Apple Licences Amazon's 1-click Shopping

An anonymous reader was the first to note that Apple of all people (corps?) has announced that it is the first sane corporation to actually think Amazon's patent on one click shopping was legitimate enough to license it. I can't fathom why Apple would do this. (Unless Bezos said they can have it for $3.50) but even then, when one company takes something so lame seriously, that's a dangerous precedent.

Comments

Re:Not so lame

[hamburger lady]

Again, I recognize that you are overly burdened-- as are many other people. Heck, it's not uncommon for me to work 80 hours or more per week. However, I would never complete a project only half way. I'd either do it right or say, "I don't have time." The latter answer is perfectly acceptable when you literally don't have time.

unfortunately, we have a system of production. we have to get a certain amount of work done every biweek, or we lose our jobs. simple as that.

---

Re:Not so lame

[Compuser]

First off, my native language ain't English
so thanks for correcting my spelling.

So, if I paraphrase your post for real, it
sounds like: "I don't know my subject, nor
can you expect it from me, so give me a
break". Great logic, dimwit. If I go to a
surgeon, he'd better know everything about the
upcoming operation.
And this brings up anoter point.
If you are not (by your own admission) skilled
in the art, then how do you make a judgement on
what would be obvious to those who are so skilled.

My point was that the way the system is set up,
people cannot fulfill their duties, so it
renders every examiner a dolt by default.

Re:Not so lame

[hamburger lady]

so let me get this straight... i'm an imbecile because i don't have encyclopdic knowledge of thousands of references, and i'm a dimwit because i can't do quality work because i'm given less than half the time it should take to do said work?
look, if what you're saying is that the system needs fixing, i agree 100%. we need to provide far more time for examination of applications, and enough cash for examiners to stay at the PTO instead of fleeing towards industry everytime a recruiter waves a handful of money at them. still don't understand why you have to resort to namecalling, but anyway...

If I go to a surgeon, he'd better know everything about the upcoming operation.

well, that's fine, but see how good a job he does when his boss tells him he has only 5 minutes to remove your appendix...

---

Re:Not so lame

[Compuser]

Uh, no. I don't mean you guys need more
time. I mean you can't possibly do what
is required of you because it requires more
knowledge than a person can fit in their
head. The system that pretends that this is
possible is just plain bad. And people who
get employed by said system, are cooperating
in deceiving the public, and so they get to share
the blame. Hence name calling (although I felt
like flaming someone at the time anyway).
In this whole IP food chain, patent lawyers and
VCs certainly deserve more flaming, but none
have posted at the time.

Re:What the patent office needs is...

[AndyChrist]

You'd be seeing a lot more patents like "one-click ordering."

this is such big news...

[spectatorion]

i'm surprised jobs didn't wait for a keynote to announce this one

best slash sites:infantililsm.org

Re:Conspiracy theories aside...

[Tet]

Now, I don't understand why Apple's customers would want one click shopping.

Indeed. The whole concept of 1-click ordering only works for repeat orders. How many people are going to be making frequent orders from Apple's online store? It's great for Amazon, because they typically sell low value goods, and so people order more often. I just can't see this being the case for Apple.

Re:Not so lame

[lalas]

I don't have to validate moderation performed by my peers, but I wonder why you didn't check the No +1 Bonus box for your post

ICs were patented. Re:patented heart transpla

[ckedge]

> neither the silicon chip nor the heart transplant were patented.

That is incorrect. The Integrated Circuit was most definitely patented. And I quote:

"Robert Noyce took the helm of the new enterprise and it was his invention of the integrated circuit that same year (along with Jack Kilby of TI who shared the patents) that would make Fairchild's fortune"

Taken from this article.

Here are a few other references:

http://inv entors.about.com/science/inventors/library/weekly/ aa080498.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyb er/tech/ctb218.htm

Poor SOBs. Their patents ran out in 81. But it looks like they got to have a good run of it with the screwed up Japanese patent system!

Re:ICs were patented. Re:patented heart transpla

[streetlawyer]

I must now complain in the strongest possible terms about the blatant troll-feeding which is occurring in this thread. Now the mini-trolls placed into my troll post announcing that my previous troll was a troll are getting bitten on! I demand that the UN act to import new supplies of irony to Canada. I appear to have lost the +2 bonus now; thank you.

Re:ICs were patented. Re:patented heart transpla

[ckedge]

Shit. Another bozo to be aware of and avoid? Now I remember why I got frustrated so long ago and gave up my previous high karma userID to the trolls.

> I appear to have lost the +2 bonus now; thank you.

Ahhhh :) Satisfaction.

Hey Taco!: We need a 'permanent bozo alert' icon to appear near some of these people's names. It's much to much of a pain to memorize all the bozo's names and remember to check the poster-name before responding to a post.

I yearn for the day when I could respond solely to the content of a post, and not have to 'be on the lookout' for trolls.

Re:Not so lame

[EMN13]

Though I appreciate your approach I still think your conclusion - that the patent might be valid is not warrented. Then there is the entirely other issue of use of patents, which isn't clear cut at all. But, given that patents are a fact of life, what is wrong with amazons patent?

Really, why were cookies developed in the first place? They were developed to enable sessions to be persistent (to my knowledge). This enables you to do stuff like automatically log on to a service such as slashdot, your web-email provider, whatever. Depending on what you do on the web, you can use this identity thing in different ways.

It's simply a combination in utterly trivial manner of existing ideas, moreover, these idea's were made to be used together.

Hyperlinks came first. Amazon was not involved. Quite a useful idea. dynamic web pages - the CGI idea - came next. CGI was intended for things such as an online store, or a message board, or in general a way to get program output easily to the web. Obviously, programs that need to communicate with a wide population really make use of this most - such as a store. Amazon couldn't get a patent on using CGI to this end, and they were not involved in CGI's developement. They weren't around at the time. Next come cookies. I don't know whether amazon already existed or not, but the ovious purpose by the "inventor" was to make sessions persistent, so that a user doesn't need to identify himself. It also makes intra-session persistence easier, but it is by no means really necessary. Amazon used cookies exactly as intended. Why should they they be rewarded for that.

After all, it was 3M who got the patent on post-its not the first person to use them.

And obviously, if patents didn't exist in the first place, certain things would be very different. For many people, it would not make a difference. For those regions in which huge investments are necessary for one advance (medicine, for instance) things would go a lot slower. But realize also that the increased freedom means you'll have a lot more people developing, so who knows whether this is a good or bad thing... and finally, the government should take an active part in funding and supporting research. It already does, but remove patents and increase support... who knows. I certainly think that the duration of patents bu much more so copyrights should be much shorter - and even shorter depending on the region. Things that take longer to develope should be protected more than those that take shorter.

patented heart transplants?

[streetlawyer]

For God's sake! I can't believe that, despite the number of people who have reacted to this fairly heavy-handed troll, nobody has yet pointed out that neither the silicon chip nor the heart transplant were patented. That was the whole point of the troll! I am utterly disgusted with the standard of kneejerk posters on slashdot today, so in the tradition of mad people everywhere, I am replying to one of my own posts to complain. And abusing the +2 bonus to do so, for God's sake!!

Re:patented heart transplants?

[locutus074]

You were researching chip patents when you were 6 years old?

Sorry, I should've been more specific; the memory is approximately six years old. That is, I read the book around 6 years ago, when I was in my teens.

--

Re:patented heart transplants?

[locutus074]

That's it! Thanks.

--

Re:patented heart transplants?

[locutus074]

Actually, the microchip was patented when it first came out. (I would insert a link here, but this happened in the early 60s, and the earliest patent for "silicon chip" in the IBM patent database is from 1971.)

