1 lb. + 1 lb. = 2 lbs. Patented By Amazon

I want to rant...

Sanguine Dream, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:01pm

but I honestly don't uderstand. Let me get this straight. Amazon is getting patent on a system that allows them to weigh an object then check that value against a predetermined weight value that is saved in a database somewherer? Can someone please prove to me that this is more than:

1. Make silly (and somewhat obvious) patent.
2. ???
3. Profit

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:13pm

Isn't a system like that employed by self-checkout stations at grocery stores?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Money Talks

DittoBox, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:23pm

And the USPTO listens.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

well, theoretically

me, myself, and i, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:37pm

1+1 is not always 2, there have been documented cases where 1+1=8, however, normally, its 3 or 4. unless you look at europe's state of the society, where 1+1 is most oft = 2.

don't get my pun? 1 man + 1 woman = 1 man, 1 woman, and 1 baby, aka 3 humans

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Lest we forget other similar patents...

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:44pm

This sounds a lot like the patent on Online Stores. I remember some time back someone got a patent for Electronic Stores and then started going around the net shaking down small businesses to make them "license" the software. I can't believe the Patent Office would be that stupid....oh wait...what am I saying. Of course they're willing to do that. Some lobbyist for Amazon probably threw a couple million their way and viola...they have a patent. I just hope they don't get a patent on "viola"...then I'd have to pay too :P

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: well, theoretically

Dan, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:44pm

there are so many things wrong with this comment, I don't know where to start.

First off 1 + 1 = 11, any two year old can figure that out...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: well, theoretically

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:45pm

uhh good one.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Lee, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:45pm

"First off 1 + 1 = 11, any two year old can figure that out..."

unless you use Cint(1) + CInt(1) :)

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

scott, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:46pm

next some-one will patent something they learn(ed) in school.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Lee, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:47pm

Wait...I'm gonna put in a patent for "August 4"...that way each year I get royalties for everyone who writes the date :P

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:48pm

sounds like another case of patenting something inane to keep someone even more inane from patenting it first, and then suing Amazon. If your Amazon, that makes a lot of sense. If you're the patent office, you should now realize you're an abused tool and someone needs to retire you to a dark toolshed. the patent office is a joke.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

STJ, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:49pm

Doesn't this mean that all those math sites can't add numbers together?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

no...

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:49pm

1 + 1 = 10, but 1+1+1 = 11

gotta love binary!

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Rational Beaver, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:58pm

I made the first comment on the very first blog back in 1997 and have since patented the form and method of making a "first comment" on a blog. As soon as I can get their IP addresses I will be suing all of those Anonymous Cowards.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 2:59pm

I thought that a requirement for patents is that they are to be "non-obvious". I.E. you can't patent the concept of using 4 wheels on a car.

So just how the hell did amazon get to patent the concept of using a fucking scale?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: well, theoretically

Your Mom, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:00pm

I guess if the + operator was overloaded to handle that...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

some perspective

AC, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:01pm

Here is some perspective on this "Patent". It took 9 "inventors" and their janitors to invent this patent, and approximately 2 full years for the USPTO to grant it. It seems to be a very simple theory, but has 107 claims in it. Any claim can be used to sue Barnes & Nobles for infringment, even those few which could have been sneaked in the list 107 times longer than the cock of Mr. Jeff Bezos, while the USPTO employees would have been smoking grass busily bonking each other ravishingly. And by the sounds of what this patent is, and similar such patents that B & N, and their cousins would file, the only people getting richer are the lawyers. While real technology and development go to countries like India & China.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: well, theoretically

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:02pm

ha...ha...ha...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:04pm

I going to patent posting dumbass coments on Techdirt.
then, I will patent making spelling and grammer mistakes

man, im going to be a billionaire

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

All we've come to expect of todays graduates

Marcus, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:06pm

The Patent Office of late makes about as much sense as some of the Federal Communications Commission decisions of late.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Hang on a minute.....

Boris Jacobsen, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:06pm

...this is Applied Mathematics at its ABSOLUTELY MOST BASIC.

