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 (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given by Anonymous Coward on Feb 17th, 2006 @ 5:18pm
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 comment) (link to this comment)
LOL by CompTrekkie on Feb 17th, 2006 @ 7:54pm
ROTFLMAO
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by Anonymous Coward on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 6:17am
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by Michael on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 9:06am
haha thats pretty funny
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by Anonymous Coward on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 9:23am
Hmm, I see all of the fast food Combo menu's disappearing. No more NewEgg bundles to save money? No more 2 for the price of 1?
FUCK YOU AMAZON!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given by NOCcer on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 9:57am
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 comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given by PatentGuy on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 11:02am
Hey, yall. Before you flip out, read the claims.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by discojohnson on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 1:17pm
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 comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given by mark on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 2:21pm
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by jdragon on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 2:27pm
This is a ridiculous patent! Does this mean every online store can only checkout 1 item per order? WTF?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given by Anonymous Coward on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 4:46pm
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Not what they had in mind? by Andrew Strasser on Feb 18th, 2006 @ 10:50pm
Or maybe just more Bush politics.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why patent then? by Federico on Feb 19th, 2006 @ 3:43am
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Why patent then? by Patent dude on Feb 19th, 2006 @ 10:40am
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Amazon by ShaolinTiger on Feb 19th, 2006 @ 1:25pm
Oversteps the line AGAIN..
Asses need a bitch slap from RMS, Stallman SMASH
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given by Jobe on Feb 21st, 2006 @ 1:55am
To litigate, you need money, to hire them pricey lawyers to defend you in a court of law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment