Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Amazon Seeks Personal Search History Patent 148

Posted by CmdrTaco from the buy-a-copy-with-just-one-click dept.
theodp writes "The USPTO has published Amazon.com's patent application for Persistently storing and serving event data, which describes a9.com's personal search history feature and lists a9.com CEO Udi Manber as an inventor. Interestingly, claim 48 describes a user interface that responds to a user's request to "delete" his search history by rendering it "undisplayable" to him, but still leaving it accessible for other uses. When filed back in 2003, Amazon asked the USPTO not to publish the application, but rescinded that request last May, presumably in anticipation of its filing for an international patent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Seeks Personal Search History Patent More

Amazon Seeks Personal Search History Patent

Comments Filter:

  • Right idea, wrong title... (Score:5, Funny)

    by aendeuryu ( 844048 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:42AM (#11728905)
    Interestingly, claim 48 describes a user interface that responds to a user's request to "delete" his search history by rendering it "undisplayable" to him, but still leaving it accessible for other uses.

    Holy cow. I think they should change the patent claim from "Server architecture and methods for persistently storing and serving event data" to plain old "Evil".
    • I think that's illegal in the UK, at least.
    • I think the title should be changed to "Company patents web logs."

      This is a bit hush hush. But I feel I strange need to tell the world. My employer is tossing in the paper work to patent eating soup with a spoon.
    • UPDATE cust_table SET visible=0 WHERE cust_id=284233;

      Truly amazing. What a unique and original system. I can't imagine anybody ever used such a thing before.
    • My very brief search at EPIC didn't find this new issue at Amazon. My suggestion then is that we contact EPIC and alert them to this privacy issue:

      Contact EPIC [epic.org]

      EPIC is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.

      EPIC publishes an award-winning e-mail and online newsletter on civil liberties in the information age - the EPIC Al

  • Please delete...sort of... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mtz206 ( 664433 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:42AM (#11728906)
    responds to a user's request to "delete" his search history by rendering it "undisplayable" to him, but still leaving it accessible for other uses
    Nice. Let's just hide the data from the person its associated with, but allow everyone else to see/use it. I wish ChoicePoint had this option.

    • Could be a blessing in disguise in the long run? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @12:05PM (#11729021)

      There is an interesting possibility here; I don't know whether it's applicable in the US today, but certainly the position has merit under various European data protection legislation.

      Under the UK's Data Protection Acts, for example, a company holding personal information about an individual can normally be required to provide all of that information to the individual for a nominal fee. Moreover, they would have certain obligations to fix incorrect information, handle the information in a reasonably secure way, etc.

      The one glaring hole I've found with UK data protection legislation is that you can't forcibly remove information somebody has about you as long as the information is correct. In other words, the fact that I cancelled my order with a particular company and have no other dealings with them, and after reading about their data handling practices I don't trust them to keep my credit card number safe, does not automatically entitle me to have the card number removed from their database. We need only look at recent events reported right here on Slashdot to see what happens when an organisation with lots of personal information held under imperfect security gets compromised.

      Perhaps this sort of deception, followed by a couple of spectacular failures of security and successful lawsuits by people who'd asked for the information to be deleted and later found that it wasn't, will be the catalyst for fixing data protection legislation in many places. All a company should be allowed to keep if you ask for your information to be deleted and they have no current reason to hold it is your identity and a flag that says you don't want to have your information kept on their system.

      At present, you would have to jump through all kinds of hoops to demonstrate to the data protection officials that there wasn't a valid current reason to hold your data. And that's valid as in "the organisation's data protection entry mentions it", not valid as in "they actually need it to have an effective relationship with you"; just check all the blatantly unnecessary information that Transport for London has in its entry if you don't appreciate the difference. :-(

      • The one glaring hole I've found with UK data protection legislation is that you can't forcibly remove information somebody has about you as long as the information is correct.