If this is patentable, then all Applied Mathematics (much of which is a.k.a. Physics) is patentable.

Surely this patent can be overruled by a patent on weighing things. Weighing stuff is based on Newton's laws - equal and opposite reactions, etc. - far more advanced mathematical / physical concepts than 1 + 1 = 2. Or even 1.2 + 2.3 = 3.5

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re:

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:07pm

damn, i have to pay my self royalties now
grammar not grammer

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

I patented how things fall due to gravity!

Salivating Attorney, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:08pm

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re:

Gotcha, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:10pm

Not after you pay me the royalties for the way you spell.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: dumbass coments

Gotcha, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:11pm

Not after you pay me the royalties for the way you spell.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

jack, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:17pm

Unreal...I had to go to the link myself. It's true! If this isn't a patent on something trivial and obvious, I don't know what is.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Re: well, theoretically

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:18pm

In Mexico

1+1=23

In Afghanistan

1+1=1.5

(they cut their women in half if they...well you know)

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:19pm

How about trademarking the Zidane head-butt ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060803/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_soccer_china_zidane;_ylt=AjpAJgP0zy07cQS4 W8KwV1HtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

double post

me, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:23pm

sorry you cant double post without paying me

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

yet another theoretical point

me, myself, and i, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:31pm

if you think about it another way, 1 + 1 = 1 as well:

1 sperm + 1 egg = 1 baby

this is also true in terms of chuck norris:

1 bad guy + 1 chuck norris roundhouse kick = 1 dead bad guy, which is also = 0 living bad guys

well, in any case, 1+1 is a completely incoherent mathematical function, and should be treated as undefined, just like x/0 and the sideways 8

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

I think a LOT of retailers are going come afoul of

Bill W, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:33pm

Seems to me that when I use the self checkout at the supermarket or even at Home Depot they weigh wat I put on the belt/bag and if my 1/4 inch bolt weighs four pounds or my 1/2 pound chicken leg weighs 8 lbs it complains!

I cannot imagine why they think they can patent such an idea or why the Patent Office granted it!

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re:

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:40pm

Common...

I'm going to patent patents. I'm also going to patent patenting patents. And, just to be safe, I'm going to patent holding any patent that was patented before the former two patents were patented.

lol. I'd like to see that one beat.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: no...

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:43pm

thanks for the clarification but it would have been better if you hadn't pointed out the obvious.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re:

BusMajor, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:47pm

Patents are scruitenized carefully. They are patenting a sytem( actually a device) that will do that for them, if someone else comes along and makes a DIFFERENT divice that does something else to create the same result they cannot sue for infringement. See Microsoft and Linux for example. (and computer prigrams cannot be patented, but are protected by copyrite laws--they are considered literature lol)

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Quality of Service - Prevent Shipping Errors

Joe Ward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:52pm

It might be a bit simplistic, but it sounds like something they would use as a 2nd check before shipping packages to check for errors. I.e. wrong product included or missing product, etc. How much fraud do they encounter in consumers who claim 1 or more items was not in the box? What rate of occurence do they actually have in making such errors? It could be an anti-fraud and/or quality of service oriented patent.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

1 plus 1

applemachome, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:57pm

I thought 1 plus 1 was 10? :-p

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: self-checkout stations at grocery stores

Chaz Antonelli, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:58pm

I was just thinking the SAME THING. These patents are getting silly!!!

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: self-checkout stations at grocery stores

Chaz Antonelli, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:58pm

I was just thinking the SAME THING. These patents are getting silly!!!

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Walking

Beanbag, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 3:58pm

I am trying to patent a system of locomotion where you keep placing one foot in front of the other to get where you are going. If you know of anyone using this system without permission - let me know so I can begin litigation immediately.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

RE: 1+1

Another Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:08pm

Any first year computer science major knows that 1 does not equal 1; therefore 1+1 is only approximately 2. 1 can only be defined by the number of bits available. A sixteen bit computation will have less precision than a 64 bit computation. But, even though a 64-bit computation is more precise, it is still not equivalent to an integer value. Int(1) simply makes 1 as precise as the computation allows.

