13 ms·
Amazon has a patent to keep people from comparison shopping in stores
- qubex 9y agoPretty obvious, and pretty trivially circumvented by not sending traffic over the in-store Wi-Fi network. (Do such things really exit?? Never seen one here in Italy)
- stephenc_c_ 9y agoIn-store Wi-Fi is very common here (UK), and sometimes the only way to get a data connection because mobile signals can't penetrate the building. Only way around it at that point is a to use a VPN over their Wi-Fi if you can.
- nothrabannosir 9y agoBig If :/ it's quite common for vpn to be blocked. Sainsbury's definitely blocks OpenVPN.
- problems 9y agoUse stunnel on port 443 - makes it look just like HTTPS traffic.
- saagarjha 9y agoYep, a lot of places in the US have their own Wi-Fi, especially in malls.
- xori 9y agoI never see it in Canada, we only have it commonly in restaurants & malls. But not box or grocery stores.
- xemoka 9y agoStrange, as a Canadian Save-On-Foods (primarily BC) shopper, I regularly use their in-store WiFi.
- Pxtl 9y agoIt's starting to appear. WalMart has instore wifi that I can never get to actually work. Fortinos and other PC grocery stores have in-store wifi now. Actually seems more consistent than the mall.
- strig 9y agoEvery Metro I've been to seems to have it.
- mamon 9y agoExactly: in some countries LTE coverage is so good that I for instance find the Wi-Fi function in my iPhone unnecessary and annoying and keep it turned off most of the time (to avoid my iPhone asking me stupid questions like which Wi-Fi I want to connect to - the answer is usually "none")
- kalleboo 9y agoYou know you can turn off the "ask about connecting to open wifi network" thing right? I still turn off WiFi when I'm not at home though. Never need it unless it's one of those things iOS is unreasonable about (downloading large apps, syncing photos)
- sixdimensional 9y agoWell, even though most stores don't acknowledge it, how much do you want to bet there are stores that install 3G/4G cell jammers to prevent you from using your mobile to look up anything while in-store? I know a few places I shop where my cell coverage "mysteriously" drops to nil inside the store and I have long suspected it's not just the concrete walls.
- Ajedi32 9y agoThat'd be illegal, so I kinda doubt it. Not to mention that jammers are pretty easy to detect with the right equipment so it'd be fairly easy to prove if they were doing something like that.
- callalex 9y agoThe FCC comes down HARD on anybody doing that. https://www.fcc.gov/document/marriott-pay-600k-resolve-wifi-blocking-investigation https://www.fcc.gov/document/marriott-pay-600k-resolve-wifi-...
- RIMR 9y agoIf you suspect cell jamming, and you're in the USA, contact the FCC and report the business. The mere fact that it interferes with 911 is enough to send a store manager to prison. If they can prove that an emergency vehicle every got close enough to the business to be potentially affected, the business could see hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. The FCC could just park a van in front of the store for 3 minutes and their tools would verify that a jammer was in use. Here's the details on anti-jamming laws, and a list of people who have had their ass handed to them by the FCC for doing it: https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement
- sixdimensional 9y agoGood to know this. I don't think it's outright cell jamming but something where voice service is still passable but data service basically cannot function due to packet loss, etc. Would be interesting to try to detect if such interference is present on the right frequencies, or if it is just a natural effect and truly not intentional. Thanks for sharing the info.
- fantispug 9y agoIt's not necessarily obvious if they're just tracking your behaviour on WiFi and making external actions based on that (approaching you in store, or sending certain promotions). I think a lot of people don't appreciate that you really need to trust to a WiFi network you connect to.
- TulliusCicero 9y agoSeems likely to be a defensive patent.
- Azkar 9y agoYeah... this seems like a really fast way to lose customer trust.
- dsr_ 9y agoThen they could issue a press release: "We here at Amazon are very concerned about... and so we have patented this in order to make sure that nobody does this awful horrible thing."
- djrogers 9y agoPretty sure that would be a quick way for someone to invalidate your patent claim.
- monochromatic 9y agoOn what basis?
- crazy1van 9y agoSeems more likely that Amazon got this patent to prevent some other brick and mortar store from acquiring it and blocking Amazon.com.
- opportune 9y agoYeah, just like that oh-so-reasonable 1-click purchase they patented. Good thing they never abused that patent.
