Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents The Internet

Reminding Customers Patented by Amazon 237

Posted by samzenpus from the wish-this-was-a-joke dept.
theodp writes "When your little Hogwart checks out the latest Harry Potter book at Amazon, he or she may be reminded that they've already ordered the book. It's all part of CEO Jeff Bezos latest patent for the Contextual presentation of information about related orders during browsing of an electronic catalog, which also covers warning customers about drug interactions ('you previously purchased Drug ABC'). The USPTO allowed the patent after four years and five rejections."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reminding Customers Patented by Amazon More

Reminding Customers Patented by Amazon

Comments Filter:

  • Self Defense? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famous.yahoo@com> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:05AM (#13061795) Homepage Journal
    Okay, Jeff Bezos claims he gets these patents defensively to prevent someone else from getting them and suing Amazon. But the effort he goes to in convincing the patent office they're even valid seems enormous.

    And considering all the money spent on lawyers to go back and forth 5 times, answering the patent examiner's objections, could have bought off at least one senator, maybe two. Could have bought a handful of congressmen. Multiply his filing and lawyer fees by all the patents he's gobbled up like some braying pacman, and you've got enough lobbyist money to get some real patent reform, the lack of which is the reason behind his defensive patents.

    • Re:Self Defense? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:51AM (#13062016)
      Why not just release the "concept" or whatever you'd call it into the public domain? This way everyone can use it and no one can sue Amazon over it. I can understand wanting to patent a new engine or a radically different type of CPU that no one's ever though of before, but trying to slap a patent something that seems obvious and has more than likely been done a thousand times over since the beginning of time is a little ridiculous.

      • Re:Self Defense? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kilraid ( 645166 )
        Someone can sue Amazon for other infringements. But they won't if Amazon can strike back with a bunch of patents the other company might be infringing. Or they will, and Amazon will use its patents to negotiate itself a more favorable deal.

    • "Defense" where defense destroy any competition (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:27AM (#13062270)
      Okay, Jeff Bezos claims he gets these patents defensively to prevent someone else from getting them and suing Amazon. But the effort he goes to in convincing the patent office they're even valid seems enormous.

      He didn't use his rediculous "one-click" patent defensively against Barnes and Noble, unless your definition of defense includes either "a good offense" (which is effectively just doublespeak for negating the difference between two antonyms) or "no competition whatsoever," which is today's business monopolist's notion of "a free market."

      Either way, Bezos is a despicable, disingenous, antisocial jerk who is working the system to the detriment of the internet, technologists, and the free market.
    • While I generally agree, it's still concerning that Amazon sued BN.com over One Click Shopping.
    • Okay, Jeff Bezos claims he gets these patents defensively to prevent someone else from getting them and suing Amazon.

      He doesn't need to patent it to do that. All he needs to do is publish the idea, then it cannot be patented by anyone else, as it then becomes "prior art." I'm sure he's is well aware of that.

  • Ambrose Bierce had it right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:07AM (#13061803) Journal
    Appeal
    v.t. In law, to put the dice into the box for another throw.

  • Coming up.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:07AM (#13061808)
    Soon, Amazon will patent the ordering of products via the internet.

  • Is there no prior art on this at all?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jurt1235 ( 834677 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:08AM (#13061812) Homepage
    Relations in database do this kind of things all the time, and warn users about the consequences (usually blocking it completely).
  • No one will remember to pick up the toilet paper!!

  • Stupid patents like that are the reason why I boycot amazon.
    I use ist to look for books or movies, I read the reviews, then I buy somewhere else.
    Sorry if anybody here works for Amazon. It's nothing personal.

    • Why Stupid patents? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You going to back up your claims about about why it is stupid? Or are you appealing to the lesser mods around here who mod anyone up who derides big corporations and fits into /. groupthink?

      What happened to the yesteryear of well thought /. posts? This place has caught the DailyKos/LGF emotion over thinking meme. It's no wonder Maddox [thebestpag...iverse.net] and Kottke [kottke.org] are thinking that blogs are starting to suck ass.

    • I think I buy enough from Amazon to offset you and anyone else that boycotts them.

      They are just too convenient with the 1 click shopping and a huge amount of merchandise. I just got my digital camera [amazon.com] from them.
    • Instead of opening the comics section of the newspaper, you can instead read the freshly approved patents each morning. Unlike in the newspapers anymore, at least there is plenty of humor in these, and what's even funnier, is that the people who produce this humor are all serious and think they are producing something holy.
    • Just in a global competitiveness sort of way. The US has shipped most of it's manufacturing abroad, is busy shipping it's IT sector abroad. Allowing the patenting of business processes is I admit rather a bizarre way of pushing the rest of business out of the country but hey, most of the world is poor and could do with the trade.

