Miscellaneous

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?

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
 

Reader Comments

(Flattened / Threaded)

    Feb 17th, 2006 @ 5:18pm
  • No Subject Given

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

    • Feb 17th, 2006 @ 7:54pm
    • LOL

      by CompTrekkie

      ROTFLMAO

      (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

    • Feb 18th, 2006 @ 6:17am
    • Re: No Subject Given

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

    Feb 18th, 2006 @ 9:57am
  • No Subject Given

    by NOCcer

    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)

  • Feb 18th, 2006 @ 11:02am
  • No Subject Given

    by PatentGuy

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

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

    • Feb 18th, 2006 @ 1:17pm
    • Re: No Subject Given

      by discojohnson

      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)

    Feb 18th, 2006 @ 2:21pm
  • No Subject Given

    by mark

    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)

  • Feb 18th, 2006 @ 4:46pm
  • No Subject Given

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

  • Feb 18th, 2006 @ 10:50pm
  • Not what they had in mind?

    Or maybe just more Bush politics.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

    • Feb 19th, 2006 @ 3:43am
    • Why patent then?

      by Federico

      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)

      • Feb 19th, 2006 @ 10:40am
      • Re: Why patent then?

        by Patent dude

        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)

    Feb 19th, 2006 @ 1:25pm
  • Amazon

    Oversteps the line AGAIN..

    Asses need a bitch slap from RMS, Stallman SMASH

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now.
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Plain Text HTML
Save me a cookie
  • Plain Text: A CRLF will be replaced by break <br> tag, all other allowable HTML is intact
  • HTML: No formatting of any kind is done without explicitly being written in
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <p> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Close
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now.
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Plain Text HTML Save me a cookie

Search Techdirt
And now, a word from our Sponsors..



Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Related Stories
Close
E-mail It