A few years ago, I read a book from the library called "The Chip". It has a subtitle but I forget what it was; and I've just spent some time in a fruitless search on various book sites for a link, to no avail. Anyway, the basic story is that in the early 60s, the chip was independently invented almost simultaneously by two inventors, one of whom worked for Texas Instruments, the other was one of the founders of Intel. One of the inventors filed for a patent, and while they were waiting, the other inventor file and received his patent. There was some legal maneuvering, the result of which was that the patent application of the inventor who had the earlier date in his lab notebook was upheld, but both are considered today to be the fathers of the microchip.

I'm sorry I couldn't provide more information; this is from approximately 6-year-old memory.

Interesting side note: Today, of course, the standard product cycle is that the new high end is very expensive and generally only purchased by early adopters, who provide the initial capital for the companies to keep going while they start producing the new product in volume, driving down the price. Well, in the early 60s, there was no pre-existing market to drive the price down. The kick-start that got the silicon business going was the United States space race; money was no object to the government as long as it shaved a few ounces off the weight of the vehicle (because we Had To Beat The Russians At All Costs). This provided the initial capital that allowed the chipmakers to learn how to do it more cheaply.

Today, of course, there is no longer a patent on the idea of integrated circuits, silicon chips.

--

on the head

[geekoid]

You may have hit the nail on the head. It is fairly common practice to threaten to sue a large company for a violation then ask for a super cheap 'liscence' fee so they can use that to gain legitamcy and as leverage against other companies.
So now I will havt to boycott Apple.
If this hit the news tomorrow I would have a cube.I gues I got to find something else to spend my 1799 on.

Re:Not so lame

[Dr_Hajj]

So, can I patent the act of driving a car down to Giant Eagle for soem milk and bread?

- Kevin

Re:Riddle: Who CANNOT possibly be sued by Amazon?

[Foogle]

Well if anyone feels like some healthy spoofing, they can register Quadrupleclick.com/net/org. Tripleclick is taken, oddly enough...

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Re:Not really

[mrphrtq]

90 minutes? That's not nearly enough time to sober up!

Re:Makes no sense for Apple

[Thomas Wendell]

I buy one of just about everything Apple makes and I've pretty much given up on supporting local Apple dealers. One-click rules.

RMS and Apple

[Greyfox]

For a long time there he asked that GNU software not be ported to the Apple because of the look and feel lawsuits. Maybe if Apple tries to validate this silly patent, they'll move forward and start patenting aspects of their interface for the next round of look and feel lawsuits...

Apple ventures doomed to grow from this.

[AFCArchvile]

Apple introduces the one-click crash. Just click once on the Help icon, and your Mac is thrown into a system crash.

Apple introduces the one-click animé plugin for Adobe Photoshop. Just one click with the animé tool, and watch that special Apple magic come to life! (WARNING: Not for use on photographs of Steve Jobs, Steve Case, or Stephen Wozniak, as they morph into Jay from Mallrats, Jay Leno, and Chewbacca the Wookiee, respectively.)

Apple introduces the one-click Electronic Funds Transfer. For each click of the new Apple Pro Mouse, $500 is directly transferred to the accounts and estate of Mr. Steven Jobs. For each millisecond of dragging the mouse, 50 cents is transferred. (DISCLAIMERS: Apple is not responsible for bank statement errors on your part. Due to high latency issues dealing with the USB port structure to which the mouse is connected, as well as the Java which is used to power the EFT logger, funds may be withdrawn at a higher rate. The user is required to wear a stylish electronic tracking necklace which comes in five flavors. If insufficient funds are reported, the necklace will automatically detonate. Apple is an Equal Opportunity Swindler. Java is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, LLC, CRAP, ETC.)

Apple introduces the one-click lobotomy. Just point your browser to any of these company webpages: Microsoft, Dell, HP, Micron, or Intel. You'll instantly have 50% of your brain mass removed by the special lobotomy Javascript plugin installed in Netscape Communicator 4.7 for the Mac. (DISCLAIMERS: Due to Javascript compilation latency, the process will take 5 agonizing days to complete. No anaesthesia is used in the process. Apple is not responsible for the following symptoms of the process: schizophrenia, delerium, homicidal tendencies, incest, and death. Use as directed.)

Re:third post

[matthew.thompson]

If you're going to go via the /. numbers I believe I actually managed to get the third post.

inside story (secondhand)

[luge]

A friend of my worked for store.apple.com over the summer, and he told me that this was coming. He said this came from Jobs himself. Apparently, Jobs was in a meeting with some of the web design team and said "I want one click." Someone pointed out that it was patented by Amazon, so Steve got Bezos on the phone right then and there and said "Jeff, we want to use one click." No one heard what was said on the other end, but Steve said "OK, thanks Jeff" and hung up, and told them to go ahead and do one click.
I'm not really sure what the point of that story was, except that this kind of licensing and agreement between two mega-companies doesn't have to have rhyme or reason to it: it can happen because Steve Jobs is nuts and knows Jeff Bezos personally. So, if Steve knows the head of BT, maybe he will license links from them too :) Otherwise, I doubt it...
~luge

Re:inside story (secondhand)

[Linux_ho]

As recorded by the Echelon system:
SJ: "Jeff, we want to use one click."

JB: "Hey Steve, what's with charging thirty bucks for a beta product? Send me a copy of OS X beta for free and you can use one-click."

SJ: "OK, thanks Jeff."

JB: "No problem, Steve. Bye."

Re:inside story (secondhand)

[blameless]

Jobs no doubt got the license for peanuts. It's a case of mutual back-scratching. The fact that Apple has licensed the technology not only serves to validate Amazon's patent, but now Apple has an example of another company 'protecting its intellectual property'.

One thing that seems to have been overlooked: Apple is the first company to secure a license, setting the precedent for other companies.

Re:inside story (secondhand)

[frankie]

I can easily see Steve Jobs doing that. He probably got the license for a trivial cost -- my guess is zero dollars and a sweet mention at Steve's next public webcast. Think about what Amazon gets in return -- an air of legitimacy for the patent. Apple is a media darling these days, so when they do something unusual people pay attention.

I'm sure Jeff Bezos expects that other companies will now come forward asking to buy rights too. A few good contracts could put Amazon within striking distance of not going bankrupt next year.

Re:inside story (secondhand)

[thal]

hey wait. that's not goatse.cx! i am absolutely fascinated with this twist on the usual misleading link.

note: this is a forced test post. please excuse its stupidity.

Re:inside story (secondhand)

[evbergen]

*Grin* Perhaps Jobs' thoughts wandered off during the meeting and remembered a GUI design discussion with Steve W. about whether to use single- or double clicks for certain actions... So at one point he suddenly shouted aloud: 'I want _one_ click!'

The rest is history.

I must admit, the guy is consistent in what he wishes...

Re:Eureka! Zero-click shopping!

[Bill Kendrick]

No I don't, thank god.
Any why READ patents when I can just read ABOUT them here on /.? ;)

Riddle: Who CANNOT possibly be sued by Amazon?

[sreeram]

Who is notorious for their cookies, but cannot possibly violate the "1-click" patent?

These folks of course... :)

Sreeram.

How Amazon got Apple to license it

[Morden]

Maybe there was a "one-click shopping" link at the bottom of an Amazon page that charges any Amazon account holder the licensing fee and gives them a license...

Subversive

[Gefiltefish]

I think this is a bit more subversive than run-of-the-mill patent abuse.

Just watch out... next time you visit the apple web site: one wrong click and you've bought yourself a new cube!

Re:Good for Apple

[memfree]

Perhaps it isn't that Apple thinks this is fair, but that Apple thinks it is cheaper to buy the license than to argue the legalities of it (though they'd be unlikely to admit that in a press release). Think of it as 'protection' money. Give Amazon cash; Amazon won't beat you up for giving your customers ease of use.

