Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government The Courts News

Patent Sought For Amazon Marketplace 182

Posted by Hemos from the such-a-cool-service dept.
theodp writes "On the same day CEO Jeff Bezos launched Amazon's Search Inside the Book feature, a 'completely new way for people to find the books they want,' the USPTO published Bezos' patent application for User interfaces and methods for facilitating user-to-user sales. Ironically, searching for 'Amazon' won't turn up Bezos' patent application--the claims are illustrated with example web pages for the hypothetical 'Store.com', as seen through the eyes of 'Sally Small', 'Larry Large', and 'Barry Buyer.' References are made to other patent applications, presumably Amazon's, that describe a way to efficiently create links to bank accounts, the use of product viewing and purchase histories to identify related products, an electronic catalog search engine, the use of a browse tree for navigating a catalog by category, a wish list service, and a service for allowing users to post product reviews for viewing by others." I've used Amazon Marketplace to buy a fair number of things - it's too bad such a cool service has to be "patented", because you know, the concept of people selling to other people is obviously a new one. *sigh*
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patent Sought For Amazon Marketplace More

Patent Sought For Amazon Marketplace

Comments Filter:

  • All this craziness makes me think... (Score:5, Funny)

    by r_glen ( 679664 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:06PM (#7319269)
    Al Gore should have just patented the internet.

  • I'm confused... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HaloZero ( 610207 ) <protodeka@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:08PM (#7319292) Homepage
    ...by this particular 'patent'.

    Say Bezos were granted this patent (probable) - what scope would it have? Would other online user-to-user portals and retailers be forced to shut down? eBay, Half.com (part of eBay), as examples. What exactly would patenting this particular 'idea' do?

    • Re:I'm confused... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ichimunki ( 194887 )
      If you find this "patent" confusing, perhaps you could read it and then ask more specific questions based on the actual document in question? I think this will save us both some time. :)

      The scope is clearly presented in the patent, it's about online marketplaces-- but the claims of the patent are many and some are very specific, so consult your lawyer, not Random J. Monkey on Slashdot if you really need to know this. Other portals and retailers would not necessarily "be forced to shut down"-- first there

      • Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        In light of ichimunki's (aka "I'm better than you") post, please refrain from posting any questions that could elicit discussion, or promote knowledge sharing. Slashdot is a place for reposts and Linux ... not learning. Cut it out!
    • Based on the claims listed in the patent application, Half.com would probably be affected, but eBay.com would not. The claims imply navigating to a page containing the item decription and finding a link to sell a unit of that product. Half.com works like this, but eBay.com only shows listings that sellers create... there's no predefined "product pages" that link to forms to create a new listing.

      In that case, though, one has to wonder who started doing this first... eBay or Amazon.com?

  • Ebay? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by greenhide ( 597777 ) <jordanslashdot.cvilleweekly@com> on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:09PM (#7319298)
    If Amazon has successfully secured this as a patent, does this mean that EBay could be sued for patent infringement even though it was the first major online auction player?

    Actually, I am sort of hoping for this because it would make ebay's thousands (millions?) of buyers/sellers suddenly aware of the problems of patents and trademark law in software. Also, ebay is a big enough player that hopefully this patent would get knocked down.

    • Re:Ebay? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Groote Ka ( 574299 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:22PM (#7319412)
      If Amazon has successfully secured this as a patent, does this mean that EBay could be sued for patent infringement even though it was the first major online auction player?

      Yes, if...

      I would not be surprised when Ebay would be prior art to this patent application.
      As more and more US applications are being published since the US law has changed, I see even more rubbish than when they only published granted patents. And this is just one example of many, IMHO as a patent specialist.

      Furthermore, the first claims is a peculiar one, especially this part:
      whereby the seller may create a marketplace listing for the product without supplying an identifier of the product

      • What you're selling?
      • Something

      • Sure, but what

      • I'm not going to say, I'm going to stick with my patent

      In other words: seems like your won't infringe. Bezos waisted too much money on attorney fees, it seems to me at first sight.