        Its not a hole, its there deliberately and its there in part to protect companies. Imagine for a second you could force a company to remove valid data about you - business relationship or not. Youve just gained the right as an individual to always have a perfect credit rating, as you can always get Experian etc to remove bad entr

        • I'm not suggesting you should be allowed to force removal of relevant information, just that it should be clear that you can require removal of personal information about yourself that a company has no current need to hold. Your examples would not fall into this category (although since the credit reference agencies appear to be exempt from the normal safeguards yet do a terrible job of maintaining accurate records and frequently damage innocent individuals as a result, I have little sympathy for that parti

        • Sorry to reply twice to the same post, but another significant point is that I have given no permission for any credit reference agency to hold any information about me in the first place.

          Now, financial institutions are perfectly entitled to decline to offer credit to someone who doesn't have a credit record at the agency they use. As an individual you must accept the consequences if you don't wish to work within that system, even if that means you can't get a loan or mortgage.

          However, whether the credi

        • Youve just gained the right as an individual to always have a perfect credit rating, as you can always get Experian etc to remove bad entries from your credit record.

          In that case, you wouldn't have a perfect credit rating -- you'd have no credit history, which most institutions consider as bad as a poor credit history.
          • Let's not be pedantic here. How about you remove only the bad credit history, leaving the good stuff. Then your credit rating would be perfect. Happy now?

          • In that case, you wouldn't have a perfect credit rating -- you'd have no credit history, which most institutions consider as bad as a poor credit history.

            Sure, having no credit can be difficult, but you can build up a fair amount of credit during the seven years it takes derogatory credit history to expire from your credit report, or the five years you're paying your bills with postal money orders because you can't open a bank account because you're listed on ChexSystems.

            For those who aren't familiar, C

    • ...other uses. Not other users. Doesn't necessarily mean everyone else can see it. Perhaps they will continue to use it to customize what you see on their pages, etc. I don't think this is inherently evil, though it certainly could be.

  • congrats! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Coneasfast ( 690509 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:42AM (#11728907)
    combine this with amazons one-click patent, and you have THE most innovative company in the industry,

    thank you, amazon, you are truly a benchmark in technology progress.

    • at least they limited the patent to web site activity:

      <<A web site system includes an event history server system that persistently stores event data reflective of events that occur /SNIP

      I'd hate to have to turn my bash history off to remain legit. :-)

      After reading 3 lines of it, I'm thinking it's so vaguely worded that there must be *lots* of server-side code that counts as prior art.. Hell the "shopping cart" project a lot of us did in college probably counts. It used session IDs and User IDs an
      • Thanks for pointing out the obvious issue with this patent. There is so much prior art on this partcicular patent, I would be amazed if it both was granted as a patent and if it passed any sort of courts muster. I myself have created a few different web site projects prior to this patent application that would qualify!

  • but why ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by puiahappy ( 855662 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:42AM (#11728909) Homepage
    Everytime something good is about to happen there will be somebody to take that away from us why ? why ? why ?

  • Not to publish? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:44AM (#11728916)

    The strange thing seems to be that there is an option to ask the USPTO not to publish a patent application. I appreciate that this is the same as not publishing a patent that has been granted, but since disclosure in exchange for temporary monopoly is the fundamental principle of patents, isn't having an unpublished procedure rather one-sided?

    • ...isn't having an unpublished procedure rather one-sided?

      Yes.

    • Re:Not to publish? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ozric99 ( 162412 )
      Welcome to AmeriCorp.

    • Re:Not to publish? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Foobar of Borg ( 690622 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @01:17PM (#11729425)
      Well, there used to not be patent application publications in the U.S. at all. The USPTO started doing this in the year 2000 (cue Conan O'Brien!), thus copying what the Europeans had been doing for over a decade. Remember, a patent application does not give any legal protection. That is why you are not required to publish it. It is only after the patent has been granted, and you therefore have legel patent protection, that publication is required and is a matter of course.

      In fact, not having an application published can actually be less advantageous. If, for example, you don't get a patent (happens quite often despite what crazed /.'ers say), the publication is still out there and can be used as prior art against a later application. In fact, it can help to apply for a patent even if you have no hope of ever getting one since the publication of it can be used as prior art against anyone else trying to patent the same thing.

      • Remember, a patent application does not give any legal protection. That is why you are not required to publish it. It is only after the patent has been granted, and you therefore have legel patent protection, that publication is required and is a matter of course.