Therefore, we can only speak of 1+1 = 2 in terms of probability theory. Our theorem must state: what is the probability of 1+1 = 2 given an X-bit system with a confidence factor of .95? I'll let Amazon do the derivation.

I'm still wondering how I can get $1 + $1 = $5. :o)

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Success

bluesubno.6, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:10pm

Absolutely ridiculous. There will surely be many suits to follow this patent.

We could be very Radiohead about this. 2+2=5

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Hang on a minute.....

craig, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:10pm

".this is Applied Mathematics at its ABSOLUTELY MOST BASIC. "

But you see, the revolutionary and innovative difference here is the key to the patent - this is Applied Mathematics ONLINE.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:13pm

Attention!: Voila is spelled like this, not viola! I hope someone hasn't patented a musical instrument as an exclamation. Good work.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: no...

Uh....Binary, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:18pm

I think you need to work on your binary.

1+1 in binary = 3. You are also wrong that in binary 1+1+1=11. It actually equals 7.

11 in binary is 00001011

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

My New Patent

Little Black Box, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:27pm

I'm patenting a new system that automatically scans for things just don't add up then annihilate the offending party - this could include packages, the RIAA, the MPAA, all politicians, and the patent office.

Wait, if I annihilate the patent office then this patent won't exist... something doesn't add up here (poof!)

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Well....

Brian, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:32pm

I don't think they getting a patent for the math, so much as the machine that does it. Besides, people hear about new products all the time and say "It's so easy, I wish I would have thought of that." Just another one of these situations.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:34pm

I wonder if I can get any money for reporting violations to Amazon. Places I've worked did similar things. The pick list showed piece weights and added them up at the bottom. Once the order was packaged and placed on the scale to calculate shipping you compared the package weight to the order + tare to make sure nothing was missed or extra.

That was in 1992-1995.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Re:

Some Guy, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:37pm

I'll get a trademark for the term patent. Then the government, and you could pay me for infringing it. :P

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

uh oh

Underwear Gnome, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:38pm

uh oh...looks like Amazon.com has stolen our secret business model. good thing we patented it before we started stealing underwear. :)

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Super-silius patentology, . . .

Frank De Ford, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:39pm

Amazon should back up a few steps and patent the word "DUMBASS" It seems to be a recurring word in my mind when I hear avout their other patents. Maybe then they could clean up on their stuper-wisdom.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Super-silius patentology, . . .

Frank De Ford, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:40pm

Amazon should back up a few steps and patent the word "DUMBASS" It seems to be a recurring word in my mind when I hear avout their other patents. Maybe then they could clean up on their stuper-wisdom.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Re: no...

Uh.. stick to a base, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:41pm

you can't (at least shouldn't for all practical purposes) have an equation with different bases on each side of the = ... therefore 1+1 in binary can't equal 3 and 1+1+1 can't equal 7 as bits only entail the numbers 0 and 1 ... besides... 1+1=10 and 1+1+1=11 in binary... i don't know where you get your ideas from but you don't need to express you answer strictly in bytes... thus the 10 and 11 not 00000010 and 00000011 ...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Limited thinking

mr, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:47pm

Clearly Amazon are shipping close to the speed of light, therefore each pound is actually heavier than at rest. Thus there has to be adjustments for the Lorentzian contraction and the non-linear nature of mass combinations as you near the speed of light. M

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Prior Art

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:55pm

They can't patent this I used this method every Christmas to figure out what my presents were. Not heavy enough to be that new toy I wanted, must be something else. I better hurry up and pattent my shaking technique.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: First Comment Patent

Mark Kitchen, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:07pm

That is a trademark, not a patent

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Limited thinking

Feynman, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:08pm

this is irrelevant because they're weighing the object at rest to the scale... therefore the scale undergoes the same relativistic principles as the objects being weighed

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re:

Mark, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:10pm

Quote:
"#
by Anonymous Coward on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 4:34pm

I wonder if I can get any money for reporting violations to Amazon. Places I've worked did similar things. The pick list showed piece weights and added them up at the bottom. Once the order was packaged and placed on the scale to calculate shipping you compared the package weight to the order + tare to make sure nothing was missed or extra.