      • Furthermore, the first claims is a peculiar one, especially this part:

        whereby the seller may create a marketplace listing for the product without supplying an identifier of the product

        • What you're selling?
        • Something
        • Sure, but what
        • I'm not going to say, I'm going to stick with my patent In other words: seems like your won't infringe. Bezos waisted too much money on attorney fees, it seems to me at first sight.

        You may be right that he wasted money on attorney fees.

        The wording of the

      • Re:Ebay? (Score:3, Informative)

        by ClubStew ( 113954 )

        Prior art? Since when has prior art been checked by the USPTO? British Telecom with their hyperlinking, AltaVista with the search engine, and many other patents that have been granted all have very strong prior art. Even the recent EOLAs problem has prior art. The problem is that the USPTO doesn't 1) care and/or 2) has no idea what to look for. The judges and jurors in patent infringment cases are two stupid to know a bit from a byte so the patent holder usually wins because they have the patent that should

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Isn't this an obvious patent? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AWhistler ( 597388 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:10PM (#7319302)
    I remember a few years ago a relative or friend of mine telling me about how you could search for book titles, etc, and how great it was. I was underwhelmed, and I asked, "does it let you read excerpts from the book like I can if I walked into a real bookstore?" The answer was no of course.

    Well, now the answer seems to be yes. And they can patent this?
    • The sadly departed online bookstore startup iBooks.com (yes, before the apple portable) had a search-in-text feature back in the late 90s. It was uber-leet, leaving the sentences containing the matched words in cleartext and scrambling the others in the excerpt. (They had to put in filters to catch search terms like "the" and the letters of the alphabet ;).) You can see a version of that technology in O'Reilly's Safari system (which is also very cool, btw.).

  • Patent Silliness (Score:4, Interesting)

    by terrencefw ( 605681 ) <`ten.nedlohsemaj' `ta' `todhsals'> on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:10PM (#7319305) Homepage
    What they are patenting here is really a business method, not a piece of software. Patenting business mathods is legal in the USA, but not Europe, thank goodness!

    It's amusing to note that the business method of patenting obvious ideas then using the patent to extort money from innocent individuals has yet to be patented. (I think I've just found the missing step before "Profit!!!!").

    • Re:Patent Silliness (Score:5, Insightful)

      by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:20PM (#7319392)
      Say you have a local "farmers market" where people can buy or sell to each other. The table I display my goods on might have a patent on it's design. The scale I use to weigh things might also. And the calculator I use to add up your total. However, the market itself does not have a patent. It's just a place where we go.

      Now if Bezos wants to patent some "calculators" and "designs for tables" that I can use online to assist in the free trade of goods, why not? When you buy furniture or a calculator do you look at it and say "Oh no, this has patent number 817182199191. We can't buy this, I'd feel used and abused by The System." Of course not.

      Sure, some patents are glaringly obvious, have prior art, and should not be granted. But not all patents are bad. Patents are not really intended to stiffle innovation and invention. Several improvements on an existing idea can be patentable. Look at the patents on the .gif file format. Without it, .png probably would not have been developed. And who doesn't like .png!?

      • And who doesn't like .png!?

        Compuserve.

        Probably the only reason they didn't try to litigate .png off the face of the planet is because they can't afford to.

      • But not all patents are bad. Patents are not really intended to stiffle innovation and invention.

        As with many things, the intention has little to do with the effect.

        • As with many things, the intention has little to do with the effect.

          But people think that someone elses patent is the be-all end-all to what they can do with a certain technology, and it's not. That is what is keeping Joe Public out of contention for "intellectual property" (which, even if you disagree with that term, the ideas encompassed by it still exist in our society).

          So what is this "effect" that you speak of? Patent Envy?

          • The effect is legal minefields, and blockage of development. The inability to create non-trivial technology without infringing on a patent-collecting conglomerate such as IBM.

            As another poster has pointed out [slashdot.org], patents are indeed used to entirely stifle a lines of development.

            There is a description which I feel describes where patents are valid. Imagine a directed graph that is a tree. Advancing along tree's paths implies technological progress. A vertex stands for a point at which new development

      • Hahaha, a brilliant post.

        For the clue impaired who read this and modded it insightful and bitched about it and so on; Re-read it, in a more whimsical state of mind.

        Can anyone doubt that there is a difference between a physical object, to wit a calculator, and a piece of software?