- Sylphine 9y agoGreat joke. I chuckled
- mxfh 9y agoWho knew this expires in 88 days on September 12th. 20 years already.
- cookiecaper 9y agoWhile it's true that a business won't shy away from leaning on its intellectual property to beat out competitors when necessary, it is also true that having your own strong patent portfolio is one of the best defenses against patent lawsuits from competitors and (some types of) patent trolls. It's sort of a mutually-assured destruction thing, where they won't sue you over X because they know you could sue them over Y. There is also the possibility that if you don't file the patent, someone else will, and it's better for you to be in control of that property than to leave it for someone who is potentially much worse to obtain. This is pretty much the dilemma involved in any willful abdication or refusal to seize property/power. It's particularly relevant to competent engineers who opt out of office politics because they dislike the BS, which means the task is left to the incompetent. This results in suffering for everyone. If something is under your control, even if you're not actively doing much with it, you're preventing an adversary from taking it instead.
- Animats 9y agoThat was very clever. The insight was to make both buying and undoing the buy easy. For a few minutes after an Amazon one-click buy, you can undo it. That's what made one-click purchases non-scary. Most E-commerce systems still don't get this. Once you've clicked "buy", it's "Mwaaah, we have your money now, sucker!"
- Theodores 9y agoThe problem here is that people that use in store WiFi are too cheap to pay for their own 4g bandwidth. So these folk are frugal not big spenders. They will need to work with telcos to deep packet inspect customers triangulated to the store locations. And then to stop people shopping online. With destination shopping, e.g. to buy a new sofa or bicycle, customers have invariably been online already and chose the store that way.
- bgirard 9y ago> With destination shopping, e.g. to buy a new sofa or bicycle, customers have invariably been online already and chose the store that way. Not necessarily. For $100-$1000 items I'll walk into a store without an intent to buy that day to price shop and if I'm tempted to buy I'll quickly check online and see if the store will price match. In the bay area I've actually had the store price match their own online store even though in store price had a '20% off sale'. Seems pretty common for bay area stores to sell above their online prices and price match if you ask.
- hayden592 9y agoIt works this way in the rest of the country. Not just the bay area.
- Zak 9y ago> The problem here is that people that use in store WiFi are too cheap to pay for their own 4g bandwidth. I usually use it when mobile reception is poor, not to save money. I've found poor reception inside larger stores to be a very common problem.
- synaesthesisx 9y agoIt would be a shame if large stores intentionally blocked cell reception so customers would use WiFi instead....
- pilsetnieks 9y ago
- mankash666 9y ago1. Use VPN 2. Regardless of free Wi-Fi, it's illegal in many countries to tamper with traffic. Net neutrality anyone? 3. Kudos to WaPo's editorial integrity. Despite being a Jeff Bezos entity, it isn't afraid to publish items Amazon doesn't want you to know about
- concatime 9y agoNo need for a VPN. Maybe using HTTPS wouldn't aloud them to see the data? Hope no MITM. But, you can always change DNS server (or use DNSCrypt).
- cookiecaper 9y agoThere is a need for a VPN. Most public access points perform some traffic manipulation and I absolutely believe that some intentionally block and/or modify data to obscure some data from people who are in-store. In fact, I believe Best Buy was already caught doing this with their own site; in-store APs wouldn't reflect the price that was really shown on bestbuy.com. ... Ah, it seems that Best Buy did this but only on internal workstations, so that when the employee would access bestbuy.com, the discounted price online wouldn't show up: https://consumerist.com/2007/03/02/best-buy-confirms-the-existence-of-its-secret-website/ https://consumerist.com/2007/03/02/best-buy-confirms-the-exi... . However, they could trivially do this via wifi. While searching for this, I also found this: http://adage.com/article/digital/retailer-jo-ann-aims-retarget-store-wi-fi-users/308287/ http://adage.com/article/digital/retailer-jo-ann-aims-retarg... , which registers the device MAC on the backend and uses it to track how many times a user has entered the store (that is, connected to the store's wifi). Even VPN wouldn't stop this from happening, you'd need to randomize your phone's MAC address. Public wifi is convenient but we shouldn't be naive about it. Companies are using it for their own purposes.
- concatime 9y agoEven randomizing MAC seems somehow useless [0]. And all `private` VPNs without logs are pretty much non-free (as in money). So what's the easiest solution for a lambda user!? [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/10/mac_address_randomization/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/10/mac_address_randomi...