That was in 1992-1995."

FedEx and UPS have been using this for years!

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:10pm

People...

1 + 1 = 1 + 1 !!!!

Ever thought of that? The LHS and RHS are identical, thus making the equality sign true and the statement valid!

Gosh, what geeks we are =.=

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Past it's usefulness

Link Pankratz, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:28pm

The Patent Office has obviously been so automated that it can no longer discern the difference between a true inspiration and an inarguable fact. It has outlived it's usefulness. Much like our current society.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: well, theoretically

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:40pm

I'm pretty sure that's not a pun. It's more like a riddle which doesn't make any sense.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: no...

knome, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:44pm

Perhaps he was counting in base 1?

Now for the lesson. Counting in base one.

1 + 1 = 11
11 + 1 = 111
111 + 1 = 1111
1111 + 1 = 11111
11111 + 1 = 111111

Thank you.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Just another lame patent

Robert Swinney, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:51pm

What is wrong with an additional layer of accuracy. The patent is not 2 one pound books = a 2 pound package. The system ensures that if X number of items are ordered, pulled, then packed. before final shipping all of the packages are wieghed, checked against the database with product weights and then shipped. It is a simple idea, but there was certianly some thought and development put in to the process.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:56pm

hmmmm, 1+1 =? OH! I know the answer......"1+1=42"!

..... as does all everything else...lol

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Re: no...

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 5:58pm

There's absolutely nothing wrong in saying that 1+1=10 or 1+1+1=11 in binary. Hello?! BINARY. No where in the world will you see a valid expression that is binary in the left side and then decimal in the right?! --> 1+1=3?!

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Re: no...

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 6:00pm

did anything he type LOOK like he was counting in unary? did anything he type resemble your "lesson"?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Prior art

Roo, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 6:05pm

On the off chance that someone out there wants to discuss the patent, I submit there the amount of prior art in this area is considerable.

Dell has been doing this for longer than Amazon's been around. CDW does it too, but they also take a digital picture of each package just before it's sealed.

This one should be easy (but expensive) to overturn.

roo

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Well...

shableep, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 6:17pm

It looks like this is a patent for some new device they made that records the weight AND dimensions. This is probably in effort to decrease the amount of shipping errors and increase shipping efficiency.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but to patent something like that is just straight up anti-competitive. This isn't a completely obvious idea, but it's quickly going to become a more common idea in the future. Patenting is based on the idea of defending from theft of intellectual property. A man with no knowledge of the existence of this device or patent could still come to the same idea... "Wouldn't it be nice if I could check the weight and dimensions of what I ship without hiring anyone?"

The man hasn't stolen anything and doesn't deserve to be punished.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Lest we forget other similar patents...

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 6:28pm

I think you mean voila. Viola is a string instrument of the alto range.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 6:34pm

The whole patent system no longer does what it was made to do. It is now silly and corrupt. It was introduced because of the age of invention. 1 + 1 = 2 is not an invention.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Obvious, but....

Agonizing Fury, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 6:35pm

I hate stupid patents as much as the next techdirtian (can I patent that word, or since I have expressed it, maybe I hold the copyright? No that would definately be a trademark), it seems to me that it's possible this patent may be valid. It doesn't look like they are actually taking "item 1 = 2lbs, item 2 = 3.4 lbs does the package weigh 5.4lbs." It seems more like "box 1 has items a,b,c & d in it and weighs 4.3lbs box 2 has items a,b,&c in it. does box 2's weight and size make sense compared to box 1." It takes this idea on a much grander scale making it feasible. Although this seems obvious, their exact method of doing so may be patentable. In the same way, ranking internet pages in a search engine is by no means patentable, however a specific method (Google's Page rank system for example) is completely patentable.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10 kinds of people in the world

Xcubed, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 6:49pm

There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand 1 + 1 = 10 and those that do not understand.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re:

Steve, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 6:57pm

Yeah, but obviously he/she didn't use Cint.. this person clearly used strcat("1", "1").