Re:Not so lame

[GreyMage]

While I am not terribly enthused about the seeming explosion of "silly patents," I tend to agree with streetlawyer here. The idea of clicking on an item, item's description, picture of an item, ascii rendition of an item . . . you get the picture. Seems pretty obvious to the relatively savvy folks around /. but there doesn't seem to be any real case for the "prior art" issue when you look at the facts. We may just have to accept that, even though it seems pretty silly, the Amazon patent is valid, and we're just going to have to deal with it (not necessarily like it). IANAL, but my understanding of patent law is that, if I wanted to, I could patent a zepplin built from 40 mm titanium sheeting and filled with mercury as long as someone else hadn't already come up with the idea. hmmmm that would be a pretty cool project. . . Anybody got a few extra thermometers I could have?

Re:Get a Clue

[Ruddydude]

Apple most likely didn't pay anything. From their press release it says they "licensed Amazon.com's 1-Click patent and trademark for use on its Apple Online Store (www.apple.com), as part of an e-commerce patent cross-licensing agreement." Better ask what would Amazon want of comparable value that Apple has?

Re:Not so lame

[AssFace]

I worked for a pentent law firm in DC right before I started college in '95 - you shoudl be careful what you say, there are MILLIONS of Joe Normal guys getting fucked up the ass by many a large company b/c they can't afford to defend it in the courts. The patent law firms are told by the government that they should do some percentage of pro bono cases per year, they never reach this quota - but that is relaly the only way a little guy will get it if they will go for that. There is a whole subsection of business built on "submarining" your patent. When I was working there we were right in the midst of a razor company coming up for air on their submarined technology and they were going to get a shitload for it. you file for your new product and you purposely tie it up in the courts, it is a great invention that everyone wants, and for X time it just has "patent applied for" on it and some competitors of yours use it, then after there is enough market saturation to satisfy you, you come up and you allow your companies lawyers to finalize the thing, get it out of the process and patented - you then sue the fuck out of every single company using your idea. there is a whole separate revenue stream coming from just that. if a company wants a patent, they have a full legal staff on full time solely for patent problems and they will just take whatever the hell they want and let their lawyers take so long in court that you can't afford it any longer. the only way you have a chance is if you get a pro bono or if some other companies see a benefit in it and will come and back you up in order to get it. - I can give you a great example of that too with the government and some chips for radar.
------------------------------------------------ --

One-Click Slashdot

[Geccoman]

When I click my icon for the Slashdot web page, I have a cookie that knows my user name and password, so I'm automatically logged in. Can you really patent something like that, since that is the purpose of cookies?

Re:Not so lame

[Chalst]

Patents do cover what you describe, but only since very recently: not
so long ago they were only granted for designs of physical products.
This is still true in Europe, but legislation is going through to put
the same, loose definition of patentable design through there.

Re:Ironic with apple fighting other patents

[HerrNewton]

IMATEC was a little different story... as soon as they filed suit and Apple was served, they started going after END USERS of the technology. A few large print houses, graphic design firms, and 3rd pary vendors that use colorsync in their products (Adobe, Quark and, yes, Microsoft as IE on the Mac can read embedded ColorSync profiles) received nasty letters threatening to sue them for contributory damages or something along that lines. It'd be like Amazon threatening to sue any B&N customer who used B&N's 1-click method before Amazon forced them to shut it down.

Furthermore, IMATEC was/is basically a F*ckedCompany prior to the suits. Hemmoraging cash and employees, no salvation in sight. Most people in the industry (color prepress, that is) viewed the suit as a pr stunt and a last ditch effort to infuse the company with cash.

----

Re:An industry first: 1-click downloading

[SubtleNuance]

"1-Click downloading -- an industry first which combines 1-Click shopping with the downloading of software over the Internet."
I can't believe this ridiculous claim. I've been downloading software with one click since Mosaic...

How much do you want to bet your Freedom-Loving-Common-Sense-Having-Reasonably-Thin king butt that this isnt the next patent application @ The United States Purchased Tyranny Operation.

Watch out CNet! (they have a purchase SW/Download scheme)

News Flash: Available for a limited time Only at Amazon.com: US Democracy! Yes, the rights of the citizens of the United States are for sale - available only via Amazon.com's Innovative(TM) Amazing(TM) 1Click(TM) Purchasing(TM) Method(TM). OR:

Re:third post

[Sunnanvind]

I thought it was the second post (hey, I read at a threshold at the time) and 2-1 == 1 so there.
Sunnanvind

transcript

[dboyles]

I can't fathom why Apple would do this. (Unless Bezos said they can have it for $3.50)

Jobs: "I said what do you need, Jeff my boy?"
Bezos: "I need about tree fiddy."
Jobs: "Dammit Bezos, get off my lawn, I ain't giving you no tree fiddy!"

Whoops.

[matthew.thompson]

I just bought an apple cube. Is there a 1 click cancel button?
M@t :o)

Didn't they also license the word "Classic"?

[Tiger Smile]

Is this the same company which also licensed the work "Classic" from coke for the Mac Classic.

I should change my name to Mac or Apple and then collect tons of fear money from them. :)

Re:It's the glue

[RonVNX]

Your example isn't valid, because what makes a Post-it note is the glue. The glue, is patentable, as well it should be. Pads of paper on the other hand, are not, nor should they be. Amazon's one-click shopping isn't a Post-it note, it's a pad of paper.

Prices.

[Voxol]

They'll probably play with the price of the licencing to experiment with how much to charge different people and 'see how they react'

Re:$$$ offer

[AFCArchvile]

How 'bout enough to start the "soundcard that doesn't suck" project?

Re:Not so lame

[mitheral]

Blindingly obvious probably isn't a strong enough statement. This is what cookies are designed to do. It is like if Ford marketed a pickup truck and Barnes and Noble comes along and gets a business process patent to deliver books with the pickup. <\choir-preach-rant>

Man and does it iritate me.

Apple's 1-click page

[goober]

here...

Re:Apple's 1-click page

[Fervent]

That's kind of dangerous, isn't it. Accidentally click, and whoops, just bought a G4-multi processor with 21" Cinema flat display. $7,500 down the tubes.

Re:Apple's 1-click page

[sitcoman]

OOH! And in delicious candy magenta too!

I can't wait.

-=20

Re:Apple's 1-click page

[Technician]

Be sure to lock your computer with a key when you leave. This is just as safe as leaving your credit card on the counter.

Good for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple at least have the guts to admit that the US patent system is fair. Buy licensing innovative technology from Amazon, they are playing by the book. Sure, they could have simply stolen the idea, but as a company, the know full well that Amazon would have every right to excerise their rights under the law.

This is what the patent system is all about: Allowing innovative companies to make money from their inventions. Good for Amazon, and good for Apple.

P. Hill

Re:Good for Apple

[CptTripps]

If I were Apple, I'd do the same thing. Apple is doing too well right now to gamble on something as trivial as "One Click Shopping". Scary Thought: Buying a $5,000 computer with one click.

Re:Good for Apple

[shogusumi]

Not all that scary if you're a tech department that might buy 30 a month... it'll make our purchasers much happier...
-ben

Re:Good for Apple

[extar-bags]

Another Scary Thought: Buying a $5,000 computer with one click from Apple.

----------

Re:Good for Apple

[mike260]

Totally. This way, Amazon has a chance to recoup some of the enormous costs of developing their one-click technology.

It's also good to see Apple refusing to compromise on quality and insist on the most advanced available technology. They're really going to make two-click and three-click shopping sites look stupid.

Re:Ob-SP post

[cloudmaster]

Well it was about that time that I notice that Bezos was about eight stories tall and was a crustacean from the palezoic era

http://www.rangerstation.com/s cripts/episode303.html

--Danny, who thinks that south park transcripts are neat...

Re:Not so lame

[rlk]

I personally am opposed to the concept of a patent, period. HOWEVER...

A Post-It is quite a different matter. There's the whole shebang of devising an adhesive that will adhere strongly to the note itself, but will not leave residue (or lift ink or paper fibers) from what it's stuck to. I'm willing to believe that that adhesive, and probably the particular paper, did require creativity and research. I'm sure it was very nonobvious to someone in the field.