- ckuhl 9y agoHypothetically, could they be even more sinister and modify competitor's prices to appear higher, so that you never even notice what they're doing?
- smaili 9y agoYesterday - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14566264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14566264
- dbingham 9y agoIt shouldn't matter that this is an obvious thing to do or easily circumvented (for the time being). It is 1) an invasion of privacy and 2) anti-competitive behavior. Version 1 may be easily circumvented, but future versions could easily be tighter and more difficult to circumvent. For example, a contract with the mobile providers could make this something that no longer depends on in store WiFi usage. This is the sort of thing that should be stopped in its infancy.
- ams6110 9y agoIn theory, I don't have a problem with a retailer offering free WiFi but limiting it either for QoS or to block certain sites or protocols. It's their bandwidth and they should be able to offer it to the public on whatever terms they want. As with anything, if you aren't paying for it then you are not the customer. Now, if they somehow convinced Verizon or ATT to interfere with the network access that I am paying for, that would be a problem and I'd stop doing business with both the carrier and the retailer.
- super-fake 9y agoThat would show them!
- shadow_banned 9y agoThat would show em!
- paki123 9y agoIf a lot of people did it, wouldn't it show em?
- devoply 9y ago> Now, if they somehow convinced Verizon or ATT to interfere with the network access that I am paying for, that would be a problem and I'd stop doing business with both the carrier and the retailer. Considering the plethora of choices, you would definitely win. /s Goes back to old George Carlin joke about belonging to a club and you not being in it.
- gene91 9y agoThey could also increase the online price (for websites they own) to be the same as the in-store price. I've seen something similar to this at Target. Target.com is often cheaper than Target stores. And Target store matches Target.com prices. However, if you use Target app (not Target mobile/desktop website) in a Target store, the price shown will be the in-store price instead of online price. The Target Android app requests permissions to access precise location, pair with Bluetooth devices, and view WiFi connection.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago> They could also increase the online price (for websites they own) to be the same as the in-store price. That seems like the wrong way around. If you're in a store, and checking Amazon, Amazon would want you to think the product is cheaper on Amazon, so you don't buy it from the store you're in.
- rcthompson 9y agoThis is a technology to be deployed in Amazon's brick-and-mortar stores, which used to be an oxymoron in the past but is increasingly no longer the case.
- jedberg 9y agoThis is for people who are in stores owned by Amazon.
- spike021 9y agoAnother viewpoint here. I was at a Target recently and noticed that the website price of an item was about two dollars cheaper than in-store. The clerks I spoke to at first wouldn't do the price-match, which was a bit frustrating. Eventually they did it, though so maybe it was just that store/clerk.
- jsight 9y agoIn fairness, the opposite happens sometimes too. If the store price is lower, it will show the lower store price. This happens regularly with store-specific clearance items. In either case, starting an order with the app will show you the online price.
- djhworld 9y agoI'm very reticent to connect to any public wifi network anyway. Not saying the cellular network is any better
- loco5niner 9y agoKey line: > But Amazon now has the technology to prevent that type of behavior when customers enter any of its physical stores and log onto the WiFi networks there.
- syphilis2 9y agoI don't understand the extent of patents such as this. Does this mean if I have a shop with a public WiFi connection that I cannot block or redirect users from competitor's websites to my own without infringing on an Amazon patent? In general, I'm wondering does this patent obstruct me from implementing something similar?
- crispytx 9y agoSomeone else posted that this is why they think Amazon may have filed this patent - a sort of "Good Guy Patent Troll" move.
- loco5niner 9y agoIronic considering their "Price Check" android app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.pricecheck&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.pri...
- RIMR 9y agoNot really. Now that they own the patent, they can refuse to license it to anyone who may create a product that blocks their app.
- mars4rp 9y agoInteresting that it the article is in WashingtonPost!
- gigatexal 9y agojust turn off wifi as the patent works by reading your traffic whilst in store
- diggernet 9y agoDon't even need to turn off WiFi. Just don't connect to store WiFi.
- otaviokz 9y agoSo, basically they block access to competitor's sites via their captive wifi? The article looks, smells and sounds like click bait.
- aj7 9y agoWeird. I remember being pissed off at a Home Depot price. So I bought it on Amazon, right at Home Depot. I bet half of you have done something like this.
