Amazon patents use of cookies as databases

Yet another weird patent from USPTO

[claus]

March 30, 2004, USPTO granted Amazon, Inc. a patent on "Use of browser cookies to store structured data"

Here's the direct link to the patent text [patft.uspto.gov] (No. 6,714,926)

Weird that they grant patents like that. I don't get it, it's a commonplace technology for chrissake. When will somebody patent "the use of a door handle, knob, or similar device to open a door"?

[SEOMike]

That's like Trump trying to copyright the phrase "You're fired". What a joke... and it sucks that this patent was awarded!

So, as a web design firm, does that mean that we have to start paying Amazon for the cookies we have written?

I think I'm going to patent oxygen...

[tedster]

In line at the local US Post Office yesterday, I noted that our illustrious mail distribution system claims a trademark on the phrases "Delivery Confirmation" and "Signature Confirmation". The current situation with intellectual property protection is just plain crazy.

[AWildman]

How come the Patent office was smart enough to revoke the Eolas patent, but can't see that patenting cookies as a mechanism for storing structured data is just as (if not more) important? GAH!

[mgream]

The USPTO must be asked to re-examine a patent, it doesn't (or only rarely does) on its own initiative. It often does not even re-examine if petitioned. It did in the Eolas case because of the sheer profile of the patent.

I assume the USPTO prefers not to re-examine because it just leaves any issue of validity up to a court should there be proceedings over infringement of the patent. This is a bad way to run a patent system because it grants weak patents to strong patent holders who then hold a lot of apparent muscle by wielding the patent. The examination process should be stronger (it is for the EPO in Europe, but the USPTO is "known" for its ease). Having said that though, there's an argument that if a patent office is unsure about the validity, it's better to err towards the inventor and grant the patent, and then let anything of more detail be settled in a court where there are experts and so on.

In this case, the invention is aimed at a specific technique to use cookies to cache information to prevent excessive database load on server side. I can't believe that this technique did not already exist: there must surely be prior art.

[richlowe]

Read the patent application. They have patented a method to use cookies themselves as a database. They are NOT patenting cookies, but a way to use them which is very specific to what they are doing. It is actually very clever...

[chicagohh]

richlowe nailed it. I also took the time to read the application and they are not patenting cookies or their general use. Rather a slick system to generate custom web pages without constantly going to the database.

[SEOMike]

Huh. How about that. Thanks for clarifying it all!