Just because someone hasn't done something before doesn't make it such an earthshattering invention. Something might not have been done simply because nobody cared enough to actually bother with the trivial amount of work involved.

Re:Knife, Fork Spoon?

[Tiger Smile]

I own that idea. In fact in order to do anything which has been done before, or is something we all know how to do, but failed to leave a good paper trail on, you owe me. So your subject line should have been licensed through me. You owe me money!

What will I patent next? Human hair? I think so.

Boy...if that's the case...

[JoeShmoe]

Then they really owe British Telecom some serious dough for all the hyperlinks they've been using.

- JoeShmoe

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-

The answer is simple

[Luminous]

Apple itself is known to try to have some screwy patents. Now it is trying to legitimize the whole absurd patent movement by acknowledging Amazon's screwy patent.

Maybe only companies who file screwy patents will acknowledge the screwy patents of others. They will create a whole little community and live in their altered reality.

At least they can say...

[TrentC]

...that Apple has gotten over their "Not Invented Here" syndrome... :)

Jay (=

Dirt cheap, I'll bet

[Paradise_Pete]

I'll bet the license was on *very* friendly terms. Amazon benefits a whole heck of a lot from this, as it lends legitimacy to the *cough* innovation.

As for Apple, they should be ashamed. (I type this in my office full of Macs.)

-Pete

Re:Not so lame

[Mark J Tilford]

Actually, I think that, in the case of Post-its, the patent may be on the specific adhesive, which definitely is original.
-----------

Just great

[SpacePunk]

This is just what the U.S. freakin needs. For a company like Apple to legitimize Amazon's patent by licensing it. Is it just me or is the asshole ratio in the world growing?

Very Bad Thing

[gavinhall]

Posted by polar_bear:

In patent lawsuits having legitimate licensees goes a long way towards making a patent look reasonable. The fact that Apple has done this gives Amazon too much credibility and creates a very scary precedent.

Isn't there a site that can demonstrate prior use of the one-click technology to get this lousy patent killed?

Re:I have a patent on a do...while loop

[RatCommander]

Yes, and i bet that the Adam and Eve have a patent on the concept of "Apple", thus apple owe everybody on earth licensing fees. Just a thought.

Re:Not so lame

[interi]

"you then sue the fuck out of every single company using your idea. there is a whole separate revenue stream coming from just that." Case in point RAMbus and SDRAM..

Re:Not so lame

[TheReverand]

Why should ? If they want to overrate me let them. Karma is pretty meaningless. My only problem is I was forced to view your post when browsing at +2, as it really didn't say anything at all. You know it, and I know it. It wasn't a personal attack, but blindly shouting with no proof is not an argument.

Re:Makes no sense for Apple

[billd91]

But it might be quite useful for repair shops (like one I work at) and other places or people that frequently order supplies and Apple logo stuff. It might make ordering equipment for schools much easier, depending on how the one-click stuff is made available. And why should Apple license the technology rather than fight the patent? So they can offer the technology rather than spend a lot of time and money in court fighting a horse-shit patent. I'm sure it's cheaper for them to just cough up some money to Amazon. Apple knows from experience how long a well funded corp can hold out and delay in court even when not backed by the force of current law.

Re:As the press release says...

[Sodium Attack]

. If both parties come out of this with licencees for their silly e-patents, they will have a stronger cases in court.

YAONAL. (You are obviously not a lawyer.) I'm not either, but I do work with them frequently.

Whether/how often a patent has been licensed is completely irrelevant, legally, to any question of the validity of a patent. If I'm trying to invalidate your patent, it doesn't matter if a thousand other companies have licensed the technology.

Re:We Thought of One Click First!!

[Sodium Attack]

Was it published anywhere? That is, details available to the general public? And that means not just the site itself, but a description of it?

If not, it's not prior art. Forget it.

Re:Actually, WIMP normall refers to...

[twitter]

thank you, wuss.

Two points...

[Sodium Attack]

...which no one will read since I'm entering this discussion so late.

I can't fathom why Apple would do this.

I guarantee you, there's three things they took into consideration:
1. How much the license cost
2. How much a lawsuit would cost (as a rule of thumb, that's half a million dollars, minimum)
3. Probability of winning the lawsuit.

They simply decided that (1) Second point: I'm stunned at all the posters (too many to count by now) who whine "Oh no, they're giving legitimacy/validity to Amazon's patent!"

If you are not a lawyer, please do not play one on /. (Now watch me be a hypocrite. :)

Licensing Amazon's patent does not make it one iota more valid than it was before. If someone sues Amazon, or vice versa, over the patent, the fact that it has been licensed once, or a thousand times, is completely irrelevant.

Perhaps people meant that licensing the patent gives the patent legitimacy in the court of public opinion, but the discussion here itself shows that that is not so.

Re:Two points...

[Sodium Attack]

That's what I get for not previewing. The garbled part should read:

(1) < (2)/(3)

Mutually Benificial

[OmegaDan]

Its simple -- amazon licensces "1-click" (which is unpatentable) ... probably on a handshake or less -- to apple -- because it lends credability to amazon's rediculous pattent. In return for this, apple isn't exposed to liability (via lawsuit), and both amazon and apple recieve media attention (your reading about it right now!). Apple gets their cubes hyped, amazon gets their pattent hyped. No lawsuits, everyone is happy.

If I wanted to licensce 1-click ? My ass would be bleeding I'm sure

Akamai Files Patent Infringement Suit

[aozilla]

story here
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 18, 2000--Akamai Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKAM - news), the foremost provider of global, high performance services for the delivery of Internet content, streaming media, and applications, announced today that it has filed a patent infringement suit against Digital Island, Inc. The suit involves U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703, entitled ``Global Hosting System,'' which issued from the United States Patent & Trademark Office on August 22, 2000.

Re:Nah, it's worse than that!

[Hammer]

No that strategy is actually from the sixties :-)
(But IBM is right)

1-Click is pretty useless...

[Nathan Brazil]

On Apple's site, anyway, 1-click buying seems kinda dumb... Everything there is at least $100, there's no *impulse* buying at that level. The whole key to the 1-click purchase is that it enables people to do impulse buys...

Its secondary use is, of course, convenience... but who buys at apple.com more than once every couple years? Who needs a new computer that often? If you enter your information once now, you'll need new info (at least CC expiration dates) by the time you make your next purchase that... 1-click seems wholly inappropriate to Apple's website. 1-click is all about a whole lot of nickel-and-dime things, not about the big stuff.

As the press release says...

[Andy_R]

This is "...part of an e-commerce patent cross-licensing agreement..."

So Amazon get something similar from Apple in return - any ideas exactly what this is, folks?

I'd guess that it maight take the form of a simliarly contentious patent, and both parties have a 'refund if patent knocked down' clause in the deal. If both parties come out of this with licencees for their silly e-patents, they will have a stronger cases in court. It's quite possible no money changed hands here,

Re:As the press release says...

[Andy_R]

YAONAL. (You are obviously not a lawyer.) I'm not either, but I do work with them frequently.

You have my condolences. Anyway, the principle might still hold water out of court... along the lines of "look, Apple licensed it, so should you".

One other benefit is that Apple can now pacify jittery shareholders. This means are now the only e-business (except amazon) who are safe from a 'one-click' lawsuit. This might be the reason for them doing this, share analysts can take exposures like this into account.

Re:As the press release says...

[Nagash]

So Amazon get something similar from Apple in return - any ideas exactly what this is, folks?

Colourful, transparent colours for the 1-click links in the shape of a cube?

Woz

Conspiracy theories aside...

[substrate]

If Apple wants to use one-click shopping it makes sense for them to license it from Amazon, whether they believe in the validity of the patent or not. Apple is a big enough target that Amazon's lawyers would be drooling over the chance at suing them in court, especially given the rather precarious financial position they're in. Even if Apple prevailed in the law suit it would take years, in the mean time they're out legal costs as well as potentially making investors scary.

