Miscellaneous

by Mike Masnick




Amazon Patents Product Bundles?

from the oh-come-on dept

theodp writes "Apparently dazzled by examples that showed how to buy one's mother a birthday present, the USPTO awarded Amazon.com a patent Tuesday for assisting a user of an item purchasing service in giving groups of related items to recipients." Again, we have to ask how can this possibly be patentable? Basically, it's a patent for link together a group of products so they can all be bought in a single bundle. It's a nice idea, but deserving of patent protection? If I run a gift shop on the corner, and decide to bundle up a bunch of little gifts into a gift basket, can I patent that idea so no other stores can do the same?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2006 @ 5:18pm

    No Subject Given

    I can't believe that my florist sold me flowers AND chocolates three days ago! That evil bastard! He better pay up or I'll rat him out to Jeff B. myself.

    Oh, wait. I've been buying flowers and chocolates there every year since Jeff was shitting in his Huggies. So, Jeff is the evil infringing bastard!

    Oh, wait. I use to deliver papers and shovel driveways and charge once price.

    Jeff - STFU!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      CompTrekkie, 17 Feb 2006 @ 7:54pm

      LOL

      ROTFLMAO

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2006 @ 6:17am

      Re: No Subject Given

      OMG, time for Amazon.com to sue McDonalds. I was there the other day for a hamburger, they suggested FRIES! There were pictures of little bundles suggesting I guy them with BEVERAGES too!

      But it doesn't just stop there! There's a prepackaged meal that includes TOYS! I'm about to go there for breakfast, not only do are they suggesting I get breakfast food, but now gourmet espresso drinks and pastries :O

      They even include NAPKINS in the bags, FREE OF CHARGE. Someone must hear about this. Napkin supply stores, Toy stores, Coke, Starbucks, Heinze, and the French are all being exploited by McDonald's infringement on Amazon.com's patent. For shame!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    NOCcer, 18 Feb 2006 @ 9:57am

    No Subject Given

    5 years to think about this and still screwed it up

    Inventors: Agarwal; Amit D. (Seattle, WA)
    Assignee: Amazon.com, Inc. (Seattle, WA)
    Appl. No.: 699244
    Filed: October 27, 2000

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    PatentGuy, 18 Feb 2006 @ 11:02am

    No Subject Given

    Hey, yall. Before you flip out, read the claims.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      discojohnson, 18 Feb 2006 @ 1:17pm

      Re: No Subject Given

      Hey, yall. Before you flip out, read the claims.

      why so i can flip out even more? 75 claims? and the last one saying how it'll tell me how many other people picked the bundle? how is this not thrown out by prior art? the patent is over electronic means, but i'm sure that since the beginning of ebusiness people have been creating bundled goods as a way of upselling merchandise (see also: THE REST OF THE BUSINESS WORLD). will this never ending line of bad patent approvals ever cease? i think that those approving patents should be held liable (firing, fines) for giant mistakes like this.

      i also like how many steps the process uses--"The subroutine then continues to step 1195 and returns"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    mark, 18 Feb 2006 @ 2:21pm

    No Subject Given

    Sounds like the Patent Office is populated by recent law school graduates of something....the guy who granted Edison his patents is rolling over in his grave....."Shit! Why didn't I think of that!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2006 @ 4:46pm

    No Subject Given

    Yes, the patent is kind of stupid. But, clearly you all dont understand patent law. This patent will have little to no effect on anything. Were it leveraged against someone, it would be litigated into oblivion. And, were you as a vendor aware of the patent, it would be super easy to design around it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andrew Strasser, 18 Feb 2006 @ 10:50pm

    Not what they had in mind?

    Or maybe just more Bush politics.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Federico, 19 Feb 2006 @ 3:43am

      Why patent then?

      If its going to be so easy to get around it, then why is Amazon filing for the patent? they must be willing to pay for it only if they are going to get some benefits.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Patent dude, 19 Feb 2006 @ 10:40am

        Re: Why patent then?

        The value in most patents is not in being able to sue, it's about having an expansive IP portfolio to sell to investors. I agree that this patent would be destroyed by a company who was sued by Amazon.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ShaolinTiger, 19 Feb 2006 @ 1:25pm

    Amazon

    Oversteps the line AGAIN..

    Asses need a bitch slap from RMS, Stallman SMASH

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.