Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents The Internet

Amazon Gets Patent on Consumer Reviews 341

Posted by Zonk from the sheesh dept.
theodp writes "Review your local dry cleaner, pay $10 million? Among the three new patents awarded to Amazon.com this week is one that covers collecting reviews by letting visitors to a Web site fill out a form. Amazon.com spokesman Craig Berman said he couldn't speculate on whether the company would attempt to license its new intellectual property." From the article: "In one embodiment of the patent, the system sends consumers a message inviting them to write a review in a predetermined amount of time after the purchase. It's a method widely used by online retailers, including Yahoo Shopping. The patent also covers the method of tracking who returns to rate products by asking them to click on a unique link in an e-mail. But the patent even covers collecting reviews by letting visitors to a Web site fill out a form. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Gets Patent on Consumer Reviews More

Amazon Gets Patent on Consumer Reviews

Comments Filter:

  • This is getting stupid (Score:5, Funny)

    by Linker3000 ( 626634 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:52PM (#14009060) Journal
    I would comment on the news article but it might be classed as a review and me or /. might get sued for patent infringement.

    • Re:This is getting stupid (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In other news, Wal*Mart has applied for a patent on using low, low prices..
    • So why does the patent office keep on granting so many obviously stupid patents?

      It is not primarily because the patent examiners are incompetent, as is often suggested. Instead it is the economics of running a patent office that make sure that it becomes like this.

      Nowadays most patent offices around the world are "self funded", which means that they are funded by the fees that the collect from the patent applicants. This may perhaps seem like a sensible idea at first sight, but unfortunately it invariably leads to lower and lower standards for what is patentable.

      A look at the USPTO Fee Schedule [uspto.gov] explains the underlying math.

      The initial application fee for a patent is $300. In order to collect that money, the patent office has to do quite a lot of work: set up a file, do an initial formal examination, perform a novelty search, and quite often engage in correspondence with the applicant to sort out various issues. It seems reasonable to assume that initial applications "as such" do not cover their own costs for the patent office.

      But once a patent has been granted, nice things start to happen to the patent office's profitability calculations.

      In order to keep his patent valid, the proprietor has to pay maintenance fees at regular intervals. $900 is due at 3.5 years after it was granted, $2,300 due at 7.5 years, and $3,800 due at 11.5 years.

      For a patent that is renewed throughout its full term, the maintenance fees add up to $7,000, compared to the $300 for the initial application.

      And the renewal fees are the good part of the patent office business, since the PTO doesn't actually have to do anything for the money, except make a note in the file that the fee has been paid. So for those patent offices around the world that are funded in whole or in part by the fees they collect, there is a direct incentive to let the standards slip to the lowest level they can possibly get away with.

      The result can be seen at a patent office near you.

      • Re:And this is *why* it's getting stupid (Score:4, Informative)

        by Znork ( 31774 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:58PM (#14009764)
        'Nowadays most patent offices around the world are "self funded"'

        Not only is the patent office itself 'self funded', the actual patent system itself has nobody responsible for its budget. The money going into patent holders pockets doesnt materialize from thin air; the method of creating income through monopoly rent is comparable to product taxes.

        So the patent-fee funded PTO joyfully assigns the equivalent of taxation rights all around, and the consumers and citizens are more or less powerless to do anything about it because theres nobody to hold directly responsible.

        Of course, that was the entire idea from the start; when the kings of old wanted more income, but were reluctant to impose further taxes on an annoyed population, they instead handed letters of patent to merchants and nobility in exchange for funds or support, and the patent holders got to exact the funds from the population. Blame got shifted and everyone got what they wanted. Except the population of course.
      • It is in the patent clerk examiner's best interests to simply pass every patent application received.

        If the patent office approves a request, they're "off the hook". It then becomes in the hands of the courts and the free market to actually determine the validity or legitimacy of the patent and the technology involved. When the patent goes to court, the patent office itself does not have to show up or be involved in any way at all. They're done, take the money and move on. Reviews like the Eolas "browser plug-in" one are extremely rare, and often simply keep the status quo.

        If the patent office *rejects* a patent, they can be required to get involved. The clerk involved may be ordered to go to court or otherwise write up a document defending their decision that the technology was affected by prior art, triviality, or obviousness.

        For a measly $35K a year, its not worth their time or trouble. Pass it and its no longer their problem, its somebody else's...

        The process of approval itself encourages lazyness and haphazard investigation. As such, their modern definition of "prior art" is merely "has a patent application already been filed in the United States of America on this?". That's it. triviality and non-obviousness are beyond them because 1) they wouldn't know, and 2) they'd have to defend their decisions, wasting their time from doing their *real* job which is to process (and approve) patent applications, not act as surrogate lawyers far underpaid for that role.
        • You are absolutely correct. The solution may be to require the patent clerk to present justification for approval at the start of any patent lawsuit. This would then open up the patent office employees to all sorts of negative effects any time they approve a questionable patent. It doesn't necessary solve anything. The question really becomes one on the government: Is it better to have all these corporations spending money on lawyers and the subsequent loss of productivity, or develop a system where pa

      • Solution (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bleckywelcky ( 518520 )
        I have a solution to the problem, charge a fee if your patent is denied. Since the patent will rake in $7000 in revenues over its life if it is accepted, make the patent rejection fee $7100. Problem solved.

        On a more serious note, perhaps the more patents a particular entity (or related entity) submits, the higher the price should be? Amazon is on their ... 5000th, 6000th now? The price per patent should be in the $million dollar range now. This way companies will pick and choose which patents to submit beca
    • What Amazon is doing, of course, is protecting a vast amount of intellectual property that it has amassed over the years in the form of consumer reviews. While Amazon does not own the copyright to those reviews, they do have extensive rights to them as set out in the Amazon Conditions of Use [amazon.com]:

      If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate otherwise, you grant Amazon.com and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reprodu

  • No theoretical proof needed! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:53PM (#14009070) Homepage Journal


    Whenever I call for an end to copyright and IP, people ask for the theory behind a copyopen world. They say the world isn't black and white, that we just need more laws to balance copyright and copy rights.

    What is a patent? It is lending government's monopoly on the use of force. It is completely incompatible with freedom. When some law is made giving 1 person in 10,000 the unique power of force, there is a problem. This patent hells ezos and the top shareholders, not the average employee of Amazon.

    If I tell you that you can't eat an orange, you'll tell me to shove it. Rather than explain why eating an orange is bad and convincing you, I'm going to use government to force you to stop. If you don't, you go to court. If you refuse the court, out come the guns.

    To those who believe their livelihood depends on copyright and patent, I call shens. I've written two books that are "freely" copyable. In both I request $20 to acquire my official version and help motivate me to write more. Guess what? I get the money. Often. With the web, it is even easier to make money this way.

    Patents and copyright are dead. Use your talents to build and convince, not build and coerce. What you invent likely came from seeing the inventions of others and making a new or better way to do something. If you want to cut off others from bettering your idea, then make another, better version.

    BTW, I stopped using Amazon years ago. I prefer buying local, and promoting my own businesses while I do. Local store owners, managers and employees then hire me rather than going online. It is a nice circle of barter and trade rather than padding UPS' and Bezos' pockets. I have no shortage of work for myself and any of my employees, who also refuse Amazon as they know their lives depend on our neighbors.
    • Here here... all this stuff is completely disturbing; I myself have a web project that would rely heavily on 'citizen' reviews, and I don't like the idea that despite the fact that I've written the code from scratch, that I conceptualized every aspect of it myself and with help from no person or company, I could be ordered to desist based on a way-too-inclusive patent owned by someone else who has done something completely unrelated or even similar to my work, just because one of the active concepts is 'si

    • But what if someone steals your work? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:14PM (#14009298)
      I'm asking this in all seriousness. Let's say you write the next Great American Novel. The next Gone With the Wind or Catcher in the Rye or whatever. And you sell a few copies, but a large publisher sees it. They grab the book, print it themselves, mass-market it, and stick, I don't know, CDs or DVDs or something to make sure their edition of the book is so good no one would ever buy yours.