God that's funny.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: RE: 1+1

Mikecx, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 6:59pm

Concerning the comment about computer where 1 + 1 != 1. Only partially correct. Using intergers, the number is stored as a bit number, ala 0001 for one and so on, thus our common binary form. For floating point numbers (anything with a decimal, even 1.0) the precision is cut to however many bits the computer is allowed to use for precision. Basically meaning that 1 != 1.0.

Then again, maybe i'm wrong and 0001 != 1.

(You can also conclude from this that 1+1 = 3 for exceptionally large values of 1)

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

STUPID!

Steve, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 7:06pm

Ok, why are you all arguing about the value of 1 + 1? This whole topic is supposed to be about Amazon coming up with a new technology. Maybe not new to human kind, but new to them anyway (for those of you commenting about the self checkout). Anyway, does anyone have anything valuable to add? Well, other than #s 62, 67, and 70 above. Thank you. I think this topic should be closed.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Been there Done That...

Andrew Lark, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 7:31pm

Interesting that they are patenting it. It does have value in the sense the process and technology integration significantly reduces false ships.

We implemented presicely this system at Sony Music in NZ 15 years ago. Virtually every CD is a unique weight. Marry that with the contents of a box going out the door and you get a serious reduction in stock shrinkage. Should have patented it I guess...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: STUPID!

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 7:53pm

Steve, I see you're neither a math person nor a computer science person. Different base number systems and how computers handle different data types are interesting and worthy of discussion at any time. Nowhere do I see anything that states that responses have to adhere 100% to the article. Besides, the author asked for it including 1+1=2 in the title. Bring up specifically 1+1 and if there's a math or computer major around you're guaranteed to get such responses as 1+1=10, calculations are only as precise as the number of bits allocated for them, etc...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Re:

Another genius on the 'Net, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 8:02pm

They gave a patent already? How much do I owe u fer theise misteaks?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: well, theoretically

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 8:03pm

Shoot, I've seen it go as high as 12. or more...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

RedBeard, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 8:36pm

I ordered 2 mg of radioactive atomic nucleus from Amazon. By the time I got it, I only received half the order.

I was thinking about ordering Schrödinger's cat from Amazon, but they wouldn't guarantee if the cat was dead or alive while in shipment.

Since they ship by weight, If I ordered a box of helium, would they owe me money?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Patent affects shipping?

Just my 2 cents, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 8:56pm

So if you order a .5 pound item, they round it up to 1 lb for shipping. If you order 2 - .5 pound items one would think they would pay for 1 pound shipping; however according to the rules of the patent they may pay for 2 pounds shipping. Is this patent a case of establishing precedence? Maybe so...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Lest we forget other similar patents...

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 9:04pm

Uh, it's voila (short for voire la, means "look here" in french), not viola (a large violin). And I'm pretty sure they are both public domain.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Re:

TheGr8ME, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 9:50pm

"I'm going to patent patents. I'm also going to patent patenting patents. And, just to be safe, I'm going to patent holding any patent that was patented before the former two patents were patented.

lol. I'd like to see that one beat."

I'm going to patent taking control of something with itself. I'll then allow you to do what you're doing, but you will have to pay me royalties. Part of the agreement you'll have to tell me I'm cooler that Bill Gates for collecting the royalties.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Xcetron, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 10:00pm

Someone should go and patent some names, they'd be millionare.

Pay $1 to use the name Smith.
Pay $1 to use the name John.
Pay $4 to use them as one name. John Smith

lol.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Confused...

rijit (profile), Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 10:19pm

So they patented a scale or the process of checking the scale to see if it is wrong? I guess I am a country bumpkin, I do not get all these new fangled contraption thingies and terms such as 1+1=2.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Even if you receive a patent....

