Re[2]: OT: Amazon Patents
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2000
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 28610
interpreted = N
texte = Actually, the patent does not cover using a cookie to identify customers. It is actually more narrow than that: the innovation is rather that they use a cookie to identify returning customers and then retrieve that customer's identifying data, including credit card information, so that a _single button click_ can create the full order transaction. This is a subtle point and could very well be justifiably patentable. Read the full discussion at the below link, including the transcript of the phone call between Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly.I am in general opposed to the patent office's incompetent issuing of patents to obvious techniques (or mathematical algorithms for that matter). However, this case is not so simple. Amazon may have been the first to take the cookie to its reasonable conclusion, and store the customer account number in the cookie, allowing a return visit to be completely keyboard free much like a business account would normally be good enough for a phone transaction. I know that I was not actively taking credit card info as early as late 1996; I only used WebCat for fast static database access. Perhaps Ken was doing this; I know there have been discussions on the WebCat e-mail list about how you could use WebCat to do this kind of cookie-enable transaction. I also noticed that Pacific Coast Software was mentioned in the prior art section of the actual patent. A search of the early years of the WebCat list would be in order to assist in this case.John Peacock ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: OT: Amazon Patents Author:
(WebCatalog Talk) Date: 3/6/00 9:27 AM>> http://www.oreilly.com/ask_tim/amazon_patent.html > > It's real, and it's also very old news. > > If the patent isn't valid it'll get overturned in the courts (Amazon is > currently suing Barnes & Noble), if it is then arguing against it is > pointless (ie the courts say it is, so it *is*).The problem is: they did it. They did patent a common web technique called Setting a cookie to identify your visitors.All it takes is ONE court to enforce the patent to create jurisprudency.If it does happen, then I will have to patent some of my own stuff and so will you. ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Actually, the patent does not cover using a cookie to identify customers. It is actually more narrow than that: the innovation is rather that they use a cookie to identify returning customers and then retrieve that customer's identifying data, including credit card information, so that a _single button click_ can create the full order transaction. This is a subtle point and could very well be justifiably patentable. Read the full discussion at the below link, including the transcript of the phone call between Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly.I am in general opposed to the patent office's incompetent issuing of patents to obvious techniques (or mathematical algorithms for that matter). However, this case is not so simple. Amazon may have been the first to take the cookie to its reasonable conclusion, and store the customer account number in the cookie, allowing a return visit to be completely keyboard free much like a business account would normally be good enough for a phone transaction. I know that I was not actively taking credit card info as early as late 1996; I only used WebCat for fast static database access. Perhaps Ken was doing this; I know there have been discussions on the WebCat e-mail list about how you could use WebCat to do this kind of cookie-enable transaction. I also noticed that Pacific Coast Software was mentioned in the prior art section of the actual patent. A search of the early years of the WebCat list would be in order to assist in this case.John Peacock ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: OT: Amazon Patents Author: (WebCatalog Talk) Date: 3/6/00 9:27 AM>> http://www.oreilly.com/ask_tim/amazon_patent.html > > It's real, and it's also very old news. > > If the patent isn't valid it'll get overturned in the courts (Amazon is > currently suing Barnes & Noble), if it is then arguing against it is > pointless (ie the courts say it is, so it *is*).The problem is: they did it. They did patent a common web technique called Setting a cookie to identify your visitors.All it takes is ONE court to enforce the patent to create jurisprudency.If it does happen, then I will have to patent some of my own stuff and so will you. ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
jpeacock@univpress.com
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Claris HomePage messes up the code (1997)
Snake Bites (1997)
Using Plug-In while running 1.6.1 (1997)
Another bug to squash (WebCat2b13 Mac .acgi) (1997)
suffix mapping, use of cache, etc. (1997)
Upgrading to 4.0 (2000)
suffix mapping, use of cache, etc. (1997)
Help! WebCat2 bug (1997)
[append] vs. [appendfile] delta + question? (1997)
Removing [showif] makes a big difference in speed (1997)
ReturnRaw context (1997)
Error Log.db --however (1997)
Bug (feature) in v6 listfiles shows hidden files ... (2004)
[shownext max=?] armed (1997)
Using the new syntax/scoping methods (2000)
Pulling Javascript from a DB (2004)
Secure Server not remembering discounts (1998)
SetLineItem (1997)
Calendar (1997)
Time Remaining? (1998)