    • What they are patenting here is really a business method, not a piece of software

      I agree, partially. You are not correct about the patenting; Bezos applied for a patent and that application is published. No patent has been granted yet.

      Patenting business mathods is legal in the USA, but not Europe, thank goodness!

      They claims as currently pending will most probably not be granted by the European Patent Office for lack of technical features in the claim. And at first sight, I do not think there is enough

    • Re:Patent Silliness (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Carl ( 12719 )
      Patenting business mathods is legal in the USA, but not Europe, thank goodness!

      Although that statement is true, that does not mean that the European Patent Office hasn't granted patents on business methods!

      See for example the following Amazon patent on Gift Ordering [ffii.org].

      This is the reason big (American) companies, Bolkenstein and the JURI committee are so actively lobbying to get patent law "harmonized" in all of Europe. At the moment some national judges correctly throw out any patent claims based on the

      • If some judges in Europe uphold software patents, then software patents are exactly as legal in Europe as they are in the U.S. There is no U.S. law that makes software patentable. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled software unpatentable in every case it has ever ruled on. Unfortunately, one Federal Circuit judge mistakenly ruled one patentable, and the USPTO is out of control.

    • Re:Patent Silliness (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ratamacue ( 593855 )
      Not only is it silly, it's destructive. Patent law in the states is destroying free competition, holding the market hostage for the benefit of an elite few. The US government has created a ridiculously complex, ambiguous, and highly exploitable system of law where the crooks are the winners, and the fair players are the losers.

      US patent law is a failure of government, one which caused many more and worse problems than it intended to solve in the first place. Guess who's paying for this failure? (Hint: It s

  • Methods, not concepts! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:11PM (#7319312) Homepage
    because you know, the concept of people selling to other people is obviously a new one

    Patents do not cover *concepts*; patents cover *methods*. This patent does not concern the concept of people selling to other people; it covers a method of people selling to other people.

    Now, I'm inclined to say that the patent is still likely to be bogus, but we should critique it for the right reasons.
    • "...but we should critique it for the right reasons."

      We can't, that would put us in violation of Amazon's 'review' patent.
    • When safari has had it for something like two years, how can it even be a new "method", it has prior art as far as I can see.
    • Patents do not cover *concepts*; patents cover *methods*.

      THANK you.

      It's bad enough that Slashdot readers often confuse the issue when commenting on patent stories; we don't need the moderators making things worse by perpetuating the misconception right in the text of the story posting.

      Hemos is getting to be nearly as bad as Michael at tacking on personal opinions to story submissions. I really wish the mods would let the submissions stand on their own merits.
    • "Patents do not cover *concepts*; patents cover *methods*. "

      You have just infringed my patent for overt-literalisation-as-criticism in a posting to a public internet discussion board, please stump up a large amount of moneys.

      To address your criticism: The "method" is itself a "concept", so the initial comment holds true.

  • But think about this "cool" feature (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Burb ( 620144 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:12PM (#7319316)
    If it's "cool", perhaps it was something different and non-obvious. Perhaps it was innovative. Using the phrase cool and then comparing it to something as mundane as buying and selling stuff rather undermines the argument.

    Perhaps (IANAL) it is patentable.

    Honestly this is not intended as a troll.

    • I just can't see providing full text searching capability for information products based on paper as any kind of special innovative step. It is a capability that very many companies have provided for decades, and a natural evolution of information storage and retrieval. From microfilm storage through searchable indexes and TOC's, finally to fully OCR'ed text. Decades old...

  • Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ianoo ( 711633 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:13PM (#7319321) Journal
    IANAL, but unless the patent office intend on showing their stupidity yet again, I doubt they'll be granted anything before about claim 20. It is totally normal for patent applications to make stupid claims early on and then get more specific, with the company or individual applying fully expecting not to get the earlier claims (and breaking out the champagne if they actually did).

    Even if they got claim 1, it's not like they could enforce it against anyone, due to prior art. I'm pretty certain that Amazon weren't the first company to sell things over the Internet. Unless, of course, they "do a Unisys" and start going round attacking small online businesses who don't have a hope of defending themselves, while leaving the eBays of the world well alone because they obviously have the resources to strike the patent down in court.