Double Down, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 10:22pm

...you have to defend it. And that's the trick. Depending on how a patent is written, it could be too narrow or broad. The bottom line though is that, you'll find this funny, its the attorneys that are making bank all along the way. Imagine that. It's like the click fraud suit. $30M for the the lawyers. The legal system in this country is BROKEN (too much profit and not enough justice), but yet no one seems to care.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Could be smart...

The Octagon, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 10:30pm

.. if Amazon patents a process where they match actual weight against an official declared weight - then perhaps the US gov't might pay them tons o cash if and when it is decided that Amazon's method might be an awesome way to flag packages for bombs. I think this would work on imported or private sector shipments (since they tend to have products that can be predictably measured), but the consumer market won't really have to worry about it.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Lets try this

AJ, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 10:38pm

Patents Amazon can try for:

1 lb. (+) 1 lb. = 2 lbs
1 lb. - 1 lb. = 0 lbs
lb. 1 + lb. 1=lbs 2
1 lb. + 1 lb. = 2 lb (Missing S)

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: RE: 1+1

Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 11:17pm

You know, this whole thing reminds me of an old thread on alt.fan.dragonballz about how the farmer in the first episode with a power level of 5 could have potentially destryed the earth, based off of revelations of power levels of stronger characters, and what was revealed about their ultimate level of abiltiy at said power level. I have the thread buried somewhere, I guess I can look for it, but know the thought has passed, so I'll go back to trolling through the comments.

Bleh!

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Read the claims people

Doug, Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 11:31pm

This patent has nothing to do with 1+1=2. Read the claims. They define the scope of the patent. This claims is very, very narrow.

1. A method for a computing system at a package shipping location to automatically detect problems with contents of packages when the contents are not directly observable, the contents of each package including one or more of multiple distinct items available to be shipped from the package shipping location, comprising: automatically estimating actual weights of each of the multiple available items at the package shipping location by repeatedly measuring weights of sealed packages being shipped and attributing portions of the measured weights to items that are included in contents of those packages; after the automatic estimating of the actual item weights and for each of multiple additional sealed packages that are being shipped, automatically detecting whether a problem exists with contents of the package by, identifying items intended to be in the contents of the package; calculating an anticipated total weight for the package if the identified intended items are in the contents, the calculating based in part on the estimated actual weights of those intended items; measuring an actual total weight of the package; and when a deviation between the anticipated and actual total weights for the package exceeds a predetermined threshold, diverting the package from shipment for manual review of the contents of the package; and for each of the diverted packages, when the manual review of the package indicates that items actually included in the contents of the package are different from the intended items for the contents, correcting the contents before shipping the package; and when the manual review of the package indicates that the actually included items in the contents match the intended items for the contents, updating the estimated actual weight for one or more of the included items to correspond to the actual total weight for the package.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

make a patent and make me rich

TerroristBush, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 2:03am

I filed a patent for filing patents so there, you all are screwed, I am going to now start stealing all the ideas out there and making patents then suing.

Wow, I think I will be able to make more money than the RIAA + MPAA just by hiring lawyers to sue people.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 6:29am

It's a method for allowing their system to, say, put all your books in one box (since they're all the same shape/size) and all your cooking supplies in another (because they're not).

The weights enter into the equation so as to save on shipping...if you have a 1.1 lb, a 1.0 lb, and a 0.9 lb object to ship, it's much more efficient to send 1.1+0.9 = 2 lb. + 1.0 = 1.0lb. Shipping companies ship in whole lb weights, so it's a good idea to optimize like this.

This patent basically ties together a bunch of prior art into a nice system that most online retailers would salivate over (since they're currently using...people!).

Persons should not comment on patents they do not read or, having read, do not understand.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re:

kilroy, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 6:29am

Who's Clint and what did he patent?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Amazon Rep, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 6:52am

Thank you™ for shopping on Amazon.com™.™ Your Package™ should be arriving in 3™ to 4™ business days.™

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Re:

Mousky, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 7:07am

ROTFL. Scrutinized carefully. That's funny.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

1+1= lawyer

maxjax, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 7:29am

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

1+1= lawyer

maxjax, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 7:30am

I blame lawyers for every evil thing on the planet today...
do some research and you'll find if it ticks you off you can
trace it back to a lawyer

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: Re: Re:

Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 7:49am

50 million dollars...for each mistake... in cash

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Re: 1+1= lawyer

Charon, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 7:51am

In that case your dad must be a lawyer.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

I should...

