| 6:57 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You would think some due diligence on prior art would blow this out of the water - US patent process is corrupt and shameful...
[edited by: bcolflesh at 7:12 pm (utc) on Nov. 11, 2005]
| 7:05 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Granting that patent is absolutely pathetic.
How many thousands of sites are based ENTIRELY on this concept (i.e. epinions) and have been around for a very long time?
| 7:18 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I know my opinion on this, am I allowed to express it?
Amazing. I have no problem with genuine patents being granted but it seems that the USPTO will grant almost anything.
I'm off to patent a device that facilitates the oxygenation of blood using the passage of a common gas mixture over organic membranes traversed by a matrix of blood transport devices. I think I'll make a mint from it as I'm pretty sure most people would use such a device!
| 7:26 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
< and have been around for a very long time?
Amazon predates Epinions.
That being said, this is a pretty chilling patent. To put a patent on online opinions seems sort of like putting a patent on online content.
My sense is that Yahoo has the resources and will to fight the good fight on this one.
| 7:35 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yes, they beat epinions by about a year if memory serves me, but I don't remember if they always allowed users to post reviews which is the real question (and epinions was simply an example).
| 7:40 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
According to commentary on /. - the patent says "the system itself takes the order for which a review occurs", thus PriceGrabber, ConsumerReview and their ilk are not prior art - my reading of the patent [patft.uspto.gov] seems to confirm this...
Do we have some patent-savvy members who can elaborate on this?
| 7:44 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
< but I don't remember if they always allowed users to post reviews
I remember :) They did. Amazon predates everyone except usenet / deja.
| 7:49 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm... So... My 1990 BBS which had an online form to fill out reviews of books and gave rewards of extra time to reviewers, was in violation of this 2005 patent?
| 7:52 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is obviously not true - they certainly have more staying power than their predecessors though...
| 8:28 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
< This is obviously not true
yes, sorry... reviews of things were certainly going on online in a variety of formats before amazon.
but to my knowledge, amazon was the first to implement a structured review system as a core part of their business.
I just read the patent, and one thing reassures me a bit:
This seems to be a patent on the ENCOURAGEMENT of reviews, and not consumer reviews themselves.
The entire patent talks about ways that Amazon links customers who have purchased a specific item with solicitations for reviews.
Every claim in the patent begins with:
"a method of encouraging customers to provide reviews of purchased items, the method comprising...receiving over a network an order from a first customer purchased from an electronic catalog."
So, it would seem to my non-legal mind that pure play review sites wouldn't run into trouble with this (as there is no "receiving over a network an order from a first customer...").
| 8:53 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I guess I missed my chance at winning the mazda from Yahoo.
It's impressive how shrewd Amazon is at business process patenting. Even if they are ultimately overturned, like the one-click buying suit against BN, the existence of the patents and their persistence in aquiring them is like dropping land mines on the road behind them.
The shameful part is that the quick patent button stifles the growth of the whole and isolates the few.
I'll be sitting on the side with popcorn waving my Yahoo flag and Foam Yahoo #1 hand, watching this Y vs Amazon battle.