      And you would be OK with them reaping the profit from your work?

      • Remove "copy"-right and replace it with "profit"-fight.

        Only the author can PROFIT from sale of his work. That would allow me to sell me book and allow anyone to copy it, but if someone else tried to sell it (excluding base reproduction cost), that wouldn't be legal.

      • Re:But what if someone steals your work? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:46PM (#14009625) Homepage Journal
        Good question. If I want to try to sell 100,000 copies, I'd have to go through exactly what you described. I've had offers for my works, and the money sucks. In fact, most mass published books lose money.

        I have no problems letting others distribute my work, even under their names. 30 years ago? Maybe I'd mind. But with the web, I could upload my works to various "First Author" sites (which I bet WOULD exist in a copyopen world) and then readers would know who really authored it.

        Right now, I am tempted by two publishing deals strictly for ego and fame. Yet the money is better in self-publishing and self-marketing. I can speak to 50 people at $10/head and sell 20 copies of my book, signed, at $25. I make $1000, spend $200, for 2 hours of work. $400 per hour!

      • Re:But what if someone steals your work? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Charcharodon ( 611187 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:59PM (#14009768)
        There is a big diffenence between writing a novel and what they are doing. It's more like hey what a nifty idea, I think I patten the idea of a novel, well wait everyone already knows what a novel is I can't patten that, I know I'll patten the method of writing the novel and in effect patten the concept of the novel itself. First I'll get one for righting it with a pencil, when that runs out I'll extending it by adding in right handed, then left handed, and then a typwriter, then by phone, by newspaper, etc, etc, etc.

        They did not in any way conceiveable way or form come up with the concept of customer reviews just some extremely basic software to post it and track it, of course most of that already existed in the form of foruums, but I doubt they'll simply go after people who are copying their software, they'll go after anyone that puts outa similar result.

    • What is a patent? It is lending government's monopoly on the use of force. ...

      Like it or not, it's also a way to encourage innovation. You might argue that Amazon's latest patent doesn't merit 20-year exclusivity... and I, for one, wouldn't argue with you. But it sure would be nice to somehow fix the USPTO's technique without relinquishing their goal...

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Next in the queue (Score:3, Funny)

    by LochNess ( 239443 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:53PM (#14009071) Homepage
    Slashdot patents the blog.

  • Productivity lost because of patents. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:55PM (#14009086)
    Has anybody performed a study regarding the loss of productivity due to patents? Indeed, not only is there the issue of conducting numerous patent searches during the development of a new product, but also the resources spent on legal action regarding patents.

    The time and money spent on such actions could be put towards far better activities.

    • So many patents are defensive in nature (ie., patenting something that a company may wish to capitalize on at some point in the future), and as such it's really hard to measure the costs or benefits of the work that goes into creating these patents. It's highly speculative work.

      Certainly legal teams cost lots of money. But companies wouldn't do it if they didn't have some reason to believe it paid off in the long run. Whether that reasoning is correct or not is a whole other subject...

    • Slashdot has [slashdot.org] [Slashdot.org]

      Patents, while extremely useful for development of pharmaceuticals (since they allow the companies to make profits), may be actually killing innovation.

      • Patents on drugs are useless. $300M to make a drug seems like a lot. Remove changes to tort laws and excessive FDA bureaucracy and even $200M seems like too much.

        Yet we have billions of citizens needing meds. If you're the first to market, you've some time to recoup. By the time your drug is reverse engineered and the copy is proven to be equally effective and safe, you're closer to offering your produt at a discount.

    • Re:Productivity lost because of patents. (Score:5, Funny)

      by rovingeyes ( 575063 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:07PM (#14009224)
      Has anybody performed a study regarding the loss of productivity due to patents?

      Yes. In my study I found out that while researching this topic I was not productive at all. My productivity loss was 100% in fact. If I hadn't done that study, I'd have had at least 20% more productivity than total loss, which is my usual by the way.

      Let me know if you need the paper. It has enlightened me a lot, hope it does the same for you.