    Of course, I have to wonder why these companies continue to apply for such stupid patents. It is because the stupid patent laws mean that often they get patents on much more than they're entitled to, and they know it. This is not good for business in the long term, but since when have businesses thought about anything in the long term?

    • First, patents have nothing to do with the ability to enforce, unless two giants are going head to head. Rather, they can be used merely to produce settlements, since a smaller entity could not defend itself in court.

      Second, why do you think it's not good business in the long term?

    • I'd say that the businesses that look out for the long run are the ones that last for the long term.

      I don't see IBM going for frivolous patents. They've been around for frickin' forever, and I expect they will be around for a damn long time into the future as well.

      The companies issuing all these frivolous patents are recent start-ups, for the most part. I don't expect Amazon to last that much longer, because it has very little to truly offer. It is good right now, because nobody tries to compete. All it w
    • Of course, I have to wonder why these companies continue to apply for such stupid patents.

      Bezos came to my school to give a fluffy little talk, after which I asked him about his views on patents. He was kind of rushed so he only gave a brief answer, but basically, he said that "Certain companies try to innovate and take risks and lead the way, while other companies just copy the innovators ideas and reap the reward without having to take the risk. Patents help reward the innovators for their risk-taking

  • Once again... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gerad ( 86818 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:14PM (#7319327)
    we observe a company taking a completely intuitive idea, adding "...with a computer" to the end of it, and sending it off to the patent office!
    • How can the patent office get away with giving out patents for such obvious concepts as this?

      Yes, I know that once somebody states a concept it's easy to say 'thats just common sense' but this is an actual example of one of the earlist forms of commerce known to man, transfered unto a differnt medium.

      If I create a new device that replaces the normal commercial cash register, am I allowed to patent that process as well .. well after its been in the market place for a few years, and accepted as a normal pra
    • Oh my god, you just summarized Amazon's strategy. QUICK! PATENT THE PROCESS BEFORE BEZOS STEALS IT!

      (which again shows that the patenting process currently is flawed beyond belief)

  • Duty to Shareholders (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TrueWest175 ( 606770 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:18PM (#7319362) Homepage
    Before everyone attacks Amazon, understand that they are not the problem.

    Like it or not, companies have a duty to maximize their value, which includes pursuing and enforcing patents. If they don't, management can be viewed as negligent by the shareholders and be held accountable and/or liable.

    Standing up at the shareholder's meeting and stating that you don't pursue patents because you don't agree with the system would be a quick way to be escorted out the door.
    • Umm... they are the problem. The shareholders ARE Amazon.

      By the way, companies also have a duty to be ethical.

    • Re:Duty to Shareholders (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The whole mythology of "Duty to Shareholders" is nothing but a front to remove CEOs from their responsibility to manage business ethically. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything these days. Fuck that. It's just more proof that America is losing its long-range foresight and is slowly going down the shitter.
    • The general consensus out there does seem to be that investors get warm fuzzies from companies holding patents. Apparent monopolies do keep that unpredictable "free market" concept from interfering with investment plans. However, isn't it true that lots of companies out there do OK without actually enforcing their software patents? I'd feel better about Amazon holding software patents if they didn't initiate suits.
    • It is all of our responsibility that corporations are responsible to their shareholders, we elected the politicians who wrote these laws. Write to your representatives if you are so upset over it!

      A new documentary called "The Corporation" tries to analyze the nature of the corproate entity, and to describe the inherent flaw that lead to the destructive nature of many organizations. The movie has a leftist view point, but no matter what side of the spectrum you are on, you'll find value in it.
    • That's pure crap!

      Companies are accountable to their shareholders in relation to their SEC statements. If a company decides not to apply for any patents and file for this statement with the SEC, then the shareholder are being notified and they cannot sue management if they fail to profit because of that.

      They is NO legal requirements that a company must try to do a maximum of profit. They just can't lie or hide stuff (decision) that can affect the value of their shareholder investement.
      • They is NO legal requirements that a company must try to do a maximum of profit.

        You tell the Shareholders that at the annual meeting... wait, they fired you and found another CEO? *GASP*, who'd of thought!

