Patent Filing Suggests Amazon Was Facebook Before Facebook

Written by Frank Hayes
June 17th, 2010

On Tuesday (June 15), Amazon was issued a patent for a “social-networking system” that sounds remarkably like a description of Facebook. How could Amazon, which filed its application for that patent in 2008, claim rights for a social-networking site after Facebook had been running for years? It turns out that Amazon bought a social-networking company of its own in 1998–five years before Mark Zuckerberg tells audiences he came up with the idea for Facebook.

Does this mean E-tailing giant Amazon is about to try taking down social-networking goliath Facebook? Probably not. Amazon and Facebook have been collaborating for years. In fact, Amazon writes Facebook apps to drive Facebook traffic to Amazon. It also just updated its Kindle e-book reader so users can send favorite passages to their Facebook friends.

That suggests Amazon is more likely to “friend” Facebook with a patent cross-licensing agreement than slap it with a lawsuit.

The Amazon patent, #7,739,139, is based on technology from an early social-networking company called PlanetAll, which Amazon bought in 1998 and shut down in 2000. Though Amazon applied for the patent in 2008, the filing is actually a continuation of a PlanetAll patent application filed in 1997 and granted in 2001. That’s why Facebook, which was launched in 2004, might face infringement claims from a patent that wasn’t filed until four years later.

But that’s not likely. The days are gone when Amazon was likely to swing its “one-click” E-tailing patent like a club at Barnes & Noble. In recent years, Amazon has cross-licensed its patents with IBM (in the wake of a legal dustup over E-Commerce patents) and Microsoft (to keep the Kindle out of IP trouble). Amazon isn’t likely to threaten a steady stream of business headed its way from Facebook.

Aside from being good business, swapping patents with Facebook would give Amazon access to Facebook’s own patents, including one that Facebook was granted in February for alerts in a newsfeed in a social-networking site. Facebook, in turn, could gain the use of that notorious “one-click” patent, which the U.S. Patent Office spent four years re-examining before approving it again in March.

Of course, all this may soon be moot. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule any week now on a case known as In re Bilski, and that ruling could outlaw many software and business-process patents. If that happens, any legal threats over patents would be pointless.

That’s an even better reason for Amazon and Facebook to stay friends.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.