Now, I don't understand why Apple's customers would want one click shopping. *click* I just ordered a two grand machine without even reviewing the price, or maybe my son did, or his friend, or...

Which mouse button?

[Dr_Hajj]

Does the patent specify which mouse button must be clicked, or can I run out and patent one-right-mouse-click shopping?

- Kevin

Is 1-click really easier?

[Michael Jennings]

Is 1-click really easier? It requires over 400 words of explanation!

The media loves Jeff Bezos saying that he wants to make Amazon.com the most "customer-centric company in the world". But whenever I've tried to order something from Amazon, I've gotten so annoyed at the interface that I've given up, and bought somewhere else (usually Buy.com, which is slightly less annoying).

In practice, 1-click is nice only if you have been willing to pay a price in your time to get started, and you have been willing to accept involvement in the complicated issues raised in the explanation above. Once you have paid a price in your time, you pay again in money for the convenience: I've found that Amazon.com is usually more expensive.

The reality, I've found, is that it is necessary to stay flexible and shop around.

According to an Amazon press release, Amazon tries different prices on different customers to survey how much people will pay. Supposedly they give back money to those who paid more during the survey. Playing complicated adversarial games in which the customer is not a player, but is the ball, is not convenient for the customer, only for Amazon.

Convenience is meaningful only if the total experience is convenient.

The new mouse has NO buttons.

[PurdueBUZZ]

Steve himself declared it button-less.

That's less than zero.

It was done to give software patents more power!

[bubber]

My bet is that Apple really did this to give some more power to the whole idea of software patents. (including there own) If the major players in the software industry abide to it it must be correct! Right?

Did they do it for the name?

[Bimble]

I'd imagine that whatever the worthiness of the patent for 1-click may be, the name itself could be better argued as a trademark. By licensing the technology, they get to use the name "1-click" without trouble (or at any rate, that is the name they're using). They might have considered the association with Amazon to be something that could help their own web sales. That doesn't change my disappointment with Apple for lending some credibility to that "patent", but it would be a valid reason for the licensing that wouldn't necessarily require Apple to take the patent seriously themselves.

There's a new section on Amazon...

[lar3ry]

Give them your credit card number, and after pressing the mouse button JUST ONCE, you TOO can have a license for the one-click patent.

However, if you click twice, the license if voided.
--

Re:Forgive me for asking ...

[Cloud 9]

Amazon's patent for one-click shopping as reported on by /.

Re:Not so lame

[freq]

This is true. It is a patent on the adhesive.

If you look in any office supply catalog, you will see tons of post-it(tm) knockoffs...

Thats because you can't really patent "a method affixing sticky paper to a surface" -- though in my opinion amazon's 1-click thing is the cyber-equivalent of this.

btw... the post-it adhesive was invented by accident.

But how much did they pay?

[Zigg]

The real question is whether or not Amazon was running another "pricing test" and Apple actually thought they were going to pay a lot less for the patent than they ended up paying.

(Or maybe they license lots of patents, and can expect to be overcharged in the future...)

Makes no sense for Apple

[heikkile]

The benefits of one-click shopping are not available the first time you shop, then you have to use many more clicks to register. Amazon may expect their customers to come back and buy more books quite often, but honestly, how many Apple customers are expected to come back and buy another Mac within any foreseeable future?

Re:Makes no sense for Apple

[RottenApple]

Well, at least they can modify the One-Click shopping code for Apple's own purpose.

So.. why don't just wait and see?

Confusing the underlying model with implementation

[crovira]

The problem is that people are confusing the underlying object model with the implementation.

As anyone who has ever ordered breakfast in a Mexican hotel can tell you, their implementation of the business model is strict, exact and a big pain in the but when you haven't even had a friggin' coffee yet, but they are conducting business correctly (order processing, work tickets, inventory reduction, finished goods entry, billing, receipts and maybe you get some toast, OJ and coffee [experienced in Cancun.]) The business model is being religiously adhered to.

Bezos managed to patent a method which uses prior information to avoid some information gathering steps on subsequent order processing and fulfilment.

Big ... deal!

If you want prior art, I got to a restaurant everyday, I don't even ask for anything anymore, I hand the guy my money and he gives me my lunch, the same thing every day. He makes the same thing when he even sees me unless I wave and look like I'm going to ask for something else (which is not often and doesn't always work, :-) I get the same thing.

Apple paid Bezos his shekel so that nobody could accuse them of kicking up a fuss. Were they right? Think of it as paying litigation insurance. For once they DIDN'T march in with a phalanx of lawyers leading the fray.

Now if only they can learn to do that with the media and their own customers...

Re:Not so lame

[Cato]

Patents are not granted for products - they are granted for innovative techniques, methods or processes for solving a problem.

The one-click method is not so different to being billed for premium information on a phone call, e.g. a weather forecast. The phone company has all your billing info, so it only takes one action (making the call) to get the goods (weather forecast, delivered as audio) and be billed at the same time.

Re:Not so lame

[SigmoidCurve]

If there was why did they either not patent it themselves or contest the patent application.

Because most small companies don't have the resources to afford a legal staff of the size necessary to investigate patent claims or file one themselves.

The patent process is designed by lawyers for lawyers. It is painstaking and lengthy, requiring months of research and upwards of 1,000 pages of documentation. You can't just call up your local patent office and say "Hey, I just invented something cool, could you email me my patent?" Billion dollar corporations have huge expensive legal departments to devote all their time on this stuff.

A small start-up, OTOH, has little time enough for writing the code and attracting investors/customers. Certainly there was prior art for one-click, but amazon found it and had their lawyers "buy" it for them.

Patents are not about protecting the people who invent; rather, they protect the people who can afford the process of filing a patent.

czep

1-click with the Americocentric(tm) Option

[C A S S I E L]

For what it's worth, the 1-click store is US-only, with the small print saying that Apple products bought online may only be shipped to US addresses and may not be exported.

Clearly, Apple didn't see fit to pay Amazon for the full international version of 1-click featured at www.amazon.co.uk...

Prior Art

[john@iastate.edu]

I did essentially this for a client in '94 (as I have mentioned here before). Then we thought better of it and decided NOT to store the credit card number.

Re:Prior Art

[john@iastate.edu]

It was 1-click briefly.

Then we found out (at that time) that people were *way* too skittish about credit cards and the 'net and we quit remembering that bit, so we had to ask for it.

So at that point, it became 'click-cc#-click'.

Re:Prior Art

[john@iastate.edu]

It was nothing special. It was definitely not non-obvious.

On the checkout page where we asked all the standard stuff was an extra checkbox "remember this so I don't have to enter it again". If that was checked they got an entry in the DB (Berkeley DB from sleepycat.com) and a random# cookie that was the key to their entry.

Optionally, you could bookmark a uniquely-mangled URL if you didn't have cookie support or didn't like cookies.

Re:Prior Art

[TheReverand]

John, could you describe what you did? I would be interested to hear about it (be geeky I can handle it `;^)

Re:Prior Art

[Foogle]

Well, to be fair, that's not really the same thing, is it? You didn't store the credit-card number, so then I'm assuming that the customer had to enter it again? That's certainly not "one-click".

Yeah, it could've been "one-click", but it wasn't. Where's the prior art?

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Here's the deal...

[jamused]

Patents (at least in the US) are not awarded as a gold star for having come up with an original idea, they are awarded to further the public good.

The framers of the Constitution recognized that nobody has or ought to have ownership of an idea, but in order to encourage people to share ideas instead of keeping them secret they made the patent system where you were granted a limited temporary monopoly on the use of your idea--in exchange for which you had to publish your idea, with all the detail necessary for someone else to implement it. Alternatively, you are perfectly within your rights to try to keep your idea secret, but if someone else comes up with the same idea, or your secret leaks out, you have no legal recourse.

So what about the one-click patent? Regardless of whether someone thought of it before, there's no public good in protecting an idea the very description of which gives anyone "skilled in the art" enough to go on to reproduce the idea. It is impossible for Amazon both to use this idea and to keep it a secret, therefor there's no reason to bargain with them to make it public.

