Amazon’s Gift-Exchange Patent: Amazon’s Cold Brilliance

Written by Evan Schuman
November 18th, 2010

Amazon has been granted a Patent—filed more than four years ago—to automate the mechanism of gift returns. This is Amazon at its most brilliant and its most antiseptic. This is a programmer’s fantasy of ideal gift-giving, where the recipient can preemptively exchange gifts before they’re ever shipped. It’s a world of the practical (as sizes change, gifts are instantly updated, without the gift-giver’s knowledge) and the slightly obnoxious (Aunt Edna has horrible taste so convert everything she tries to send me to a gift certificate).

In the last few days, some have posted that this Patent is inherently rude and disrespectful and warned of the dangers of a computer glitch revealing that a gift was swapped. In this instance, those concerns are misplaced. Consumers have faced that risk for a millennium, when friends or relatives visit and ask where that sculpture of their dog—a birthday gift from last year—is hiding.

What Amazon has done here is thought through many of the reasons for exchanges and automated them away. After all, bad gifts are quite expensive, in terms of packing and shipping something that needs to come back. Given how difficult returns are for consumers using pureplay E-Commerce sites, it can be a disincentive for those purchases.

Lastly, consumers who have filled out very complex profiles are going to push everyone they know to use Amazon for gift-giving. A lot of wins here, especially for Amazon.

For the record, like all patents, filing and even being granted a patent certainly doesn’t mean that it will ever be used. In this instance, there’s a fine chance it won’t be. After all, Amazon thought this all up more than four years ago. Had it wanted to deploy, it’s had plenty of time to do so, with the full protection of Patent Pending. But it still might, so let’s look into its four-year-old thoughts.

The Patent’s essence is that all consumers would fill out these extensive profiles and include lots of rules for friends and family. When anyone tries to send a gift to that consumer—the system looks for nicknames and spelling variances—the rules kick in.

“The rules may take into account any combination of the recipient’s purchase and gift history, the sender, the product and product features, product categories, value and timing of the gift, quantity, monetary (e.g., dollar) value, and/or any other pertinent information, in any combination,” the Patent said. “The user may be provided with the ability to define the sender in terms of a social network, a category of senders, whether the recipient has typically returned gifts from a particular sender in the past, user-defined rules for senders (e.g., senders having a billing address meeting certain parameters), and so on.”

The Patent also offers some creative examples, such as “not another comic strip calendar,” converting one media format to another and excluding clothes made from wool. The gift-recipient “may specify a list of all the CDs the user owns” so that all duplicates are instantly converted into gift certificates. (Note how quickly times have changed. It’s unlikely “CD” would be used today, instead of downloaded songs.)

There are other reasons today why such a program—managed confidentially—could prove quite kind. What if someone has lost his/her job and really doesn’t want stuff, but could use the money? This is a quiet way to convert all such gifts into much needed cash. Even the most sentimental consumer would accept that most gift-givers truly want to give something that will make the recipient happy. This approach—assuming Amazon ever productizes it—will likely double the job. It will make both the gift recipient and Amazon shareholders very happy.


One Comment | Read Amazon’s Gift-Exchange Patent: Amazon’s Cold Brilliance

  1. Fabien Tiburce Says:

    You got to love it! A rude computer program. How anthropomorphic! Turing would be proud. Then consider the bright side. Aunt Cindy finds out you returned her sweater? Blame Al, the rude and insensitive algorithm that, when not cutting astronauts loose in space, is rudely returning gifts. This one is a keeper.


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.