    • Consider reading "Information liberation: Challenging the corruptions of information power" by Brian Martin (of course, it's freely available online as a PDF [uow.edu.au]). It discusses aspects of information and freedom. In particular, Chapter 3, "Against Intellectual Property" [uow.edu.au], makes the case for why IP may not be a good thing for society. It oulines the main arguments, and has references to other research where people have analyzed how helpful various forms of IP are.
    • IBM are large enough to be sort of a patent universe in itself; it is one of the worlds top holder of patents. They stated that their patent portfolio was worth roughly 10 times as much to them defensively (blocking lawsuits against stuff they'd made internally) than in licensing fees. The way I read that, according to IBM the net value of patents is highly negative; roughly 10 times more blocking that enabling (at least.) Eivind.

  • At what point? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealBeanDip ( 26604 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:55PM (#14009088)
    At what point will it become impossible to innovate with software without infringing on someones patent?

    • Re:At what point? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Homology ( 639438 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:01PM (#14009169)
      At what point will it become impossible to innovate with software without infringing on someones patent?

      I would guess this is the case today for a large application.

    • and at what point does it become impossible to do anything with a computer that doesn't infringe on someone's patent?

      Innovation is one thing but we are soon approaching the point where doing normal everyday activities with a computer will infringe.
    • What do you mean, "will [...] become"? It already is.

    • Re:At what point? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:39PM (#14009553) Homepage
      Oh, chances are that it won't become impossible to innovate.

      It'll just be impossible to innovate in the USA.

      Which will, in the end, ultimately serve to remove the USA from the competitive global market.

      I'm sure India, China, and Brazil won't mind in the least!
    • The article submitter says the patent "even covers" all these additional things. But the thing is, the patent really only covers a system encompassing ALL of those additional things, so it isn't as harmful as is thought. Unless you have a review system with all that specific email confirmation etc. then you are fine.

  • Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BigDork1001 ( 683341 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:55PM (#14009090) Homepage
    ... they are not patenting this to be evil but to cover their ass. They don't want someone else to get this patent and then sue them.

    Hey, it could be... maybe.

    • Re:Maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ajs318 ( 655362 )
      If they do not want someone else to patent it and sue them, all they need is an example of prior art, or to show that the concept would be obvious to an expert in the field.

      Not only is there substantial prior art, but the concept is so bloody obvious, even to me, that this patent should never have been granted. This is just more evidence that the US patent system is irretrievably broken. Write to your elected representatives and let them know this is unacceptable!

      What we really need is a system which
      • So how about if, when you are seeking a patent, you have to stump up a fixed non-refundable deposit; and the first person who comes forward within, say, six months or a year with proof of prior art that would invalidate the patent, gets half that money, as a sort of bounty?

        I'm torn. I like the system you're proposing, and it sounds effective. The only problem is that the socialist in me doesn't like the idea of having to sump a deposit - that would sumarilly reduce pattent applications from smaller busine

    • Hey, it could be... maybe

      It feels bad to work for Amazon now, doesn't it?

  • Can anyone say prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sensible Clod ( 771142 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:55PM (#14009091) Homepage
    Is there not anyone at the USPTO that has seen consumer reviews on (for example) PriceGrabber, NexTag, ePinions, or ANYWHERE?!

    It's like patenting the personal computer. Pardon me while I throw up...
    • Whether there is prior art or not, it is still wrong that this stuff can be patented.

      A technological revolution like the web opens the door to hundreds of new possibilities. Different people will come up with the same ideas within a short space of time. It should not benefit someone to have thought of something slightly before anyone else, and then be able to charge anyone else who comes up with the same idea at a later date.
      • Whether a patent is accepted or not now hinges not on matters of innovation, novelty, or technology, but of its formatting, correct presentation and accepted correct legalese (read incomprehensible) wording.

        Bureaucractic efficiency > correct application of law and common sense.

    • Re:Can anyone say prior art? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Stonehand ( 71085 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:47PM (#14009634) Homepage
      Now, I'm not an IP lawyer, but I do pay attention when IP lawyers talk, and I get thoroughly annoyed when people believe the article summaries and ignore the readily accessible primary documents.