Re:Here's the deal...

[kubalaa]

Here's what I believe he's saying, although I'm not sure I agree:

A patent is a quid-pro-quo agreement between the government and the corporation. The government agrees to protect an idea for a limited time in exchange for that idea being released to the public (i.e. patent office). Under normal circumstances, if you have an idea and want to make money off of it, you want to keep the implementation secret so nobody else uses it to compete with you. This is bad for the public because you could theoretically keep your idea secret forever. It's bad for you because if someone manages to figure out or steal your idea, then you're out of luck.

A patent tries to solve both problems. Your idea is legally protected for a time so you don't have to worry about anyone stealing it. AND, your idea is opened to the public, so people can get the benefits of extending the idea.

Re:Here's the deal...

[jamused]

OK, let me try this again.

Part of the quid-pro-quo of the patent system (temporary monopoly in exchange for juicy details of invention) is that there has to be details of the invention that are non-trivial to implement/discover. If there aren't, then the public is giving up something naturally theirs (the right to use any idea) in exchange for nothing.

This is why according to law, the invention has to not only be original, but also must not be obvious to someone "skilled in the art"--i.e. who knows the technology in the area the patent covers. If it can be trivially reproduced (e.g. from a one-sentence description of what it does), then it was obvious.

The Amazon "one-click" patent ought not to have been awarded, even if it turns out that it was original, because once it is described, any web developer worth her salt can produce the equivalent in a few minutes work.

Because of the "obvious" nature of the idea, there's no public policy reason to grant Amazon a monopoly.

US patent law Vs European patent law

[nicster]

I've read a great deal of comments here stating that Amazon's patent is fair and justified. However, in the UK, a patent is generally only granted if the idea or invention is not obvious.

In this case, as e-commerce increases, it is natural for online companies to look at ways to enable customers to make quicker purchases. The Amazon patent is plainly an obvious idea that would never get passed in Europe - this patent is totally lame and nonsensical.

Or am I mistaken? Does (and it seems this is the case from sucessful patent applications such as this one) US patent law not require the idea or invention to be unobvious?

Microsoft introduces 0-click shopping

[goober]

Latest MS innovation! No need to log on to the internet at all! A copy of WindowsME will be shipped to your door and your credit card charged automatically. No need to set up 0-click shopping as MS already has your address, SS#, and all your major credit card numbers in the vast .Net database in Redmond. Who wouldn't want to participate in this terrific step forward for e-Commerce!

Excelcior!

Re:Apple just hit wrong button

[BubbaFett]

How can there be a wrong button when there's only one of them on the mouse? ;)

Apple hardware at Amazon

[GleekOid]

They're doing it so that Amazon will begin carrying Apple hardware in its online stores. Apple got the deal for a song in return for "blessing" Amazon as a place to buy apple products.

Wasted time!

[djplaistow]

While you all have been bitching about their patent, I went and patented walking. I suggest that you crawl home quickly before my patent on crawling is completed. For those of you still walking, give me a call to set up a payment plan.

Re:Akamai - Patent Claim Summary

[RedLaggedTeut]

FYI:
The claims in the patent fall into the following groups:

Claim 1, the actual description of the patent:
1. A distributed hosting framework operative in a computer network in which users of client machines connect to a content provider server, the framework comprising: a routine for modifying at least one embedded object URL of a web page to include a hostname pretended to a domain name and path; a set of content servers, distinct from the content provider server, for hosting at least some of the embedded objects of web pages that are normally hosted by the content provider server;
at least one first level name server that provides a first level domain name service (DNS) resolution; and
at least one second level name server that provides a second level domain name service (DNS) resolution;
wherein in response to requests for the web page, generated by the client machines the web page including the modified embedded object URL is served from the content provider server and the embedded object identified by the modified embedded object URL is served from a given one of the content servers as identified by the first level and second level name servers

Claims 2 to 5 simply describe a standard way of loadbalancing.

Claims 6 to 11 describe the part of the loadbalancing that is actually smart; especially claim 8 sounds ok:
8. The hosting framework as described in claim 7 wherein the overflow control mechanism includes a min-cost multicommodity flow algorithm

Claims 12 to 34 concern themselves with rewriting the URL. This hasn't got much technical merits, as it has been done before akamai for all kinds of mirror sites. The majority of claims can stand only as side-claims to claim 1.
Of these claims, the fingerprinting thing in claim 28/29 has some merit.
28. The method as described in claim 26 wherein the given function is a hash function.
29. The method as described in claim 23 wherein the modified URL also includes a fingerprint value generated by applying a given function to the embedded object.

An interesting side note is that claim 1 is so broad that it applies to doubleclick.com too.

If you would ask me to judge on this, I might grant them rights on claim 1 in conjunction with claim 8 or claim 29. Everything else is nothing but side claims, and claim 1 is too broad. I mean, I could invent this any day.

Licence cost obviously depends ..

[lqx]

if Steve Jobs bought it using Netscape or IE ..

Re:Not so lame

[5KVGhost]

Unless I'm mistaken, that _is_ the current requirement. That it be non-obvious to other practicioners in the field, or something very much like that. What's amazing to you or me may often be blindingly obvious or so routine as to hardly warrant comment by someone who works with similar technology every day.

And that's why preposterous patents like One-Click are so damn stupid, because if the patent office were capable/willing/able to research these patents correctly then they would never have been granted.

-Ghost

Re:Akamai - Patent Claim Summary / Workaround

[RedLaggedTeut]

btw., contact me if you want to work around this, or set up a free patent that protects the legal and intended trick to work around this.

Press release says cross license

[Que_Ball]

It should be noted that in Apples press release it says the following:

Apple® today announced it has licensed Amazon.com's 1-Click patent and trademark for use on its Apple Online Store (www.apple.com), as part of an e-commerce patent cross-licensing agreement

Which seems to sound like Amazon did not get cash, but the ability to use something that Apple may hold a patent on. It's a swap meet of useless patents, just like kids on the playground trading baseball cards.

Amazon is headed towards bankruptcy

[Benjamin Shniper]

And if I remember correctly, it is taking with it to the grave all of OUR personal information. And then there will be a big splatter from said grave, out of which thieves, corporations, and politions will gobble up the feeding frenzy.

Perhaps anything which forestalls this kind of a future, where all your personal information is for sale to anyone who is willing to pay for it, is a good thing.

Oh, wait... I guess all personal information IS for sale, I meant buying record at Amazon.com. So people can snicker you bought Joy of Sex online. Yeah. That's bad.

-Ben

An industry first: 1-click downloading

[Tom7]

"1-Click downloading -- an industry first which combines 1-Click shopping with the downloading of software over the Internet."

I can't believe this ridiculous claim. I've been downloading software with one click since Mosaic...

Re:It is lame coz...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its lame dude because there is no other way to do it. 1. you have a project you have to achieve something that work sin real life without computers and what do you get? the same as amazon. Ignore that you are shopping, it could be something else, the concept has been done before.All it does it automate something, big deal! Its not something that is impossible to develop. Its not like an NAND gate logic in silicon which is 100% unique. 2. If a patent is only valid because you are first then its lame, the fact that others have developed it at the same time totaly invalidates it. Its like asking someone , how would you catch a fish with a stick and a knife... you cant patent the result because you are first when 50 others can do it, perhaps slower but they still can. 3. I know from first hand that managers often say, "can we patent this" even if its so fucking lame because the managers heads are sooo damn soft even the most simplest concepts are baffeling. First come first granted doesnt mean its deserving. Rather its best just to invalidate the whole patent and others similar. 4. patents are becoming the new gold, will they IPO the patent office? What perhaps should happen is maybe a new Software Patent office be made, while keeping the old one with only 100% physical stuff.

1-click application?

[whovian]

Now if they could have a way to fill out the application with 1-Click technology, I'm in!