        I'm not sure what you say about legal protection is quite true; consider the origins of the expression "patent pending", and your own point about prior art. In any case, you should only be applying for a patent if you reasonably expect it to be

        • "Patent Pending" gives you no legal protection at all. It only means that you paid your filing fees. It is generally used as a warning sign that they could sue you in the future for infringment if they are successful in being granted a patent. However, even if a patent is granted, the only thing you can sue over is infringement with regards to the specifically crafted claims that have been granted in the patent.

          In the present example, if Amazon gets a patent from this application , they are not getting

      • Re:Not to publish? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Doomdark ( 136619 )
        In fact, it can help to apply for a patent even if you have no hope of ever getting one since the publication of it can be used as prior art against anyone else trying to patent the same thing.

        While true, it would be less expensive to use an alternative methods, such as writing and publishing a "defensive publication". There are (non-peer-reviewed, pay-by-author) magazines that are specifically designed for this, AND read by patent officers (as in indexed for DBs they use for prior art searches). This is

    • Thats Right.

      It is the patent application only. NOT the granted patent.

      Think you are the only ONE who is working for a great idea and you are all most done to 80% and to complete the remining 20% you need another good 24 months. Beeing in this situvation you applied for the patent and USPTO publishes it.

      Seeing this great idea a big corporate deploys 200 people and completes your patentable idea and presents to USPTO.

      Now tell me, do you want have this featue of "not to pblish" from USPTO or not?

      you can k

      • Re:Not to publish? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @01:39PM (#11729585)
        Think you are the only ONE who is working for a great idea and you are all most done to 80% and to complete the remining 20% you need another good 24 months. Beeing in this situvation you applied for the patent and USPTO publishes it.

        If you're that far from a working idea, you have not yet invented it, and you have no right to patent it. A patent should specify clearly how to reproduce your invention so that others could do the same. That is your side of the bargain, in exchange for the protection afforded by granting the patent. In your scenario, the USPTO should reject your patent, you should know that this is likely to happen, and if you're stupid enough to try and preempt competitors by legal means and make a hash of it, that's your problem.

  • Here we go again. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GomezAdams ( 679726 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:46AM (#11728925)
    Another stupid patent when copyright should be invoked. I supose that the sooner all the dumbass patents get filed and approved the sooner the court system will have to deal with them, the sooner the whole patent process will get overhauled. But then I expected by now to have flying cars, 3D TV, and a trophy wife, so what do I know. [*SIGH*]

  • And in related news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rd4tech ( 711615 ) * on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:46AM (#11728927)
    Rockie nWood, caveman unfrozen from the depths of the Ice mountain 8 years ago. He attended law school ever since and successfully got in flow with our society. Recently, he threatened to sue amazon.com due "prior art". He claims he was using his cave walls as a "personal history tracker", and demands huge payback from amazon.com for each year since he did that, until they filled the patent.

  • Thank god for Amazon (Score:5, Informative)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .l3gnaerif.> on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:47AM (#11728931) Homepage
    Thanks, Amazon, for showing the world why the U.S. patent system is the best. Especially for software related 'inventions' and 'innovations'.

    I'm submitting this comment via the soon-to-be-patented 1-click 'submit' button. Which allows to 'submit' things, in only 1 click! Wow!
    • That's why you first click Preview, THEN submit!
    • You know, people can apply for just about anything. All that Amazon has right now is an application. The question is, will they actually get a patent or not? If they do get one, what exactly are the claims? They may actually be able to get a patent, but the claim limitations could be so narrow that they are effectly getting zilch in the way of legal protection. A patent then becomes something on the order of - "Look what Og get!"

  • Yup. . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:47AM (#11728934)
    Still not buying stuff from Amazon.com.

  • Ama-Zen Riddle (Score:5, Funny)

    by Joe12Pack ( 859398 ) * on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:49AM (#11728940)
    Once all evil in the world is patented, will there be any option but to be good? -- or will companies pay to license evil.
  • Question: Why would I use a service that was intentionally trying to deceive me ?

    Answer: I wouldn't... bite my shiny metal ass Udi Manber..
  • alert ("You will forget what you have searched for and on the count of 3 you'll wake up. 1, 2, 3.");

  • Amazon has patented spyware !! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TakaIta ( 791097 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:54AM (#11728973) Journal
    "The event history server may also record event data descriptive of other types of browsing events, such as impressions (i.e., items presented to users on dynamically generated web pages) and mouse-over events."

    Does this mean that Amazon now should be considered to be spyware?

    • Mouse over events!? So if I mouse-over an advert for My Little Pony while moving my mouse up to close the Amazon tab in Firefox, does that mean I will start getting spam from them telling me about deals on My Little Pony, even though I have no interest in it?
  • All these patent applications read like the appallingly vague product specifications I'm supposed to work with. Just put the thing on company Word templates and I could probably get it approved before anyone even noticed.

    Maybe I should submit patents on all the stupid things I get asked to implement...
    • yeah but then you get sued if you ever make any money because the fruits of your labours belong to the company that asked you to implement it - unless you have an oath bound contract witnessed by 12 vestial virgins of intellectual property law, recorded on consecrated ground under the light of the new moon during the summer solstice and signed in blood.

  • Search history permanent and identifiable? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OgGreeb ( 35588 ) <og@digimark.net> on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:58AM (#11728993) Homepage
    (This is addressing only the privacy issues of deleting search histories, not the patent issues.)

    *Of course* when I deleted my search history on A9, it only pretended to delete it by hiding it from me, but still providing it to other "clients of the event history server" (from the patent application). I mean, toolbar applications like the Google toolbar (appear to) have set the standard that you can delete your personally-identifiable search history to prevent privacy intrusions, but why should that prevent Amazon from profiting from that information to my detriment? Concerns like morally corrupt, ethically challenged, etc., only apply to flesh-based persons with human issues, not legal-based persons (corporations) with only money issues.

    I love the new A9 search tools, but until their overt privacy policies correspond to their covert privacy policies, I'm going to be highly discriminating in when I use A9/Amazon to search for anything.
    • I love the new A9 search tools, but until their overt privacy policies correspond to their covert privacy policies, I'm going to be highly discriminating in when I use A9/Amazon to search for anything.

      In light of this highly suspect 'functionality'(read spyware), there is nothing that compelling to continue to use A9.

      In other words:
      "I love my Bonzi Buddy, but I'll be highly discriminating when I use it for anything."

    • Re:Search history permanent and identifiable? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JGski ( 537049 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @01:56PM (#11729661) Journal
      > Concerns like morally corrupt, ethically
      > challenged, etc., only apply to flesh-based
      > persons with human issues, not legal-based
      > persons (corporations) with only money issues.

      :-)

      Except if there are to be two standards for ethics and morality dependent on being flesh-based vs. legal-based entities, then certainly there should be clear distinctions and limits on person-hood and entitlement to constitutional protections - that is, corporations should not be granted unalienable rights that are granted by the constitution and bill of rights to human beings. Yet such constitutional rights are currently granted to corporations. Thus as corporations are granted "inalienable human rights" of the US Constitution, it is reasonable to insist that corporations be required to behave morally and ethically just as human citizens are required to by the letter and spirit of the laws and entitlements of the US.

      The underlying flaw, though, is that only flesh-based entities are actually capable of either being affected by or fulfilling the duties that come with constitutional rights. By this we include specific duties like serving in national defense and jury duty, but also broader duties like simply obeying the law, or not impinging on the rights of other citizens without risk of concommitant punishment.

      The problem is punishment for misdeeds of commission and omission with regard to citizen duties: corporations are granted rights with no effective or enforceable duties. As a human citizen I know that if I violate the law (and either directly or indirectly the US constitution) I can lose my citizen rights (jail) and means for enjoying my citizen rights (money). Corporation structure fundamentally insulates owners and owner-proxies (i.e. boards and executives) from legal liability from all but the most obvious and egregious criminal acts. Civil violations are punished against only the lifeless corporate shell itself. Even when attempts are made to punish, the corporation faces orders of magnitude milder impact, as a fine-to-revenue ratio. The checks and balances of citizenship exist for humans but not for corporations.