      Despite what Slashdot groupthink might have you believe, it is not relevant whether their is similar art *now*. It IS relevant as to whether there was similar art before the patent was filed -- which is years before the patent is ever granted. Furthermore, objectives are NOT patented; methods are. Thus, unlike what the summary might have you believe, Amazon has not patented a generic method for getting product reviews.

      http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netah tml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l= 50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6963848.WKU.&OS=PN/6963848&RS=PN/ 6963848 [uspto.gov]

      Amazon, for instance, obtained US Patent 6,963,848. This was granted on November 8, 2005. It was *filed* March 2, 2000. PriceGrabber only started grabbing reviews in May of that year, and that by partnering with ConsumerReview.COM -- which may or may not have used methods specified in the patent. Amazon's VERY FIRST CLAIM, for instance, specifies that the covered system must do the receiving of the order AND the later solicitation of a review AFTER a reasonable period of time to allow for an initial experience. Unless ConsumerReview or PriceGrabber itself TAKES THE ORDERS, they would not appear to constitute prior art that would invalidate the first claim.

      In fact, ALL TWENTY-EIGHT CLAIMS have this stipulation -- that the system itself takes the order for which a review occurs. Does Epinions take the order, or merely send you to someone else? Does NexTag? Does PriceGrabber? Did you read the freaking patent AT ALL?

      Go vomit at your own laziness, and at the Moderator that would declare you Insightful.

      • Re:Can anyone say prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by neonleonb ( 723406 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:56PM (#14009744) Homepage
        You do understand that the review site taking the orders itself is a completely trivial matter? That is not an innovation, and it doesn't deserve a patent. The conjunction of two commonplace things does not constitute a patentable idea.

        Your argument is kind of like saying that even though people have sold spoons for ages, selling spoons AND GIVING A STICKER AS WELL should be patentable.

  • Bad news for LiveJournal (Score:4, Funny)

    by millennial ( 830897 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:55PM (#14009095) Journal
    Current mood: Sued for allowing comments/reviews on user journals

  • For what its worth (Score:4, Informative)

    by QuaintRealist ( 905302 ) <quaintrealist AT gmail DOT com> on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:56PM (#14009106) Homepage Journal
    While the description seems to imply that Amazon is patenting user reviews, (and the article, which it quotes, does the same), these patents apply to purchase circles and sites that allow searchable reviews rather than to those who write the reviews. More of a threat to CraigsList.

    Still another dumb ruling by the USPTO, though.

  • MAD and it's close tie to proliferation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:56PM (#14009108)
    It's not necessarily that these are ridiculous patents on things that have been around for a long time. It's that the granting of these patents forces all other companies to start protecting themselves by filing for patents on things that they never would have thought to patent before. Only in this way are they safe from the so-called "submarine patents" of competitors.

    However, this mutually assured destruction style of research does little to progress the state of the art. It does a good job of cementing the current technology as an ad hoc standard, but it acts as a chilling effect on new technologies.

    Not that I blame any company for doing this. It is the rules of the government that created this situation. Companies must learn to play by those rules or face elimination by competitors who understand the system and manipulate it successfully.

  • How Amazon could be my Hero... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Monkey ( 795756 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:56PM (#14009109)
    I think it would be cool if they announced that this patent would never EVER be enforced. They only took out the patent to protect themselves from some troll-company pulling an SCO, and they would be very happy if every one viewed this as copy-left material.

    I doubt it will happen, but if that was there plan it would make me prefer them above all other online retailers..

  • In related news, a patent was recently granted for a perpetual-motion machine [sciencedaily.com], breaking the rule to reject inventions that defy the laws of physics.
    • Oddly enough, from the article it doesn't sound like a perpetual motion machine and more than an orbiting satellite is. Pumping enough energy into a volume to curve space enough to counteract gravity isn't free. In fact, it's incredibly expensive. I'm inclined to agree that if the patent implies the net energy needed is zero, it's effectively a perpetual motion machine. But the article didn't go that far and I'm too lazy to dig further. On and interesting note, does anyone recall hearing about some sor

  • Moderators (Score:2, Funny)

    by jgbishop ( 861610 )
    Of all the days to receive 5 moderator points! I guess there won't be any "comment reviewing" for me...