        • You tell the Shareholders that at the annual meeting... wait, they fired you and found another CEO? *GASP*, who'd of thought!

          And the new CEO is *GASP* Darl McBride, who will work very hard to ensure the long-term health and success of the company. Are you saying that short-sighted shareholders and crooked CEOs deserve each other? That still doesn't invalidate the point that creating maximum short-term profit is not a legal requirement. In fact, the practice is relatively new. Before, good executives

    • Re:Duty to Shareholders (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gaspyy ( 514539 )
      I've heard this argument a million times.
      Terms like "maximize value", "increase revenue", "pursue", "enforce", "leverage", "competitive advantage" are all fine but what about "MORAL"?

      Why isn't anyone ansking "is it moral to do this?"

      I'm the co-owner of an East European multimedia software company, founded in '97. We have contracts with some really big companies. We have to stay competitive, keep the old clients, get new ones, convince them of how much quality we can offer, how trustworthy we are... And f
      • and I'm sure Bezos kisses the mirror every morning as much as the money grabbers kiss his patent loving ass every day. Unfortunate for sure, but this is the state of the U.S. shortsighted-corporation-uber-alles economic system. Will there ever be a sane balance again? Gee, I really don't know.

        Sad..

    • Like it or not, companies have a duty to maximize their value, which includes pursuing and enforcing patents. If they don't, management can be viewed as negligent by the shareholders and be held accountable and/or liable.

      Standing up at the shareholder's meeting and stating that you don't pursue patents because you don't agree with the system would be a quick way to be escorted out the door.

      Like it or not, Nazis have a duty to slaughter Jews and homosexuals, which includes starving them to death and

      • Like it or not, Nazis have a duty to slaughter Jews and homosexuals, which includes starving them to death and putting them in gas chambers. If they don't, they may be viewed as traitors by the Fuhrer and be held accountable and/or liable.

        Wasn't there an old Usenet rule that said once the Nazi's or Hilter were brought into the conversation it had run it's useful course and anything further was just flamebait?

        (Does that mean my post was flamebait? ;)

        BTW, for the record, that's a silly analogy to use...

    • and in 20 years when you're not allowed to write any code without the proper patent licensing royalties, then we reserve the right to kick u in the behind and say see, we told you so !

  • Diamond v. Diehr did not legalize software patents (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brlewis ( 214632 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:19PM (#7319374) Homepage

    In 1981 the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared a certain patent valid despite the fact that software was a part of the system patented. Justices ruled that if the system as a whole was patentable, the inclusion of non-patentable material (in this case software) as part of the system did not make the entire system unpatentable.

    The opinion contained a whole section to assert that patents on software (automatically invalid) could not be made valid by drafting the application to make them look like a "system" with trivial non-software portions. Nonetheless, after this opinion, the USPTO started approving all sorts of patents that were essentially patents on software.

    Further confusing the situation, a lower court decision, In re. Allapat, contradicted the Supreme Court's precedent and declared software patentable.

    Question for lawyers: Whom do we blame for US software patents?

    1. The Supreme Court for not correcting Allapat or taking on any other software patent case since 1981? They are asked to hear ten times as many cases as they can actually hear. Perhaps software patents aren't high up on the list of injustices hurting society.
    2. Justice Rich for the In Re. Allapat decision? Is he expected to actually read Diamond v. Diehr himself, or are the lawyers arguing the case responsible for making sure he understands it?
    3. The lawyers arguing Allapat? Maybe they thought Diehr was so obvious it didn't require explaining.
    • The Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr said that you could not patent a mathematical formula, not that you could not patent software.

      There is a world of difference between patenting F=ma, and patenting bubble sorting by computer. (Both admittedly, now, quite old.)

      Keep in mind, software is not the only way to calculate. You can do a least squares fit by either digital computer with software, or you can use a non-software analog computer made as a stick held in the fit position by rubber bands reaching to
      • Diamond v. Diehr affirmed previous cases declaring that a formula (or algorithm or software) standing alone cannot be patented. However, if you have a claim that is innovative outside the formula/algorithm/software part of the system, then

        a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program or digital computer.

        The above quote makes it obvious that they continued to view a computer program standing alone as nonst

  • Acacia's Patents Outlaws Streaming Video/Audio (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ron Bennett ( 14590 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:19PM (#7319375) Homepage
    Speaking of crazy patents...

    Acacia claims numerous patents covering the use of streaming media, such as video files and audio/MP3s, including original content, and is currently targeting the adult industry with thousands of patent infringement legal notices and lawsuits.

    Note this issue has nothing to do with copyrights whatsoever...this affects all use of any streaming media by anyone.

    Acacia has chosen to target the adult industry first, since they are an easy legal target, but make no mistake, Acacia is targeting everyone who uses, or even merely links, to any streaming media content, including individuals.

    Acacia Reaching To Affiliate Sites 10-24-2003 [avn.com]
    Patent holder unplugs porn network [com.com]
    Hustler, Vivid, Wicked Sign Acacia Patent Licenses [avnonline.com]

    See more details regarding Acacia's crazy and legally abusive "business method" patents: http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_main. htm [acaciatechnologies.com]

    Acacia isn't the only company on the prowl...if Acacia is sucessful, there's a whole swarm of other entities that have zillions of other questionable "business method" patents ready to pounce on both industry and individuals alike with their patent infringement claims and manditory licensing for widely used "open" computer formats that they didn't even develop!
    • Ever wonder if in a decade the business world will be upset at all of the "business method pirates" who are "stealing action" from society by engaging in all kinds of everyday activity without paying license fees to whomever holds a "method patent" on that sort of activity?

      And of course there will be a BMAA (Business Method Advancement Association) who are "standing up to method piracy." They go to bat for all of the method patent owners to sue & shut you down for having a garage sale (infringes on "m
    • Acacia has chosen to target the adult industry first

      There must be an unwritten rule somewhere that says "Go after the porn peddlers first." Kinda like the one that says "If you are going to try and takeover the world, start with France"

    • Acacia isn't the only company on the prowl...

      Indeed. This San Diego company [panip.com] claims nothing less than the patent on internet commerce. They started by suing dozens of small businesses with the apparent goal of getting a $5000 settlement.

      Tim Beere, owner of DeBrand Fine Chocolates, refused to settle and started a group [youmaybenext.com] whose purpose is to fight this. It looks like they're making headway, but it would be nice to see some of the bigger players in e-commerce kick in to crush this thing. So far, it's a

  • I swear if amazon keeps up with this type of crap, they are gonna a) hire that former BT engineer who invented hyperlinks b) patent selling things onlines under the auspices that it requires the use of the IP c) get sued by SCO cause their one touch check out uses their unix source code. I for one welcome our new patent daemons, and their new patents.
  • If they don't attempt to patent it; someone else will--and then where will they be? As long as the PTO continues to approve these kinds of patents, good businessmen will apply for them in self-defense.
  • I readily admit that I don't like seeing the blatantly obvious owned via a patent. However, if Amazon didn't patent these ideas, somebody else would have.

    The patent system in the US is set up in such a way as to invite abuse. It would be rude for companies and individuals not to accept the offer.

    Also, entire branches of law are propped up by the rediculous US patent laws. If it weren't for these laws, many poor attorneys would be knocked out of a job by sheer common sense, and they and their families w

  • Newsflash! (Score:5, Funny)

    by NumLk ( 709027 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:46PM (#7319598)
    Amazon has just announced that they have successfully patented the patent process. An Amazon spokesperson commented "This vindicates that we are a great, innovative company which no other can ever dream of competiting with."

    In other news, SCO has sued Amazon, for threatening to use patent litigation for profit. SCO claims they've patented the use of lawsuits as the only form of revenue.

    Amazon sues SCO, claiming they can't patent lawsuits as a profit driver, since they own the patent patent.

    Film at 11...

  • it's too bad such a cool service has to be "patented", because you know, the concept of people selling to other people is obviously a new one. *sigh*

    "It's not just people selling to other people, you know. It's people selling to other people...over teh Intarweb!"

    What really is too bad is that the USPTO gets bamboozled with claims such as this.

  • store.com (Score:3, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday October 27, 2003 @12:53PM (#7319660) Homepage Journal
    Maybe the owners of store.com should sue Amazon for using their trademark in their patent application.

