Patent Sought For Amazon Marketplace

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*

All this craziness makes me think...

Al Gore should have just patented the internet.

I'm confused...

...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?

Ebay?

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?

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.

Isn't this an obvious patent?

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?

Patent Silliness

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

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!?

Methods, not concepts!

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 think about this "cool" feature

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.

Hmm

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?

Once again...

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!

Duty to Shareholders

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.

Diamond v. Diehr did not legalize software patents

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.

Acacia's Patents Outlaws Streaming Video/Audio

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!

Amazon the "patent Daemons"

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.

Amazon Patent

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.

A sad state of affairs

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 would starve to death. For this reason, I fully support Jeff B. and Amazon. I think Jeff is just being a good humanitarian.

Newsflash!

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 not just that...

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

Maybe the owners of store.com should sue Amazon for using their trademark in their patent application.

Jeez...

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.

Save the hyperbole

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.....

#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

patenting people selling * to other people

Of course it makes sense to patent this, as it's done with a computer

First Amendment

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

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

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.

I need to Patent how to Patent

Yep, it's about time I applied for this patent: How To Patent.

Once again then

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.

Patently annoying...

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.

Amazon has the right to do this... sorry folks

The idea of allowing customers to list items for a sale along side amazon.com's own listings (marketplace) is beyond a unique idea, it is a process and therefor it is something that can be patented.

Do we know how much money www.amazon.com put into research and development on this system?

Why shouldn't they have the right to protect their investment, their invention(!) against other on-line retailers. Everything www.amazon.com does gets copied, don't even try to bring "but Walmart can't patent this or that, etc.." with on-line retailers it's their web-site and the user interface processes that make the difference in losing and sustaining customers, why should other on-line retailers have the right to steal an idea and implement it in their site without helping pay for it's invention.

You people make me sick.

Obvious concept?

>because you know, the concept of people selling >to other people is obviously a new one. *sigh* Concept is not obvious!!! These methods have been available in EDI for many many years.

RTFPA

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)...

New terminology required...

Someone has no doubt suggested this before, but I think we need a new word here. How about "blatent" - a statement of the bleeding obvious used as an anti-competitive weapon.

And now to rush that one down to the trademark office....

Again

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.

My patents :-)

I patented a method of using line based symbols, called characters, which can be grouped together to represent, which represent concepts, which can be communicated visually through a process called reading. Hey, you owe me mass royalties. Hey, you did it again. Stop it. Hey, I mean it. Quit it!

Dang it!

I knew I should have patented capitalism!

I worked on a similar system 15 years ago

Back in 1989 I was contracted to Kodak to test a system that does basicly the same thing. A quick check of patent 4,918,588 shows that the Kodak had the same idea pantented in 1990. An operator would dump documents into a batch scanner and later look at them and associate text on the image with the image id number. So a user could retrieve a document image so long as they new at least one word indexed to it. I don't see how Amazon's new system is any different other than OCR replaces a human indexer.

Half.com

Doesn't much of what is embodied in this patent application already exist in half.com, now part of eBay?

Re:is it that simple?

Maybe you've been asleep since 1999 but the USPTO grants just about any patent that goes through their door. Don't believe me? What about the patent for swinging on a swing that took over a YEAR to revoke.
Here is a link to a weblog that mentioned it.
http://www.dalager.com/weblog/archives/000022 .html