Usefullness of "One Click" ordering

[adjensen]

I can't imagine that this is even the best use of such "technology". I buy stuff from the Apple Store and have to admit that I've never been overly concerned about the speed of the process.

I would think that "one click ordering" is intended to assist in impulse purchases (like the crap at the supermarket check out) rather than making the buying experience more user friendly. And I would suspect that it becomes less and less viable as the cost of the item goes up.

I mean, it's one thing to say "oops, I just ordered a copy of 'Dirk Gently'" and quite another to say "oops, I just ordered a G4 cube" :-)

But I suppose that, somewhere out there, there's someone waiting for one-click ordering here.

Re:Usefullness of "One Click" ordering

[rthille]

I mean, it's one thing to say "oops, I just ordered a copy of 'Dirk Gently'"
and quite another to say "oops, I just ordered a G4 cube" :-)
I wonder if that would work with my wife? "But honey, it was just a mis-click. But since the G4 cube is on my desk now..." :-)

Re:Not so lame

[TheReverand]

That's just completely bogus. The patent process is lengthy this is true. But look at the patent databases, there are MILLIONS of patents by "Joe normal guy". I have a bunch of friends who have patented little inventions. They sure as hell aren't millionaires with legal departments.

You have NO proof to back up your claims.

Re:Forgive me for asking ...

[puppet10]

The patent is on the process of tying together the cookie, button and database to allow a purchase by clicking on the button. The One-Click I believe is under trademark (if it's protected at all). Phrases describing something can't be patented yet (just waiting for a law allowing that to be introduced though :( )

Here's the whole sorted history of the 1-Click patent on /.

Maybe

[Icebox]

Maybe they set up something with Amazon that requires them to legitimize Amazon's laughable patent in exchange for Amazon switching to OSX servers.

Probably not.

*Sigh*

[Eminence]

Why, oh why does the stupidity allways win? Why we see the world becoming more and more insane before our wide opened eyes? Why there is nothing that can stop this?

Maybe we are indeed inside the Matrix?

Re:Not so lame

[TheReverand]

Please validate your insightful moderation by providing evidence to back up your claim, with appropriate references.

One-click licensing?

[Athos]

Actually, I think Jobs was just surfing through Amazon, came across the page and accidentally 1-clicked the purchase...

--

Ironic with apple fighting other patents

[acomj]

since apple just got done with a 2 billion patent infringment suit against IMATEC for colorsync color match technology.

Apple also voided IMATECs silly patents Its on apeal now I think.

This brings up nasty issue for me.

[peterdaly]

I run a site that works on a pay per search basis. (selling access to information.) Currently we bill clients on a monthly basis, but we are working on credit card access.

Of course, credit card customers will not want to type in all their information each time they do a search. One they check a "stop nagging me" check box, the validation step should be skipped.

This is in a way, one click shopping. I have not done much research into the amazon patent yet, but I know I will need to.

There is nothing "inventive" about this. It's more like people were just too paranoid to use it before, so it was never implemented. I can't believe nobody has come up with something that qualifies as prior art. It is just a cgi skipping a screen because a DB already has the info.

Arrg...anyone else been real pissed off at the US government recently?

-Pete

Re:This brings up nasty issue for me.

[localman]

You can get almost definitely get around it just by having a confirm page, which in my humble opinion, is better UI anyway.

Re:This brings up nasty issue for me.

[The_H0und]

I sent Apple the letter below:

I'm terribly dissapointed that Apple has licensed Amazon's 1-Click patent. It is rediculously simple to implement as any web developer will tell you. We would much rather see you defend your rights in court rather than support invalid patents such as this one.

A door knob has primitive technology behind it, but you can't patent "single-pull" doors because it's too obvious. I don't know how build a door knob, but I do know how to build a website.

Thank you,
Joshua

Apple

[thunker]

I feel Apple should be the first to license it. After all, Apple is the company that tried to say they own the trash can icon.

I have a patent on a do...while loop

[quakeaddict]

Perhaps Apple will send me some money as well?

Re:I have a patent on a do...while loop

[lamz]

Actually, in the 1970s, Apple had to pay off the Beatles for their Apple Records company.


Mike van Lammeren

Something even more stupid?

[Wiwi Jumbo]

What's the chances that Apple is doing this now so that later when they patent something even dumber they can show that Amazon's patent is fine....

Ever since Slashdot, I've been getting more into conspericy theorys.....
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,

Ob-SP post

[pingflood]

And there was that damn Bezos, dressed as a girl scout, standing on the porch! I said, "dammit, Bezos, what do you want from us?!"

He looked at me and said, "I need about tree fiddy."

-pf

Eureka! Zero-click shopping!

[Bill Kendrick]

How about have a single field in a form. Press [RETURN] or [ENTER] to purchase? "1-Keypress Shopping"

Or maybe just a JavaScript onMouseOver image. "1-Rollover Shopping"

Or maybe a downloadable application that listens to microphone input? "1-Clap Shopping"

Re:$$$ offer

[RedLaggedTeut]

One-Click-Crash.
hey how much money do you want from me so I get 50% of that patent if you patent it ?
I'm serious ! :-)

Not so lame

[streetlawyer]

If it's so "obvious" that "anyone" could have invented it, you have to come up with a slick explanation for why there was no undeclared prior art; why nobody did in fact invent it. I've not been impressed by any of the claims made about this patent on Slashdot and indeed, am coming round to the view that it's valid. Think of the example of Post-it notes -- the idea of sticking pieces of paper with messages on them to things is as old as paper, but nobody designed that specific product until 3M. A patent isn't on a general idea, it's on a particular product, and Amazon invented the one-click ordering product. Deal with it. Or at least, come up with some actual, cogent reasons why the product is "lame" instead of just saying it is. Or better still, have the honesty to admit that you hate *all* patents, from the silicon chip to the heart transplant, and that you don't care that we wouldn't have half the "cool stuff" we all crave without 'em.

Re:Not so lame

[plague3106]

Well thats what i said... :)

Re:Not so lame

[Dun Malg]

I believe the Post-It Note patent centers around the glue that stays on the back of the note when you peel the paper off your fridge or wherever. Patenting the mere use as a "sticky note" wouldn't fly, as adhesive labels have been around for decades. Patents give you exclusive rights to a certain process or method of achieving an end result, not exclusive rights to the end result. You can patent a better mousetrap, but that doesn't mean only you can build mousetraps, even if no one else has made one before.

Re:Not so lame

[beefarino]

Ahh, grasshopper you have so much to learn. Amazon's patent covers the idea of using cookies to remember a customer's billing information so that they do not have to re-enter it every time they return to the site.

While this may seem novel, anyone with any understanding of web programming will tell you that patenting the use of cookies to save user information is like patenting the use of HTML for marking up text. Cookies were created to allow web site to 'remember' who you are when you return to the site. That's what they do, period!

So, even though there is no prior art, anyone who is familiar with the technology will tell you that this is a case of patenting the obvious. That's why so many people have their panties is a twist about the whole thing..

Re:Not so lame

[mami]

That is nonsense. There was prior art available as open source code, people have implemented it, used it, and discarded it and changed to a two click or three click check-out process for various reasons. No sane person at that time would ever have thought that the one-click checkout feature is something worth patenting.

Certainly not the open source code developers who have provided code to implement it. Certainly not their users who tried the feature out. As today, anyone who uses this feature with open source code has legitimite reasons to be frightened to get sued by Amazon, including the code developers, noone who has a living to make, will speak up and against it.

The PTO is not searching throroughly enough available prior art. They can't. There officers are paid commission for each patent they get through the process, they are overloaded and underpaid. An average search for prior art takes a day or two the most.

Carl Malamud has suggested the development of a database for deposit of open source code to be made known publicly and easily searchable for the purpose of demonstrating prior art of available code to the public. It should help companies not to make any mistakes and file patent applications for software under in mistake.