  • Write your Congresscritters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:57PM (#14009120) Homepage Journal
    The system is broken.

    How many examples do we need (patenting story lines, genes, methods of evaluating employees) of the idiocy that is allowing business process and software patents?

    Write them. Call them. Fax them.

    Somebody else karma whore with the contact info, I have to go somewhere and be ill.
    • I'd write them if I didn't think they'd already been bought and paid for by big industry. Face it: congressmen and senators stopped being for the people a long long time ago.

      The only way copyright and patent law will ever be "reformed" (and by reformed I mean, dismantled as hopelessly broken) is through civil war. And nobodies going to die for the "I want free movies and free ideas" cause (and yet, on the other hand, greedy corporations will probably have no trouble justifying to themselves the use of force

  • Patent Time Limit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iamlucky13 ( 795185 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:57PM (#14009127)
    Perhaps there should be a limit on the amount of time that can pass between when an idea goes into use and when the patent application is submitted. That doesn't address the silliness of this patent, but at least it would have eliminated it.
    • Perhaps there should be a limit on the amount of time that can pass between when an idea goes into use and when the patent application is submitted. That doesn't address the silliness of this patent, but at least it would have eliminated it.

      35 USC 102(b) states:

      Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
      A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
      the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this

    • As another poster points out, there is such a rule. There are, in fact many rules to prevent this kind of patent from being granted or enforced. The problem is simply that none of the rules are *followed*.

      I really want to see a class-action lawsuit against the USPTO.

  • So Much For Those Bezos Reassurances! (Score:5, Informative)

    by theodp ( 442580 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:58PM (#14009128)
    Guardian Unlimited (2002) [guardian.co.uk]: Bezos counters that Amazon has made numerous innovations in web commerce that have been widely copied which it didn't patent, such as...customer reviews. oreilly.com (2000) [oreilly.com]: Jeff countered that Amazon has made countless other innovations in Web commerce that it didn't patent, and that have been widely copied.
  • Anybody else get the idea Amazon has some sort of vision problem, they spend their time obsessing over one-click patents, mechanical turks and whatever else whilst at the end of the day their profit margins are terrible and only achieving any profit after wasting billions of $ ... their business model is to philanthropic as they now have even lower profits due to shipping books for flat yearly rates and their still obsessing over moronic patents ... the fact that they even pursue such stupid things at great

    • Re:Amazon needs to focus on profit (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zoomba ( 227393 ) <mfc131.gmail@com> on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:24PM (#14009406) Homepage
      The patents are a very clear part of their corporate vision. There's nothing confusing about this one. What they're doing is essentially patenting an entire sales and distribution channel. At this rate, no one will be able to offer a remotely similar service without violating a slew of patents. They've ensured they'll never have serious competition. They set prices so low that no one can compete, and then make it illegal to do so. Once that's taken care of, prices will go back up and they'll start raking in the money.

      They're trying to establish a very legal monopoly. It's just sad that our laws allow it to be done so easily.

  • Boycott Amazon? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bfree ( 113420 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:58PM (#14009139)
    I know the fsf did stop their official call to boycott amazon [gnu.org] but I for one have never bought a thing from them. Maybe they aren't attacking everyone with their patents, but for me just giving the US Patents Office the filing fees for this rubbish is enough to keep me saying no.

  • Patent Reform. (Score:5, Informative)

    by CDPatten ( 907182 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:59PM (#14009152) Homepage
    This is outrageous. The biggest threat to the US economy isn't china or the eu like many analysts say, it's the abuse of patent laws. I think I am going to patent blowing your nose. Maybe I will patent the letter "t"; I'll trademark it too, and then charge royalties to all of you who use it on your keyboard. How absurd. We will see forums patented, etc. etc.

    We need reform, and we need it NOW. I'd say the two biggest issues that the Federal government is failing in right now are Patent reform and Illegal Immigration.

    If the the law doesn't stop soon, we will see our economy tank. When you stifle creativity and innovation (like these abuses do) then a free economy no longer exists, and that society will fail.

  • My Review (Score:5, Funny)

    by IronicCheese ( 412484 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:02PM (#14009176)
    I'm pretty unhappy with this patent and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I give it 0 out of 5 stars.

    Did you find this review helpful?
    [yes] [no]

    come get me, Amazon.
  • This "invention" is so frickin' obvious that one of those brain-dead zombies from "Night of the Living Dead" could have invented it. My pet Dalmatian has thought of more innovative ideas than this. This is crap, it's nothing, it's not an "invention," it doesn't deserve a patent, and Amazon should be fined for filing a ficticious patent application.
    • This "invention" is so frickin' obvious that one of those brain-dead zombies from "Night of the Living Dead" could have invented it.

      Great. That has absolutely nothing to do with the legal concept of "obvious" as defined by 35 USC 103, Graham v. Deere, or any other legal precedent defining patentability.

      This is crap, it's nothing, it's not an "invention," it doesn't deserve a patent, and Amazon should be fined for filing a ficticious patent application.

      A compelling argument, sir. I must point out, how

      • I expect that you both know what you're talking about. The problem is, the person you replied to is suggesting that the law in this area is currently failing any useful rationality or benefit test. Your understanding of this portion of the law doesn't make it more or less rational or beneficial.

        For me, such decisions tend to cause me to favor the view that patents of non-physical items are a significant barrier to innovation and we should consider ending them as a means of encouraging innovation.
        • For me, such decisions tend to cause me to favor the view that patents of non-physical items are a significant barrier to innovation and we should consider ending them as a means of encouraging innovation.

          So the discovery of the method to make steel should not be a patentable invention? A new process that can manufacture amazing new hard drives should not be patentable? A new process that produces an existing product for 10% of the cost isn't an innovation that promotes science?

          Just asking, because it

        • To be a little less snippy than my other post, let me just point out that the chapter of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure which deals with the concepts of patentability is something like 500 pages long. The section which specifically deals with whether or not abstract ideas, computer software, etc. get patent protection is roughly 50 pages long, 2 columns per page. It is a LOT of material, and even still it fails to provide any clear guidance on whether or not your application will be considered p
  • Sounds like the USPTO is desperately out of touch.
  • it was my first thought too, but in the end Amazon is just exploiting ridiculous patent legislation and the existence of completely and utterly braindamaged and illiterate patent reviewers who have no idea whatsoever about the trivial nature of these patents. They are the ones to blame and whoever is in charge of them should be aware of the fact that he is a complete failure and he'd better resign or shoot himself before he completely ruins the IT economy. ;-)
    • I stopped shopping at Amazon when they received the One-Click patent and switched exclusively to Barnes and Noble's online store for several years. After the dot-com crash, I decided that online-only stores needed all the help they could get, and switched back to Amazon.

      And let's face it, Amazon.com has consistently been a big innovator in e-commerce. They developed, popularized, or combined a lot of techniques that have been widely imitated -- because they work.

      But to see them going back to this patent n
  • Hot news: Discovery Channel Store granted patent on having hot teenage girl outside blowing soap bubbles!
  • The patent also covers the method of tracking who returns to rate products by asking them to click on a unique link in an e-mail.

    So..they patented an SQL insert query?

  • as the lawsuits that follow. The USPTO has appear to have given up any hope of actually tracking IP. So they will issue copywrites to just about anything and let the lawyers sort it out in court.

    -Rick

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:27PM (#14009447)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Thank you. I was wondering what the actual patents were since /.'ers tend to shoot off at the mouth without actually reading anything. Plus, I wanted to know if this was an actual patent or just a published application. This incredibly significant difference is utterly lost on so many people here.

      To anyone submitting a story about patents:(1) Make sure to mention whether it is a patent or a published application, (2) link to the friggin' patent or publication, which is easy to do since they are all rea

  • Where is that short haired lesbo workout chick when you need her?