      In additional to having the enforcement of duties defanged, the additional problem is that hierarchal organization inherently amplifies, and often distorts, the morality and ethics of those at the top. If a corporation's executives are simply morally and ethically weak, or worse, borderline sociopaths themselves (we all know of such a leader and such an organization) then the organization easily becomes a full-blown sociopathic entity, perversely with citizen constitutional rights but with no enforceable duties as citizens.

      Individuals with such traits (e.g. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, et al.) can be and are removed from impinging their evil on society in perpetuity, yet sociopathic corporations are not condemnable nor constrainable by the state or society for their sociopathic behavior. The worst-case scenario is a corporation might be broken-up or liquidated, but ultimately the humans leading the corporation can trivially walk away and start another corporation, effectively "reincarnating the evil" of the dead sociopath - even Charles Manson only gets one lifetime chance to inflict his sociopathology and then society locks him up and throws away the key, losing all future opportunities. While the individual must balance their own mortality and free will against evil in their heart, corporations have no mortality to be concerned with and the wizard behind the curtain are legally insulated from their deeds of control - this radically changes the checks and balances on citizenship and behavior as citizens.

      An immortal corporation can not be jailed or effectively killed thus isn't affected by any of the downsides of punishments for violating laws derived from the constitution or other citizens' constitutional rights. Further a co

  • catch 22 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:58AM (#11728995) Homepage Journal
    When filed back in 2003, Amazon asked the USPTO not to publish the application, but rescinded that request last May, presumably in anticipation of its filing for an international patent." - after reading this paragraph, here's what comes to my mind:
    'No reason,' wailed the old woman. 'No reason.'
    'What right did they have?'
    'Catch-22.'
    'What?' Yossarian froze in his tracks with fear and alarm and felt his whole body begin to tingle. 'What did you say?'
    'Catch-22' the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. 'Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.'
    'What the hell are you talking about?' Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. 'How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the hell told you it was Catch-22?'
    'The soldiers with the hard white hats and clubs. The girls were crying. "Did we do anything wrong?" they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. "Then why are you chasing us out?" the girls said. "Catch-22," the men said. "What right do you have?" the girls said. "Catch-22," the men said. All they kept saying was "Catch-22, Catch-22." What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?'
    'Didn't they show it to you?' Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. 'Didn't you even make them read it?'
    'They don't have to show us Catch-22,' the old woman answered. 'The law says they don't have to.'
    'What law says they don't have to?'
    'Catch-22.'
    'Oh, God damn!' Yossarian exclaimed bitterly. 'I bet it wasn't even really there.' He stopped walking and glanced about the room disconsolately. 'Where's the old man?'
    'Gone,' mourned the old woman.
    'Gone?'
  • Interestingly, claim 48 describes a user interface that responds to a user's request to "delete" his search history by rendering it "undisplayable" to him, but still leaving it accessible for other uses

    So now you can patent changing bits in a database...

  • CEO as Inventor? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 20, 2005 @12:05PM (#11729019)
    That's a new one on me. All he was doing was saying "is there any way we can have them delete the search history and still keep it?". The engineers went off and probably said "um, let's add a display flag to search results." That's an appended query and a small change to the deletion code. That's not patentable!

    That's all this is isn't it? They've patented a bit field to describe whether something is displayed or not. Prior art for that has been around for absolutely ages. Yet again a classic case of a small, simple and commonly used piece of programming being somehow the basis of a full patented business process. Absolutely bloody stupid!
  • Anyone got a link to the business 2.0 article that doesn't require a subscription?

  • Prior art? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Prior Art:

    chmod 044

    God these guys are getting desperate for stupid patents.

  • Pirhanacracy (Score:4, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @12:09PM (#11729035) Homepage Journal
    I stopped shopping at Amazon around 1999, when they "unilaterally changed" (permanently violated) their privacy policy to share my personal data "with anyone we damn well please", after I'd given it to them. I "updated" all my data to fakes, kept my account, and have tracked their agressive descent into personal copyright violation ever since. I use my "anonymized" account to shop there, then buy direct.