      So it only makes sense that everyone outside the US should help Amazon lock down the US markets by buying stuff from them. They're also pretty cheap for books.

    • Stupid patents like that are the reason why I boycot amazon.
      I'm sure Amazon is not the only company to have stupid patents. Even so, how has Amazon used any of the patents offensively? The only time I can think of was when Amazon sued B&N over the one-click patent. Unfortunately, AFAIK the details of the settlement weren't disclosed and B&N didn't seem too affected by it. Also, they haven't sued anyone over a patent since. In fact, I believe Amazon has been more on the receiving end of patent

  • Jeff Bezos has to start reminding his customers that he owns patents on them

    • Re:It's a sad day for Intellectual Property when.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by turchinc ( 229689 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:17AM (#13062197)
      Dear Jeff,

      This is just a friendly reminder from the USPTO that you have already tried to submit this patent over five (5) times. This could be an indication that what you trying to patent is completely lacking in innovation or that you are in fact not the first person to come up with this idea. Sometimes, particularly with entirely banal patent submissions, it is a combination of both.

      You could check our online FAQ for more information on why your patent keeps getting rejected, or you could just "chill out and get the message finally". If you think you have received this reminder in error, please contact us at priorart@uspto.gov or try submitting the patent again. Its only the taxpayer's money your wasting, after all.

      Thanks.

      Best Regards,

      The Patent Office

  • Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:10AM (#13061821)
    So it's like:
    1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
    2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
    3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
    4. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
    5. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
    6. Change another word and resubmit -> gets ACCEPTED.

    Instead of:
    1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
    2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a small fine.
    3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a multiplying fine.
    4,5,6,7...on the scheme of 3. etc.

    Amazon is just flooding the USPO.

    • Re:Illustrates the problem perfectly (Score:4, Informative)

      by dan the person ( 93490 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:20AM (#13061861) Homepage Journal
      In the last amendment, they didn't just change a couple of words, they also canceled 5 claims following a recomendation from the patent office.
    • Flooding? Wow - this gives me an idea - why should we all not go and submit (at least weekly) some random shit to USPTO? I wonder - if it gets DoS'ed what will they do then?

    • You can't just keep amending like that unless the examiner is voluntarily giving you an easy time, or he screwed something up. All the rules about amendments are geared towards making the PTO money. They will often do things just so you'll have to pay another fee.

      Also, I don't know if you realize that they basically reject every single application the first time around. They are swamped with applications, so they are doing everything they can to reduce the numbers. The fact that something was rejected
    • 1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
      2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
      3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
      4. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
      5. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected
      6. Change another word and resubmit -> gets ACCEPTED.

      Technically it goes more like this:

      1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
      2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected.
      ---Applicant Pays $790 for continued examination---
      3. Change another word and r
    • 1. Submit patent -> gets rejected.
      2. Change a word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a small fine.
      3. Change another word and resubmit -> gets rejected and submitter faces a multiplying fine.
      4,5,6,7...on the scheme of 3. etc.

      I would go even further. In court they have the concept of frivolous lawsuits. If you bring a suit which is found to be frivolous, you will face a contempt of court penalty. We need the same concept in patents (assuming that we are going to allow patenting
    • This scheme would only hurt the little man with a good idea, than someone like Amazon. Amazon can keep paying the multiplying fines until it gets accepted, since their lawsuits against companies using their patented technology will far outweigh the measly fines for resubmitting a dozen times. The small guy, however, can't resubmit a dozen times, and the USPO can keep patents from getting accepted just so they could get higher fines on the resubmit.
    • First off, I HIGHLY doubt that is how it happened. You're oversimplyfying the process. That is the problem with those who are incredibly defensive against software patents. I am not saying I am all for them. I am not necessarily convinced that the current process or mechanism right now for the them is perfect but I do think in some form, they should be present.

      I find it sort of discouraging that so many intelligent people are on /., but somany oversimplyfy when it comes to patents in order to further a ri

  • Patent THIS! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bonzor ( 856075 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:15AM (#13061840)
    I'd like to see them patent shipping something out on time. I ordered a phone from them, which they said was in stock. I have checked status and the expected delivery date is August 1st....mind you I ordered this a week ago.

    C'mon, how about customer service? Must we rely on computers to do everything?
    • I always thought you had to demonstrate that it could be done/built before you patented something. I'm guessing the patent application is filled out and ready to go, but htat heaven't been able to implement it in the field successfully yet.
    • Yeah, I ordered two-day delivery on Monday the 11th, with all items in stock. As soon as I clicked the "Finished" button, the ETA showed up as the 19th. Phshaw.
  • Just give me Jeff's address. Ill take care of it

  • A simple question is warranted (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AutopsyReport ( 856852 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:18AM (#13061848)
    So what changed their mind the sixth time?

    You would think that after five rejections, the patent office would lend significantly less weight to the credibility of the patent, and presumably would not approve it.

  • little Hogwort? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Psykechan ( 255694 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:24AM (#13061876)
    When your little Hogwart checks out the latest Harry Potter book at Amazon, he or she may be reminded...

    Isn't Hogwart the name of the school? What the heck would a little Hogwart be? Can any of you little Slashdots explain this to me?

  • Not Defending this, But (Score:5, Insightful)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:32AM (#13061905) Homepage Journal
    I'm not defending Amazon's patents on things that seem obvious (once you start running a service business over the web) --- but they offered a bounty for prior art on "One Click" (TM), in an attempt to establish if their claims had merit. This was done with O'Reilly -- the book publisher.

    It seemed to me, based on the results they got, that it actually was somewhat novel. It hadn't been done before.

    This one is a bit similar: it seems obvious. But really, I think the problem here is that most ordering systems totally suck, and this is a version that sucks slightly less. So it seems obvious and intuitive. But that doesn't meant that anyone ever tried to do it properly.

    It is a bit like a well-designed product; it is easy to use. But a lot of effort and attempts to make it usable went into it. If you take the time to compare it to the sucky stuff that came before, then you'll probably think it is more novel.
    • my grandmothers pharmacist in 1978.
      He told me when I tried to pick up her latest prescriptions and some other off the shelf stuff she had ordered - last month your order included XX. This time you bought YY. Your new prescription conflicts with both of these. dont but YY, and dont use XX. Intead here use ZZ.
      • The video rentals, here in Brazil at least, do warn you when you try to re-rental something you already watched. Also they adapt their behaviour when they see that you like to watch the same movie 2 or 3 times.

      • The Amazon patent does not have to do with pharmacies or drugs. It is constrained only to the web. They're not claiming a patent on the concept of reminding customers of previous purchases -- they're doing it only as a "computer-implemented method," constrained to "electronic catalogs" for an "online store" and "user-specific order histories." Arguably, you could implement the same thing for non-retail websites. Or non user-specific order histories. Or take it off the web entirely. So unless your grandmothe

    • Gag me (Score:2)

      by fnj ( 64210 )
      Blah blah blah merit blah blah blah prior art blah blah blah novel blah blah blah [only] seems obvious blah blah blah

      (This is going to come off harsh because I am exasperated not with you but with what seems to be a complete society wide cavein to thuggery)

      Not defending it? And then you defend the indefensible? These Amazon patent turds are frivolous on the face of it. Any patent examining process with one tenth the common sense God gave a moth would make short work of rejecting this crap With Prejudi

  • Thank you Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unoengborg ( 209251 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:36AM (#13061935) Homepage
    Even though the software patent law in EU was thrown out a while ago, it doesn't mean that doesn't mean that question of software patents will be gone for ever. This was probably just one battle in a long war for software patents.

    The more trival and stupid patents that gets granted in the US the easier it will be to show that software patents are bad, whenever the patent law issue pops up its ugly head the next time.

    While american idustry spends their money on patent lawyers and courts, other parts of the world where software or process patents are not allowed can spend their money on product development, giving them a competitive edge.

  • Next Amazon patent - "Selling" (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrRay720 ( 874710 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:37AM (#13061941)
    Yes that's right. Amazon already have in the planning stage a patent for the previously unknown concept of "selling". This unique and freshly invented process involves the exchange of goods for money.

    There are also plans in the pipeline for saeveral other uniquie and novel concepts. Expect the following to be taken to the patent stage soon:
    -Websites
    -The number 5
    -Presenting a product to a customer
    -Telling people they can buy stuff
    -Creating words from symbols known as 'letters'
    -Only accepting orders if a payment is made
    -Sending out orders in 'boxes', whatever they are
    -Inhaling air, and exhaling carbon dioxide

    I wish I had the brains of those guys - they am them most cleverest.

  • 7 Years and Running... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dalroth ( 85450 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:37AM (#13061942) Homepage Journal
    7 years now. That's how long it's been since I've purchased anything from Amazon.

    7 years Jeff. 7 years of lost revenue that has gone to other companies because of your stubborn insistence on doing crap like this.

    My boycott shall continue.

    May I suggest some of Amazon's competition?

    Barnes and Noble [bn.com]
    Buy.com [buy.com]
    New Egg [newegg.com]
    Ebay [ebay.com]

    Bryan
    • I'm sure that all the millions of dollars they lost due to your boycott are more than offset by the sales gained through all these useful things like reminders and one-click buying.

      And I find it really hilarious how you can boycott Amazon for their shady practices, then recommend Ebay as an alternative. Ebay make Amazon look like Jesus and his disciples.

      • Ebay make Amazon look like Jesus and his disciples.

        Which disciples? I hear some of them turned out not to be so great.

        Also, the thought of Jeff Bezos in sack cloth is amusing.
      • And I find it really hilarious how you can boycott Amazon for their shady practices, then recommend Ebay as an alternative. Ebay make Amazon look like Jesus and his disciples.

        And I'm still waiting for Buy.com to credit me for the $149 they owe me for a defective scanner I returned in 1999. Despite the return receipt I faxed them after shipping it back on my own dime, they claim not to have received it.

        It's just not worth the hassle of small claims court for $149, which I'm sure they're well aware of.
    • I'm not sure your actual rationale for the boycott. "doing crap like this" is rather vague. They provide good selection and great deals, they provide a very good service for their corporate customers (Target, Walmart, etc.). I guess maybe you'd rather they get sued (like Apple recently) by some guy in Asia who's hoarding patents rather than prepare now for that problem facing them and others...

      I'm surprised you mentioned Buy.com, which has had a 2.93/10 customer satisfaction rating at www.resellerrati [resellerratings.com]
      • I'm surprised you mentioned Buy.com, which has had a 2.93/10 customer satisfaction rating at www.resellerratings.com.

        Scanning the reviews at Reseller Ratings, there is a suspicious flood of negative reviews regarding canceled orders on or around 20 June. If these reviews are not outright spam, they are likely the result of a pricing error (e.g., a $1,000 item being sold for $100). That said, the rating history isn't all that great, either.

        My experience has been satisfactory, and I will continue to buy

    • And if you think he or anyone there cares for a millisecond about an extremist fringe of their potential customer base not buying from them because of those actions, you have a real distorted sense of reality.

      If everyone on Slashdot never bought from them, they wouldn't care one squirt, as compared to the benefits (regardless of how you morally consider them) of them protecting their IP.

      The problem here isn't Amazon -- they are a public company and their sole responsibility is to their shareholders. These

  • What about Brick and Mortar? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ehaggis ( 879721 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:43AM (#13061963) Homepage Journal

    I know this is a common argument, but what if we applied the same patent rules to Brick and Mortar? Can we restrict people and businesses from using common business practices and logic? I.e. I patent "How may I help you?" as a lead question. Now no one can use that line. I know it is ridiculous.

    I am in favor of people protecting their unique inventions and developments, but securing patents for the obvious and mundane is a typical symptom of US litigious culture.

  • Their reality or your reality? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doc modulo ( 568776 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:20AM (#13062219)
    What Amazon's case is leading up to is that you can't run a business where you think up new things to get more customers who pay better or other ways to improve business, because pretty soon every smart business technique will be patented if you use any software at all (and don't they all?). They'll use "but it's in software" as an excuse but they're still patenting business methods.

    In fact, patenting software is also bad, but since that bad thing has been allowed, it's a good way of getting the other bad thing allowed via this back door.

    You think being able to start a business, selling something and making money is something that should be ok for you to do? Not in "their" reality. In their reality any competitor is something bad and needs to be destroyed in any way possible. After all, what's better for profit than having no competitors right? right!

    In their reality, the big corporations are the emperors of the business world now and especially in this political climate it looks like it's going to stay this way. They see a world where there will be no more extra competitors incoming anymore and they will be the ones offering most of the goods and services that the people need, the ones they don't need we'll make them want, simple.

    HEY, if we make a couple of acquisitions we might be the only company left in the country, won't that be nice? No competition at all, just like "The Company" in the movie "Aliens" although we'll have to somehow make the rest of the world heel to our reality as well, for even more easy profit!

    This is the feeling I get when I read news out of the, shall we say, "corporate empires of America". Will it really turn out this way or do you have your own reality of how you see the world, of how you see the world changing in the future? A lot of you do but is your reality as strong as "their" reality? And are you busy making your reality happen or are you just focusing on pointing out the flaws in their plan (which means the only reality under discussion is still THEIR REALITY (there's no such thing as bad publicity eh Mr. Cruise?)).