- david-cako 9y agofor as long as I've had proper internet access on my phone. since 2009 at least. it's great too, because it's forcing retailers like best buy to at least be mildly competitive in pricing. I will actually buy things at best buy now if I really want them immediately, but it often requires telling them to give me the online price since it's marked up in store (which I guess is another form of this price comparing behavior).
- thefalcon 9y agoYes, I only ever bother to go into Best Buy because I know they will price match Amazon (and their own price.) I recently realized that even Wal Mart had lower prices for some things online, and now I have to go through the hassle of having them price match their own website when making certain purchases.
- jetti 9y agoCould somebody please help me understand how this patent would be enforceable? I mean, wouldn't it be invalidated by any of the public wifi's that prevent you from accessing the internet until you visit their log in page? Or does the specifics and niche of this patent actually matter?
- kbutler 9y agoSpecifics always matter in getting a patent granted. They sometimes matter in a court enforcing a patent. They rarely matter in getting a lawyer to send a cease & desist letter.
- nfriedly 9y agoI wonder if there could be a "good patent troll" business model where you file patents on all kinds of user-hostile, anti-consumer bullshit like this and then sue any company that does it?
- crispytx 9y agoGreat point. It would be nice if that's what they're doing.
- maldeh 9y agoNot very educated on patent matters, but isn't there any requirement for plaintiffs to demonstrate patent utilization, or at the very least abstract plans of utilization, no matter how impractical? Making a public claim that the patent would never be utilized but only used defensively, would make that difficult.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- AndrewKemendo 9y agoA much better implementation of this would be to inspect the data that users are requesting, then analyze the price difference between products they are looking at online vs in-store and then dynamically change the price in real time. Amazon definitely has the technology to make this happen.
- bo1024 9y agoAn encrypted connection like https should be able to prevent this, however.
- lemoncucumber 9y agoNext from Amazon: free home/cell internet that works for everything but competitors' websites
- crispytx 9y agoLOL. They already have a MotoG phone they sell at a discount. The only catch is they spam you with ads. It's too bad they can't have a little more integrity when it comes to stuff like this.
- __jal 9y agoReason #34 for taking a more adversarial relationship with the surveillance-happy plays: they started gaslighting us in their stores. One reason among many that Bluetooth and Wifi are off on my phone when I leave somewhere. (Most of the time. I sometimes forget.) Aside from passive monitoring, we get things like this, where your personal devices become the equivalent of jailhouse snitches. I don't see it as an invasion of privacy - it is their wifi. But it is an example of grabbing after every last nickel without considering ancillary concerns, like me thinking it is awful, icky, gross behavior and adjusting my exposure to that shit accordingly.
- crispytx 9y agoPoor decision making like this gives capitalism a bad name.
- PatentTroll 9y agoThe article says Amazon 'won' the patent or alternatively the patent was 'awarded' to Amazon. The USPTO only "grants" patents. It may seem like nit picking semantics but it presents an incorrect image of the USPTO to uninformed readers. And it also exposes the authors lack of knowledge on patents, discrediting the whole of the article.
- JosephLark 9y agoSemi-offtopic: Does Amazon.com in America tend to come out ahead if you comparison shop against it in retail stores? Up here in Canada, Amazon.ca can often be a few dollars more expensive for simple items than I can easily get in retail shops. So although I would like to shop more online, I still have a preference for shopping in physical stores.
- RIMR 9y agoI think Amazon might only own the patent on this to prevent others from doing the same thing. If there was any app in the world you would use to mobile window shop, it would be Amazon.
- shmerl 9y agoWhat else did they patent, may be shopping itself?
- leoh 9y agoI have a crazier theory about this. After logging on to a WiFi router, the router could report to Amazon that some customer is in shop X. When that customer goes online to shop (for example, Whole Foods), Amazon could show higher prices.
- ijustwanttovote 9y agoI was trying to price match Amazon when I was at Target. Target now has their own device that looks up Amazon's prices. Not shocked to see two different price tags on my device and Targets
- lechiffre10 9y agoSo weird seeing this on the Washington Post considering it belongs to Jeff Bezos
- smoyer 9y agoAmazon's next patent - "Effective faraday cages for large retail spaces" It's illegal to jam or otherwise interfere with other's radio transmissions but it's not illegal to block them from your premises.