    • I use my "anonymized" account to shop there, then buy direct.

      How do you shop anonymously there? What do you mean by "buy direct"- send a MO or do you just buy from another site, like that of a manufacturer if it is hardware? I wasn't aware they had "unilaterally changed" (permanently violated) their privacy policy to share personal data "with anyone we damn well please" and this disturbs me.

      And how is BarnesandNoble.com in comparison? Search engines and portals have changed throughout the years, and m

      • I shop anonymously by using the fake personal info I mentioned, but just to find the products. Then I find who else is selling them - they're usaully all "on sale" across the Net at the same time, dependent on the global supply chains for which Amazon is just one market.

        Amazon got my original info back in 1996/7 or something with all kinds of privacy guarantees. Then they changed that policy in something like 1999, after they already had it, to share our info with anyone they chose. At least they sent an e

  • Wow. Another Non-Patent from the patent office. When are tech companies going to realize that they must compete in the market place of ideas rather than in the non-market place of patents?

    • Re:Non-Patent (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As long as there is the current broken patent law, they don't need to compete in the market place with new ideas, they simply need to compete in the non-market place of patents.

      That's kind of the reason why big tech companies are doing everything within their considerable powers to lure the EU into the same trap the US has been lured into. I just hope that the European democratic institutions are strong enough to withstand this onslaught and I sure think this patent for Amazon should serve as a strong remi
  • Because everyone knows the way to foster innovation is to stop everyone else from using yours once you've made the tiniest increment.

  • Not on Safari RSS on OS X Tiger (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @12:24PM (#11729124)

    From this [apple.com] page...

    Safari protects your personal information on shared or public Macs when surfing the web. Go ahead and check your bank account and .Mac email at the library or shop for birthday presents on the family Mac. Using Safari's new Private Browsing feature, no information about where you visit on the web, personal information you enter or pages you visit are saved or cached. It's as if you were never there.

    I presume this searching feature of A9 would require cookies and that sort of thing, which is probably disabled by private browsing anyway, but I nevertheless find it a disturbing feature.

    It obviously is meant for data-mining purposes, just in the same way they use your past purchases to make suggestions for books or thinks you would like to buy. It could serve well in a search engine environment if they can find out which links people chose. "People who selected links like you also selected these...".

    But from a privacy standpoint, it is horrible. They shouldn't have that kind of information linked to an account in which you are not anonymous, and they have your name, address, and credit card number. Who would use a search engine like that for general purpose searches? They are trying to achieve Wal-Mart style [slashdot.org] data mining without regard for privacy issues. This is so awful, I wouldn't be surprised if many stopped using Amazon.com simply out of protest. Anyone know the popular alternatives to Amazon.com?

  • Prior Art Found (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak ( 773371 ) <obsessivemathsfr ... om.net minus bsd> on Sunday February 20, 2005 @12:25PM (#11729127) Homepage Journal
    Oh my god! I just found prior art!
    My /var/log/meggases

    And wait! What's this? It's my .bash_history file!

    And what's this in my Go menu? Why it's my 'History' function. Way to go Mozilla! You infringed on a patent before it was even filed. Wow! What will they think of next?

    Wait, wait, I forgot.

    At the US Patent office they grant patents in spite of trivial things like gross obviousness, originality and indeed patentability itself.

    I'm convinced at this point that the higher ups in the USPTO are getting backhanders from the patent lobby.
  • The thing is that the patent examiners only search the database of issued and published patents. Which does not touch the stuff that was never patented. Also, a patent does not necessarily have to use much industry-standard language. You can make up your own terms for things. So searching might not even do that much good.

    Patent examiners cannot afford the time to do extensive searching outside of their own database. The patent office is a velvet sweatshop and a revenue center for the Executive Branch....
    • The thing is that the patent examiners only search the database of issued and published patents.

      That is simply false. Searching for and applying non-patent literature is a matter of routine. Many supervisors require a list of relevant non-patent literature from their examiners regardless of whether or not it was used to reject claims.

      Which does not touch the stuff that was never patented.