  • USPTO must be as well staffed as FEMA (Score:4, Informative)

    by museumpeace ( 735109 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:30PM (#14009470) Journal
    I don't know if they are going to post it but I just submitted a bit to /. about how a a patent has been granted for an anti-gravity machine [physicsforums.com]. The USPTO is infamous among /. readers for the idiotically obvious and obviously idiotic software and business process patents that it grants. Every time a new one of these howlers shows up here I complain that the USPTO is not doing its job and leaving the real work for the courts...where rich corporations will usually prevale. But they seem to hit new lows every month. Their own stated and court-tested policy is to refuse patents to any idea that violates known physical law. The examiner must be an idiot.
  • Can anybody say "guestbook"?

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:35PM (#14009526)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ction? We're told Amazon will only use patents against those who use them against Amazon. So if you're starting out a company and have a great idea, it seems as if the best thing to do is not get a patent and avoid this mess.

  • A few important details (Score:3, Informative)

    by sxyzzx ( 125040 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:45PM (#14009615)

    Here [uspto.gov] is the patent in question.

    For those too lazy to click, here's the primary claim:

    A method of encouraging customers to provide reviews of purchased items, the method comprising:

    receiving over a network an order from a first customer for an item purchased from an electronic catalog;

    estimating by what date the first customer will have at least initially evaluated the item based at least on the item type;

    initiating an electronic transmission, based at least in part on the estimated date, to the first customer on or after the estimated date of a message requesting the first customer to provide a review of the item to thereby encourage the first customer to provide at least one review, wherein the message includes a link to an electronic review form and activation of the link by the first customer causes the review form to be presented to the first customer;

    receiving the review from the first customer electronically via the review form;

    individually presenting the first customer review in a group of reviews to a second customer interested in the item; and

    based at least in part on the first customer's review, using a collaborative filtering process to automatically generate personalized recommendations for the first customer of other items.

    One thing that's common to all the claims is that the system estimates when the user will have evaluated the item, based on what kind of item it is. So if you always send the review request three days after shipping, you're not infringing the patent. OTOH, if you figure that books take longer than DVD's to evaluate, and therefore don't send a book review request for a week, then you may be in trouble.

    Also, note that the patent application was filed in March 2000, so any prior art would have to predate that.

    Interesting that the article omits these kind of details.

  • The obvious solution to the software patents problem is to just reject them on principle. But here's another thought: How about speeing up the cycle on software patents, aprticularly Internet-related ones?

    Standard patents last, what, 20 years? And it usually takes a year or two (sometimes longer) to get approved, by which time everyone has either moved on (if it's specific enough to be worth patenting) or it's become so widespread that it threatens to throw a wet banket over the entire Internet. (Think
  • It sounds like an excellent opportunity to let the vict... err recipients of Amazon's "you just bought a product, please review it" emails to instead use the review to give them a piece of your mind on their stupid patent tactics (ala product reviews and 1-click shopping, which they've enforced).
  • This affects most websites. This is TOO far reaching. Its like trying to patent a 'submit' button!

  • Possible Business Model. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kaenneth ( 82978 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @05:09PM (#14011512) Journal
    Always read patents that just expired, and build your products based on those.

    Did anyone but me notice that McDonalds introduced their 'McFlurry' at the same time Dairy Queen celebrated the 14th anniversery of their 'Blizzard'? 14 years being the length of a Patent in those days?

    I guess DQ patented putting chunks in ice cream.

    My only problem with Patents is that they were made longer, 20 years instead of 14, instead of shorter, when the pace of technological advancement has increased.

    Software patents should be cut to 7 years, because 7 year old software is basically obselete. (Windows 98 anyone?)

    Along with a 'Submarine' defense. If a patent holder participates in a standards group, and later claims that the standard infringes on their patent; their claim, in reguards to that standard, is void. However they could still pursue infringment outside of the standard. It would allow standards to be made with protection for both the Standard and the Inventor.

    The benifit to the consumer? Think of DRM 'protected' 'CD's, that not longer meet the official 'CD' standard. The other companies that make True CDs could sue the producers of those discs for infringing on their patents that they contributed to the standard.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close