Lay Person, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 9:44am

I should start contributing articles cuz Techdirt is starting to piss me off.

These article posters aren't really contributing much of anything. They find an article, post an opinion, then we argue over their opinion.

Often the contributors opinions are based on half-baked facts and here we are arguing over what the facts are.

Could Techdirt please stop offering up half-baked arguments so we at least have something legitimate to chew on?

I'm tired of digging up facts to find that the contributors never even check their facts or are misrepresenting the facts in order to support their opinions.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

ex-amazonian, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 1:47pm

great article - Bezos just won't learn - amazon is the "do only evil" counterpoint to goog - and it shows in their stock price - AMZN will be at $2 before JeffB finally understands karma and how much this kind of crap has actually cost him

doug - you're an idiot - you read the claim - this patent is on a common sense process for any business involved in fulfillment services

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

How many people does it take....

Jeremy2, Aug 4th, 2006 @ 2:57pm

Apparently there were quite a few "inventors" - I did not care to count, but it looked like there were at least six people. If I had two days to study it, I could probably come up with a decent review of it, but from the outset it looks like a way of measuring - not necessarily measuring itself. Possibly (and I am only ventruing here), it's not quite so stupid as the 1 click patent...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Don't criticize what you don't understand

David Redwine, Aug 6th, 2006 @ 7:18pm

Read the fine Patent people!

Amazon is not getting the weights from a database, they are building a database and checking shippments all at once using a mathmatical technique know as Principal Component Analysis. This is a VERY neat trick and certainly patentable.

This technique gives them a significant advantage over others who must enter the weight of every new item into a database. This database learns the weights of new objects so there is no overhead associated with modification of the weights database.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Name
Email	Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
URL
Subject
Comment	this is for spambots, do not use this
Options	Save me a cookie

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Name
Email	Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
URL
Subject
Comment	this is for spambots, do not use this
Options	Save me a cookie

1 lb. + 1 lb. = 2 lbs. Patented By Amazon

from the one-click-weighing dept

Reader Comments (rss)

I want to rant...

Money Talks

well, theoretically

Lest we forget other similar patents...

Re: well, theoretically

Re: well, theoretically

no...

Re: well, theoretically

some perspective

Re: well, theoretically

All we've come to expect of todays graduates

Hang on a minute.....

Re:

I patented how things fall due to gravity!

Re:

Re: dumbass coments

Re: Re: well, theoretically

double post

yet another theoretical point

I think a LOT of retailers are going come afoul of

Re:

Re: no...

Re:

Quality of Service - Prevent Shipping Errors

1 plus 1

Re: self-checkout stations at grocery stores

Re: self-checkout stations at grocery stores

Walking

RE: 1+1

Success

Re: Hang on a minute.....

Re: no...

My New Patent

Well....

Re: Re:

uh oh

Super-silius patentology, . . .

Super-silius patentology, . . .

Re: Re: no...

Limited thinking

Prior Art

Re: First Comment Patent

Re: Limited thinking

Re:

Past it's usefulness

Re: well, theoretically

Re: no...

Just another lame patent

Re: Re: no...

Re: Re: no...

Prior art

Well...

Re: Lest we forget other similar patents...

Obvious, but....

10 kinds of people in the world

Re:

Re: RE: 1+1

STUPID!

Been there Done That...

Re: STUPID!

Re: Re:

Re: well, theoretically

Patent affects shipping?

Re: Lest we forget other similar patents...

Re: Re:

Confused...

Even if you receive a patent....

Could be smart...

Lets try this

Re: RE: 1+1

Read the claims people

make a patent and make me rich

Re:

Re: Re:

1+1= lawyer

1+1= lawyer

Re: Re: Re: