Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Patents United States Your Rights Online

Regifting Not Just A Seinfeld Gag -- It's Patented 70

Posted by timothy from the no-blushing-'cause-there's-no-shame dept.
theodp writes "While the jury's still out on Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' gifting patent, the USPTO has given thumbs-up to a patent for regifting. The electronic regifting patent, which cites a Seinfeld episode and Bezos' pending patent application as prior art, was awarded to an individual who also holds a patent for exchanging online gifts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Regifting Not Just A Seinfeld Gag -- It's Patented More

Regifting Not Just A Seinfeld Gag -- It's Patented

Comments Filter:

  • Great... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @08:37PM (#7664831)

    I'm predicting online fruit-cake gifts that will be "regifted" around the net for all eternity....

    • Re:Great... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @09:00AM (#7667695) Homepage
      Where do you think all of the "missing matter" in the universe is? Forget about dark matter, its fruit cakes!
      • Ok, I dont really understand the american humour about fruitcakes, in australia fruitcakes are considered a food by most people, and taste pretty deceint.. from what i gather they are given as gifts alot in america... whats the problem with them? do you guys have really dodgy fruitcakes? or just some "inhouse" american joke im not privy to :(
        • I suspect it is childhood trauma from attempting to eat the typical American fruitcake. Like so many bits of American cuisine, price and convenience are often considered more important than quality and flavor. Just take a look at the contents of the average American supermarket. Where else can you find so many varieties of processed cheese, imitation cheese, and industrial cheese-like substances. That's not to imply that the natural cheese is much better. This is the land of Wonder Bread and Miracle Whip.
          • Like so many bits of American cuisine, price and convenience are often considered more important than quality and flavor. Just take a look at the contents of the average American supermarket.

            And my personal favorite -- Artificial Imitation Bacon-Flavored Bits.

    • You may find it surprising that there are only 1000 fruitcakes on the entire planet. They are all just handed from person to person and never eaten, giving the appearance that there is actually quite a bit more.

  • That's awesome... (Score:5, Funny)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @08:41PM (#7664849) Journal

    1) Take someone else's idea

    2) Add "on the internet" to the end of it

    3) Get a patent????

    4) Profit!

    • PAY UP! (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1) Notice Slashdot Post that follows format seen before

      2) Warn poster that said format violates existing awarded patent:

      Hey, your post violates my patent on "Method for Specifying a Sequential Series of Steps in Electronic Format for Achieving Profitability for Use as a Business Plan Where the Step Immediately Prior to Profitability May Be Ambiguous, Omitted, Incomplete, Unclear, Stupid, Foolish, Humorous, or Otherwise Unlikely-to-Work-in-the-Real-World".

      3) Threaten to sue:

      Pay up NOW or we'll see you in

      • Re:PAY UP! (Score:2, Funny)

        by itsari ( 703841 )
        Now it's your turn to pay up.
        I've just recieved the patent for:
        Method for Specifying a Sequential Series of Steps in Electronic Format for Achieving Profitability for Use as a Business Plan Where the Step Immediately Prior to Profitability May Be Ambiguous, Omitted, Incomplete, Unclear, Stupid, Foolish, Humorous, or Otherwise Unlikely-to-Work-in-the-Real-World On The Internet
    • I patent working on the internet. Now you all owe me mega-bucks!

  • Following along from Seinfeld... (Score:5, Funny)

    by CanSpice ( 300894 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @08:44PM (#7664863) Homepage
    ...look for the following patents in the near future:

    1) Women's names rhyming with female body parts.
    2) Superman.
    3) Entering a room in a wacky manner.
    4) Nothing.

  • I suppose (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Cydonian ( 603441 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @08:45PM (#7664870) Homepage Journal
    it'll be okay if we are re-re-gifting things.

    May be we could re-gift the object in question to ourselves first, before re-re-gifting it to others.

  • Online gifts only (Score:4, Informative)

    by Josh Booth ( 588074 ) <joshbooth2000 AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday December 08, 2003 @08:50PM (#7664906)
    This patent applies to online gifts only, which are indeed convered by this guy's earier patent. Why someone would opt-in to a system that allows the recipient of a gift to trade it for something else without even recieving it is beyond me.

    • Re:Online gifts only (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pjbus ( 728439 )
      This makes perfect sense. "Buy" something on Amazon for someone but don't have it delivered. Send them an "e-card" with a link to their "gift". If they like it, they can have it delivered (shipping is already paid by buyer), if they don't then they can use the item's cost and shipping costs as credit towards whatever item they'd really like. Makes sense to me.
      • "Buy" something on Amazon for someone but don't have it delivered. Send them an "e-card" with a link to their "gift".

        Next thing you know, people will buy ""virtual gifts": you'll get a credit of some value that you can redeem at some store. The gift-giver needn't worry about picking a particular item that may not be of value to the recipient, and the reipient has control over what to get.

        What a great idea! I'll patent this myslef, and call it Gift Certificates!

        • Gift Certificates: The perfect thing to buy when you don't care at all.

          At least in this system the gift receiver will know that you spent a little bit of time thinking about them and might possibly appreciate their gift

    • Re:Online gifts only (Score:4, Funny)

      by skaffen42 ( 579313 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @09:47AM (#7668099)
      Why someone would opt-in to a system that allows the recipient of a gift to trade it for something else without even recieving it is beyond me.

      If only we could convince the mother-in-laws of the world to accept this. A lot of guys would be a LOT happier come the holidays.

      (Damn, I should have posted this as an AC...)

  • Wasn't this in 'The Hobbit'? (Score:3, Informative)

    by sanctimonius hypocrt ( 235536 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @08:52AM (#7667644) Homepage Journal
    I think there's a reference to old 'gifts' called mathoms(?). Whoever had one would give it to the next person who was due a gift, and so on.
    • In Lord of the Rings, it says that a mathom is a thing that you have no use for but can't bear to throw away, so you send it to the Mathom House in Michel Delving, the capital of the Shire.

      Bow down before my superior LOTR knowledge!!! Bwahahahahaaaa!!!! Oh yeah, the laydeeeez are gonna be so impressed.

      • another one of those examples from actual societies. In The Gift,lewis hyde describes societies where the point of the gift is the giving; objects are seen to have power and if they stay in one place too long than bad things start happening to the holders of the object, so passing it around keeps things in balance. sigh.
        • I just did a quick search for Lewis Hyde; looks like an interseting guy. Some similiar things have been in my mind lately, about having stuff around that I don't need. I should really give some things away, so they can be where they're used and useful. I think Dante put the hoarders and wasters together in the same circle of hell.
      • Yes, thanks, that's what I was thinking of. I grant your superior knowledge. The ladies will be impressed; you just have to find the right lady!
      • Sort of, but not quite. Some mathoms that were old and unusual, or of historical interest -- like Bilbo's mithril chainmail shirt -- wound up in the mathom house (read: museum) in Michel Delving. Most, however, got recirculated (re-gifted, so as to stay somewhat on topic) as birthday presents.

        Now, here's a question: what do you do when the lady who responds to you is more of a LotR geek (and wellspring of useless knowledge) than you are?

        • Now, here's a question: what do you do when the lady who responds to you is more of a LotR geek (and wellspring of useless knowledge) than you are?

          I believe that the standard solution is to marry her;-)

          Michel Delving, BTW, means 'big digging'--Michel is Tolkien's modernisation of micel (pron. like Mitchell), cog. to Scots mickle. When I was a boy, Michel Delving sounded a grand name--then I figured it out...

          Of course, that doesn't beat C.S. Lewis's reference to the Voluspa in Prince Caspian...

  • Warning -- this is a foaming rant. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @10:24AM (#7668462) Journal
    A patent like this actually being granted... dearest Lord in Heaven... rain fire from the sky and end this madness.

    I absolutely would not believe that such a basic, obvious concept would be granted twenty years of patent protection if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

    If Thomas Edison was around today, he wouldn't have to patent the light bulb. He could patent light itself, and could then sue those who allowed the sun to shine into their homes.

    Really. Honestly. What's next? What other totally obvious, ridiculous things can the USPTO issue patents on? How about a patent on punching an extra hole in a waist belt to avoid having to buy a new one? How about twenty years of protection for the idea of catching fireflies in a jar?

    I think the US Patent system was a wonderful thing and has really helped to make the USA a technological leader in many areas, but the system appears to be flat-out broken. It's flopping around helplessly like a squirrel injured by a passing car, spewing insane patents all over the place. Patent experts know how badly broken it is and they're exploiting it to no end. This latest insanity is just a single snowflake sitting on the top of the tip of the iceberg.

  • I had a partnership based on the "Gifting" idea (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I had a partnership, we were going to do "Mystery Gift" for chat friends -- the ones you do not know their name or address, just some hokey name like "Anonymous Coward" or something.

    The way it worked, you picked a gift (from a short list) and you paid with a credit card. The credit card was debited immediately.

    Then, in return, you got a "Token"-- a password similar to the Greeting card claim number. you could then forward the "token" to the recipient and they could claim the gift you picked out.

    If the gi

  • Citing prior art to get your patent? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @10:40AM (#7668621)
    "The electronic regifting patent, which cites a Seinfeld episode and Bezos' pending patent application as prior art"

    So now citing prior art in your patent application actually helps you GET the patent? Or did they just cite to all this prior art and then say "we're doing that, but just add the word 'internet' to it." I'd think citing prior art to your own idea in a patent application would be the one way to actually get them to stamp 'denied' on the application. That, of course, presumes that they actually still do have the 'denied' stamp. Chances are they lost it sometime in the early 1990's and never bothered to order a new one (would be a waste of taxpayers money to do so).