      This also is simply false. In addition to a database of issued patents, there is also a database of published applications, including those which were eventually abandoned. In case you were referring to "stuff" for which an application was never submitted, that generally falls into two categories: stuff that isn't patentable under 35 USC 101 and stuff that was known and used before anybody thought about patenting it. The non-patentable stuff under 101 is often found in text books, journal papers, and other non-patent literature sources routinely used by the examiners. The other stuff is intrinsically more difficult - finding adequate disclosure of some commercial software that you've never heard of, with solid dates, is always going to be tough.

      Also, a patent does not necessarily have to use much industry-standard language. You can make up your own terms for things. So searching might not even do that much good.

      Technically this is true, but 35 USC 112, second paragraph, does draw a line in this regard. Additionally, the USPTO separates the patent examiners into rather small groups (usually 8-15 examiners) in specific technologies. This helps deal with obfuscated applications. The 35 USC 112 and the USPTO also grant the examiners authority to declare an application as basically incomprehensible and full of terminology so different from that normally used in that technology that the application is summarily rejected. That is NOT fun for an agent/attorney, because you run the risk of losing the filing date, must supply a complete replacement application, run the risk of having the replacement rejected for containing new information (rather than just a replacement), and unless you're a partner in the law firm, it's really not that funny around the water cooler.

      Patent examiners cannot afford the time to do extensive searching outside of their own database. The patent office is a velvet sweatshop and a revenue center for the Executive Branch....

      With all due respect, you haven't convinced me that you're qualified to make these kinds of statements.


      • That is simply false. Searching for and applying non-patent literature is a matter of routine. Many supervisors require a list of relevant non-patent literature from their examiners regardless of whether or not it was used to reject claims.

        Gee, then howcum i have NEVER read an office action that cited ANYTHING but issued patents and published apps!?

        And BTW, I sure as hell did mention the published database in my post above, which you simply ignored....

  • How can they patent this? I have a BBS server on my Amiga that stores user history, and yes, you could remove something from the history, but the admin could still view it.

  • Amazon seems a little slow... (Score:3, Funny)

    by idlake ( 850372 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @01:42PM (#11729598)
    Storing personal search histories on search engines had brief notoriety about five years ago, with numerous papers published about that time. It took Amazon three years to file a patent on other people's published idea? Boy, they are slow.
  • When filed back in 2003, Amazon asked the USPTO not to publish the application, but rescinded that request last May, presumably in anticipation of its filing for an international patent."

    Kind of OT, but hoping someone can explain this to me? How can a patent be granted but not published? If I come up with a great idea, spend money on marketing, design, testing, etc, and later find out [insert corp here] has a unpublished patent, am I SOL?
  • claim 48 describes a user interface that responds to a user's request to "delete" his search history by rendering it "undisplayable" to him, but still leaving it accessible for other uses.

    Does the Mac 'Trash Can' and/or Windows 'Recycle Bin' count a prior art?

    "How can you call this trash prior art?"

  • Flooding Amazon with Searches? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by peter hoffman ( 2017 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @02:24PM (#11729823) Homepage
    Maybe this is Amazon's way of asking to have people flood their servers with random searches in their name. As a result, the data would contain so much "noise" that amazon couldn't deduce anything from it.
  • Isn't the entire point of filing for a patent an exchange of exclusive use rights for the publication of the invention? ...or is it just about rewarding innovation by granting secret monopolies, now?
  • I have applications that I can submit as prior art from about 5 years ago.

    One such system remembered each page that the user visited, and then build up visual cues to web developers of how people use the site, but also fed the results back into the user with a 'suggested link'

    Each search result was saved, also, bugzilla allows you to save searches.

    My SQLfoo app I wrote to query my db from a page stores all my past sql queries until I hit search.

    My ex-ex-ex-browser (something called IE, I don't want to s
  • that most of the reasons companies seek patents is because of the competition? IMHO, they don't apply for patents because they want to get hold of the market. They do it because they don't want others to get hold of it (take a look at the google autolinks story [slashdot.org]).

    In other words, patents are like a weapon in an arena. You must get it before the other guy does.

    Of course, if there were no weapons, things would be much better for all the competitors.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close