) years later, it is still a free limited time BETA? Im nominating ICQ for the longest beta in the history of mankind.
Also, ICQ still does something that YIM, AIM, MSNIM all do not do -- store messages for when a user comes online. I switched to trillian pro so I could consolidate Aim, MSN, and ICQ. At times I miss my ICQ client but since Trillian saves logs in plaintext, I will never go back. However, it drives me nuts when Im trying to get ahold of someone on MSN or AIM and they are not online. Seriously, there needs to be a trillian plugin that holds a message on my box until a person comes online and sends it automatically for me. Grr. Even with trillian I still try to get people to use ICQ as the prefered medium for this very damn reason.
Onilne UI patents.... (Score:2)
I jsut think that any people who come up with new and improved methods for interacting with the virtual environment (with regards to clicking and using a keyboard) should hope that those improvements are used all overthe place - to better the online experience as a whole. not just some single sites purchasing applications....
also, having a box labelled "Johnny's crap" doesnt sound as though it should be a patentable idea - even if its in a virtual box.
Maybe they should just patent the whole idea of buying things for other people online - or maybe sorting items by various criteria.
Congratulations (Score:2)
phew, thanks to foresight (Score:2)
Hmmm...from IBM VM/CMS days... (Score:2, Informative)
That's over BITNET.
Then there's the old CHAT system. Then came RELAY. Then came IRC.
There's a lot of prior art for instant messaging.
This is prior art - I have proof! (Score:2)
For that matter, I'm sure everyone has!
You know the ones I'm talking about
Just smile and admit that you've had one of these things before!
You know when this patent enforcing . . (Score:2)
DCC Chat? (Score:2)
Reading the patent (Score:2)
One of the main claims of the patent is the "plurality of electronic commerce contexts" for a user. Look at this for vagueness:
7. A method in a computer system for conducting electronic commerce, the method comprising; providing a plurality of electronic commerce contexts for a user, each electronic commerce context having information relating to electronic commerce conducted while in that electronic commerce context; receiving from the user a selection of one of the plurality of electronic commerce contexts; after receiving the selection of the one of the plurality of electronic commerce contexts, conducting electronic commerce with the user; and associating, with the selected electronic commerce context, information relating to the electronic commerce conducted with the user so that when the user subsequently selects that selected electronic commerce context from the plurality of electronic commerce contexts, the associated information is available for conducting subsequent electronic commerce.
Whoa! Could they have jammed more phrases containing "electronic commerce context" in this paragraph without explaining a damn thing? The above paragraph basically vaguely states that user has several identities; when a user clicks on one of the several identities, the information from that identity is retrieved and user is switched to that identity. And this is innovative, not obvious, specific, how?
Patent denied! Next in line please!
How about VAX/VMS send/receive commands? (Score:2)
We used it mainly to get around our disk quota by sending the files to ourselves and not receiving them until we shuffled space.
Re:How about VAX/VMS send/receive commands? (Score:2)
Obvious (Score:2)
Now, I'm not even in the field (if we pick field as "electronic commerce") so I suspect it was pretty damn obvious.
If the patent office can allow patents on things that are this obvious, we should be able to patent about one out of every five or six lines of code written as non-obvious and no prior art - after all, it was the first time this line of code was ever written. Then since patent claims are always extended, with a bit of work we should be able to stop anyone in the US (or in the set of countries that agree on some sort of common patent system) from ever writing any new programs.
Much Ado about Nothing. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd hold judgement on either of these patents until I see whether it is being used offensively or defensively. I do not recall AOL using any patents offensively.
Serious businesses cannot reasonably ignore the threat of hostile patents to their valuable services, and so, arguably, must be active in taking out patents.
If you want to talk about evil, refer to the British Telecom patent on hyperlinks, which they tried to enforce.
There is little to this news until we see how the patents are applied. They could, for example, be used to defend the royalty-free nature of Mozilla open source, and IMHO it is quite likely it would be used in this way if a significant problem arose blocking this technology which AOL values.
This is one strong patent for Amazon. (Score:2)
Amazon has shown once again why they are the leader in the eCommerce field. If Amazon hadn't shown up and innovated like they have the ecommerce field would still be in the dark ages. I'm deeply impressed with the real innovation that Amazon has been able to accomplish.
-Brent
I've lost track... (Score:2)
What dot coms are we NOT supposed to hate these days?
Does it really matter? (Score:2)
does it need to be a click? (Score:2)
But surely there are potential ways around the patent.
How exactly are we definining a "click" ?
Would a pulldown menu be considered a click?
would a text box be considered a click?
Does "a click" need to happen with a mouse?
If so, why not just navigate through a webpage using keyboard quick keys?
In European Onion (Score:3, Interesting)
If your server is located in Europe can AOL ask Bush to bomb you for failing to comply with American patents? Even if you are not a muslim?
Re:In European Onion (Score:2)
IANAL, merely an economics student. However, I do think it would be nice if people toned down their anti-US "they think their laws apply to everyone" rhetoric. Even the ElcomSoft case is based mainly around the fact that they knowingly exported their product to American customers. Every country in the world does the exact same thing. The only difference is that it's harder to avoid doing business with the US, because as I mentioned above, this country has such an enormous economy.
Re:1-Click and 2-Click are taken... (Score:2, Funny)
No, finger also worked as a user online indicator (Score:2)
Finger on most of the systems I've used not only gave user information but also told me whether the user was logged in and how long they'd been idle for. This covers the to see when other users are present part of the AOL IM patent. Talk could then be used to initiate a conversation.
Re:WHY (Score:2, Interesting)
My assumption is that the space and the tech required to pull off amazon.com would be way greater than any other book chain.
With "bulk purchasing discounts" you still need to store the goods, you only save on the real estate of having an actual point of purchase land-space.
To really save on shipping you have to spread the storage facilities out, reducing both the distances pallets travel & the distance a shipment has to go to the customer.
Does the website & crew cost more than renting out a huge shop for each city & crew? I figure the crew does, but does the tech outweigh the POP real-estate?
Re:I have an idea (Score:2)