    • Re:Citing prior art to get your patent? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Your question indicates a severe misunderstanding of the patent system. Please go to uspto.gov and actually learn about the system before making complaints. The problem is not that you can still get a patent for a novel invention for which prior art exists as inspiration or a base on which the newer invention builds. The problem is that the foundation for patents (a clause in the US Constitution) is built on an unproven assumption that would seem, in reality, to be faulty. If the idea is to promote the arts

      • If the idea is to promote the arts and sciences, I can think of nothing more deleterious to that process than the idea of granting "ownership" of bits and pieces of the arts and sciences to individuals just because they thought of them first.

        Really? In most production worlds, the time between patentable prototype and a finished product with enough profit to repay development costs is several years.

        The patent system still works great for manufacturing processes and goods, which is what it was desinged

    • actually, i own the patent for stamping denied on patent applications. it hasn't paid off though, as it seems all patents are approved these days. note to self: patent the approval of dumb ideas, make made loot!
  • I have been thinking about theese patents fo awhile now. Copyrights and patents seams like a way to make something obvious and commonly used profitable. The question one must ask oneself is just why governments is so keen to accept patents as an end-all solution to keeping markets up in their never ending incline in profit. I think especially the US has confused development of products and goods with making money easily.

    Because development = money they have gotten it backwards and think that money = development wich is infact quite the opposite IRL.

    If there are shortcuts to money companies will use them instead of putting money on R&D. If you can get a patent on an obvious solution to a common problem you will be the gatekeeper to that problem. Imagine the state of the economy today if someone had patented the internet, the electricity or the cars?

    Development would stand still and prices would have been up the roof.

    The key to balance between progress and the ability to profit from progress is short timespan of governental subsided monopoly. I.E someone given a patent should have a short limited time to cash in on the patent. Thus making the development and implementation of patents the goal instead of like today, finding the patent with the most "users" and then just collect money.

    Patents as stupid as theese isnt nothing but a nuicence until they are extended for 10 years. If it only held up for a couple of years it wouldnt matter. The timeframe that copyright and patents stands is what must be changed. Patents should not be something you pile and then just sit back. The original idea about patents is NOTHING like what we see today.

  • an idea for preventing more of this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Slash.ter ( 731367 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @07:51PM (#7675424)

    It seems that prior art doesn't matter much in this case but it certainly helped in the Eolas [slashdot.org] case.

    Has anybody thought about creating competition to USPTO? Imagine a site (like freshmeat) accepting ideas with a prototype implementation (perl, python, Lisp, etc.) - nothing general (other than the description of the idea). This would constitute a library of prior art for trivial ideas - The Prior Art Library (TPAL).

    Here are some quick thoughts about TPAL:

    • reinforcement would come from whoever wants to make money on it: if company A wants to charge company B for IP, B hires lawyers and references prior art (that assumes that A filed for patent after there was an entry in the TPAL)
    • whenever a developer thinks of an idea that would be granted a patent (= any idea), an entry is submitted to TPAL with a 20-line hack. No worries to get sued later if somebody decides to take it to USPTO.
    • Since trivial stuff ends up in TPAL, USPTO gets worthy patents for a change.
    • Ideas would not die with companies or retire with people that had them.
    • Is it just me or is that a really cool idea? Why am I the only person expressing my approval to this?

      Surely this could be a good proactive start to dealing with what is becoming a big problem.

      Who's into doing something like this?

      or do we just stick to bitching and whining on /.?
    • Has anybody thought about creating competition to USPTO?

      So what you're saying is, people should spontaneously do the jobs of federal employees for free?

      Imagine a site (like freshmeat) accepting ideas with a prototype implementation (perl, python, Lisp, etc.)

      Imagine any USENET group at all, and whenever a developer thinks up an idea, he just pushes it into an external news archive where he can forever after retrieve it as prior art if someone later shows up with a patent.

      It's like your website, but f
      • So what you're saying is, people should spontaneously do the jobs of federal employees for free?

        Don't get me started on USPTO's hard work... But seriously: The short answer is: yes. Have you heard about "neighbourhood watch"? People watch their neigbours' property - shouldn't police be doing that?

        Imagine any USENET group at all, [...] It's like your website, but free and extant. What about /.? I think there are plenty of good ideas here (I hope my karma gets bumped for saying that:)

        I think, peopl

    • http://www.shouldexist.com is the site I use for anti-patents and copylefts. It's cool but could be so much cooler with a few developments. Could be sort of a pre-sourceforge IF with some right baby steps: I mean the brainstorm and design part of development.
  • It seemed to me this was all about internet gifts! Sounds like a local business - http://surprise.com/ But I was wrong...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close