    Take a leaf out of their strategy book: don't waste all your energy on countering their propaganda and instead focus on spreading YOUR ideas into the world, self-replicating memes via the internet work well and don't take much effort except using your brain to come up with the concepts and vectors. Spreading something good instead of reinforcing the bad will improve how you enjoy life as well as how others enjoy it. The main theme of your life will not be negative but positive.

    It sounds cloudy but it makes psychological sense.

    You could, for example, take the recent rejection of software patents in the EU as something positive. The businesses in Europe will be able to do anything they want to do and in doing so will out-profit USA businesses, especially in an internet world. They'll be able to use any software they want and still sell in the USA, they'll be able to use any business method and still be able to sell in the USA, they'll be able to patent any weird idea in the USA and block out US businesses from competing with them.

    Pretty soon, the corporate "emperors" will be left with invisible business suits and somehow "arrange" for the laws to be changed.

    That's just a concept, a reality I hastily described during the typing of this post, it could do with some more positivity. Do you like it or would you like to construct one of your own? Be my guest but make it visionary and positive. It'll spread with a little "marketing" and if it's concepts are powerful enough.

    How about the concept of changing voting behaviour? Whatever it is that's in your head, start typing.

    You don't have a reality of your own? You've been watching a lot of TV haven't you? I pity a lot of North Americans, I wish for something better for them.

    Anyway, I want every response to this post to have arguments against OR for this view of mine maybe coupled with how you see things, and not just any argument, it can't be some bullshit argument that just makes you FEEL good even though it doesn't make sense. It has to be a logical argument!

    Good luck in making it happen guys!

  • Drug Interactions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pklong ( 323451 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:24AM (#13062246) Journal
    "which also covers warning customers about drug interactions" I just can't wait for the first fatality if anyone implements this. You just know what would happen "But the system usually warns me" followed by "I'm taking you to court" soon after something isn't flagged up or an unusual conflict occurs.

  • It's already working! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheUnknownCoder ( 895032 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:07AM (#13062589)
    I just got the following message:

    WARNING
    ----------------
     You're about to purchase Linux Bible, 2005 Edition, which should not be read in combination with Windows XP for Dummies that you bought last week.
    This item has been made unavailable for your purchase for the next 10 years, when the effects of the first item are completely gone!
  • Like shipping for free when you purchase a certain amount... That needs to be defensively patented. Or showing an excerpt from the book as a sales promotion... That needs to be patented as well... What about this. Oh yeah and don't forget to patent the idea of putting customer reviews on the site as well. Its disgusting what can get a patent these days.
  • I guess when my dentist auto-reminds me for a cleaning after my root canal my HMO is goint to have to split the claim check and send a portion to Bezos.

    Lovely.

  • Bitch where it counts! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by meburke ( 736645 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:14AM (#13063229)
    All the clever comments on slashdot don't help much. Why not give the USPTO the feedback it needs when it does something dumb? Send the link to this article to: usptoinfo@uspto.gov They might then get the idea that there are consequences for stupid decisions.
    • All the clever comments on slashdot don't help much. Why not give the USPTO the feedback it needs when it does something dumb? Send the link to this article to: usptoinfo@uspto.gov They might then get the idea that there are consequences for stupid decisions.

      What good is that going to do if the "bitching" is based in fantasy land and misunderstanding? On numerous occasions [slashdot.org] I have posted informative material on the US patent system. I can count on one hand the times someone has said, "Wow, you're right,

      • No offense taken. Your suggestion is a VERY good one, although I'm not sure it goes far enough. My goal was just to provide feedback to the USPTO that they had made an unpopular decison, your suggestion seems like the first step in something like patent reform activism.

        I'm certainly not qualified to describe the Patent Office workings, so I couldn't generate a guide today if my life depended on it. However, I'm having a fanatasy about a wiki-type guide with workflow/process flow diagrams (possibly interact
  • Would be, "You previously purchased some weed from us, now try LSD at 10% off!"
  • At first glance, I thought the article read Remaining Customers Patented by Amazon. It made me nervous that the textbook I'm expecting on Friday would come with a patent inspector who'd staple a bar code to me or something.
  • I'm probably being totally naive here, but I thought a patent was supposed to apply to a particular process. A method or mechanism for doing something. Not just the end result! Of course, it wouldn't appear in the 'Janet and John' abstract at the front, but it'd be there in the actual claims themselves.

    So Amazon could patent their way to remind customers, but anyone else could do the same if they use a different method.

    Either this is being blown out of proportion, or the US patent system is even mor

Slashdot Top Deals

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Close