  • Jeez... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mephie ( 582671 ) *
    And this is partly why I refuse to buy anything from Amazon.com. It really kills me that we periodically see these "Stupid Patent" stories from Amazon.com yet people are still constantly linking to amazon to buy in their comments.

    For god's sake, pay an extra few bucks to avoid supporting this crap. Get off your duff and visit a local bookstore.

  • you know, the concept of people selling to other people is obviously a new one. *sigh*

    They're not patenting the idea of people selling to other people. What they're patenting is a particular and specific description of *how* that could happen. If you could come up with a different way for people to sell to other people, you wouldn't be infringing. And you know what ? I don't see what it's being a a "cool" idea has to do with whether or not it should be patentable.

  • Well..... (Score:2, Funny)

    by devphaeton ( 695736 )
    #1) The Look Inside Das Buch feature is a neat thing, but it hasn't been perfected yet. It hits a lot of false positives and the searchable text is full of typos (probably from the scanning process)

    #2) I'm surprised they haven't opened themselves up to about oh, say 126Million plagarism lawsuits/copyright infringement litigations
  • Of course it makes sense to patent this, as it's done with a computer

  • Allowing a patent on "a service for allowing users to post product reviews for viewing by others" would mean that there could only be one such service allowed. This is a clear abridgment of the freedom of the press.

    That's analogous to saying you have freedom of the press as long as you use the right one.

  • aside from the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) * on Monday October 27, 2003 @01:28PM (#7319919)
    The worst side-effect of these bogus patents will be the general dilution of the all patents as a perceived means of protecting intellectual property.

    Every time a company tried to claim IP ownership of some obviously derivative or mundane process, it discredits the system as a whole and makes it worthless.

    Patents will be perceived as useful to the protection of IP as an MBA is indicative of business acumen.

  • Patent has nothing do with searchable text (Score:4, Informative)

    by corbettw ( 214229 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @01:29PM (#7319931) Journal
    I'm not sure why the poster mentioned Amazon's searchable text, all the comment has done is serve to confuse a great many of the slashbots who have posted (not that that's hard).

    This patent appears to cover Amazon's Z-Shops, not eBay's auction system, not text searching of books, and not just a business method. It covers a way to, in essence, share catalog information among small merchants in a marketplace. Having had a small online retail shop in the past, I can tell you that this is a great idea, and I wish Yahoo! Stores had had it back when I still had a shop.
  • Yep, it's about time I applied for this patent: How To Patent.
  • for all those against this raping of the information age, if you go to Amazon AT ALL, you deserve to be dragged behind a slow moving pickup truck up in the yonder hills of Washington.

    Vote with your f-ing pocketbook for christsake!! Then contact your representatives and congress schmoozers. Corporations do have the upper hand on this stuff, but we still have a voice, however small it may seem.

    What do all men with power want? More power.
  • I did a serarch on amazon this morning and this 'search inside the book' came up. utterly in convenient and i would be greatly happy never to see it again. it founnd the most tangential references to my query and reminded me of half-baked technology long abandoned. stupid. and nothing new as searches have worked for documents for years.

  • RTFPA (Score:5, Informative)

    by hacksoncode ( 239847 ) on Monday October 27, 2003 @02:09PM (#7320259)
    Has anyone actually RTFPA?

    What is claimed here is a very specific system for creating a catalog of preexisting items (i.e. a "list of everything") so that people can, instead of writing up a description of their item, find it in the big catalog and say "I have one of these, anyone interested".

    Perhaps there's prior art for this (though I don't know of anything that's very similar), but it's certainly not a patent application for "selling stuff over the internet".

    Geez... Give the guys some credit for thinking of a cool bit of technology (even if perhaps they aren't the first to think of this one... I reserve judgment on that)...


  • How much of my money have I spent buying products from Amazon? NONE.

    Unlike many others who only pay lip service to their disappointment in Amazon's behavior, I've put mine into action. Patents notwithstanding, Amazon will get away with whatever we allow it to get away with.

  • Dang it! (Score:2, Funny)

    by moltar77 ( 708055 )
    I knew I should have patented capitalism!
  • Doesn't much of what is embodied in this patent application already exist in half.com, now part of eBay?

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close