I can't wait til Mr.Bezos claims that he his the big promoter of changing the way software patents are issued and the first man, who suggested such a database. Of course he made such suggestions right after he was seriously questioned in public by Mr. Tim O'Reilly about the validity of his patents.

It is very fascinating to see how clever the moves are, taken by Mr. Bezos. Kind of makes sense to play the big promoter of the right thing AFTER one has taken care of his own profit the wrong way.

These cowboys need to be grounded and their horses locked up.

I have no idea what Apple thought doing this. All I can say, Apple should throw its computers in a big dumpster, Bezos all his books and toys, and then all CEO's should clean up the mess with their own hands on their knees begging for forgiveness.

We don't need your slick, cool hardware, software and business processes.

Beware I am an end-user, a buyer, the person you want to serve. No Sirs, we don't wanna do business with you. We do look for decency. Your stock value is really NOT that important to US.

If your profits would be for real, you could have remained a privately owned companyu and not use investor's money to sail happily the rainbow til the thunderstorm is over, leaving nothing behind than a muddy mess for the ones living in the real world.

And if you ask one more time to come up with more proof of prior art, Mr. Sir previous poster, I would advise you to wait til it goes to court and let them decide.

Only an idiot like me would post it here and reveal sources. Hopefully the ones who can prove prior art are smart enough not to do so but in court. But I guess the trial which would have some potential to bring a decision to the whole issue of the validity of this patent, will be discarded, settled out of court.

Oh, and BTW, if this was a method of finding out how the public would react to such move, you got the answer. Have a nice day.

Any news on slashdot today ? Nope.

Re:Not so lame

[lalas]

There is prior art. This patent was granted for a process that ties together a cookie, a button, and a database in such a way that has been done countless times before!!!!

Re:Not so lame

[Compuser]

You guys are supposed to be experts,
i.e. you should only need references
to back up rejection of claims formally.
You should know from first glance
what prior art for a given application
is. This is at the core of why people
think PTO people are imbecils - because
you are not aware of full scope of prior
art despite claiming to be experts.
As for doing a thorough search... don't
make me laugh. From what I know (I have a
patent on a hardware piece), you guys
only search other patents. Finding obscure
prior art is not expected from you. You
rarely cross-search foreign jurisdiction
patents, let alone tinkering magazines.
There are many subjects which feature one
or two qualified experts, and they are not
working for USPTO or any PTO. Quit
complaining that you aren't being paid
enough, rather be thankful they pay you
anything, since most likely you are not
worth it.

P.S. Yes, this is a flame, from the bottom
of my heart. You deserve it. More to the
point, every examiner deserves it as does
the system which assumes that examiner's
job is humanly feasible in the first place.

Re:Not so lame

[plague3106]

Well that would be the requirement. It can't be obvious to other professionsals in the industry. It doesn't have to be honest to joe blow.

Re:Not so lame

[beefarino]

Just because there is no prior art dosen't mean you can patent something. The argument against the Amazon patent is not about prior art, but rather that the invention is an obvious use of technology.

And while you think it is obvious only to 'saavy' slashdotters, perhaps that's because most of them have programming experience and understand the technology.I would hope that the people at the patent obvious were a little more 'savvy' when it comes to the fundamentals of web programming. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

Re:Not so lame

[interiot]

I believe a patent can be a combination of other known ideas. (see here). The combination of the two has to be novel though. So you'd have to show that 1 click shopping specifically has been done before to be able to invalidate it.
--

Re:Not so lame

[Tet]

This patent was granted for a process that ties together a cookie, a button, and a database in such a way that has been done countless times before!!!!

My understanding was that the patent was granted for the business method, not for the actual implementation. It's not even, AFAIK, a software patent. It just happens to be trivially implemented using a cookie and a database, an implementation that's blindingly obvious to anyone in the industry. But, until Amazon, no one had thought of doing one click ordering. Amazon did, and so patented that. As it happens, I'd say that business method patents are just as bogus (if not more so) than software patents, and this one should have been thrown out by the patent examiner on its first reading. But then, I'm not a patent lawyer that gets paid for eah approved patent...

Re:Not so lame

[hamburger lady]

problem is, at the PTO, we're getting less and less time to do a thorough search. the amount of time I get to send out a first action (i.e. rejection, allowance) hasn't changed in like 25 years, even though the number of references to search has gone up 6 or 7 times at least. plus, the "search tools", if you can call them that, well, suck. I know examiners who still do paper file searches because, well, at least the paper files don't crash on you.

now, this isn't an excuse for a bad examination. (note, I am *not* talking about the one-click patent here, technically I am not allowed to comment on the validity of a patent) however, I still believe in the patent system (trademarks and copyrights, that's another matter).

the big problem is, we really don't have the time to do a really good examination of an application. that, plus the fact that we are highly underpaid, and examiners are leaving the PTO in droves for industry, means its really hard to be surprised when a bad patent makes it through.

---

Re:Not so lame

[paulej]

problem is, at the PTO, we're getting less and less time to do a thorough search.

I realize that this is not the fault of any one member of the PTO. However, do you not think that by not doing the proper research, there is more harm done than good?

Consider the case of Amazon vs BarnesAndNoble.com. Amazon sued over this "technology" that is clearly not an "invention" by any stretch of the imagination. This "technology" is no different than when I log on to /. and my name appears in the upper right corner. "oooh, aaahhh." /. knows who I am! They could keep up with what articles I read and, with "1 click", could send me an e-mail message or do any number of things with my customer record.

Again, I recognize that you are overly burdened-- as are many other people. Heck, it's not uncommon for me to work 80 hours or more per week. However, I would never complete a project only half way. I'd either do it right or say, "I don't have time." The latter answer is perfectly acceptable when you literally don't have time.

I recognize that letting work pile up will result in some people not being awarded a patent in a timely manner. However, if the patent process slowed down, I would venture to guess that there would be more happy campers than not and that comes from the very root of the problem: too many inappropriate patent applications are being accepted.

Re:Not so lame

[hamburger lady]

hmmm... not sure exactly how to respond to such a courteous post.

first off, we really aren't experts. we can't be, given the amount of time we're given to get a case out of our offices. seriously. i barely even have time to read the entire specification before i have to search for references and reject/allow the case.
second, if i'm an "imbecil" [sic] because i'm not aware of the full scope of prior art, then every attorney in the US is an idiot for not knowing every single law in every single state by heart. there are many more than 6 million (!) patents out there, much less japanese, european, PCT (which by the way we do search, thanks), so in my area alone (EE/telecom) i would say there are hundreds of thousands of references i have to sift through to find an applicable reference.
so i'm an "imbecil" because i don't have intimate knowledge of 100,000 technical references off the top of my head? give me a fucking break, jackass.

and as for the pay issue, we have the highest turnover rate of any government agency right now, if i remember correctly. in fact, USA Today (i know, i know) even ran an article stating that the examining core is seriously overworked/underpaid etc etc. so believe me, i'm not the only one of this opinion.

to paraphrase, UP YOURS, UGLY

---

Re:Not so lame

[humantraffic]

The question is whether there was any other organizations using this b4 Amazon if it was so completely obvious?

If there was why did they either not patent it themselves or contest the patent application.

If there wasn't then I feel that it is no more absurd than many of the other software patents creaking throughthe system.

What's the situation in EU as I believe you can't patent such software types of inventions currently. Can I base my site in the EU and not pay Amazon if I use "1 click".

I think patent law needs reform urgently but its not exactly a rallying cry for politicos. If it was reformed, I think it would be hijacked by the special interest which f*cked up the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Sigh....

[sith]

Maybe Jeff's going to sit down with Steve Jobs and explain how cookies work... he can also explain this great new idea for how apple can make more money from every sale.. see you just track what people buy from apple and raise the prices accordingly and ...

Sigh. Validating evil patents is *NOT* a good step...

Precedent

[aminorex]

What is most interesting to me is the way the word "precedent" is used in this article. Increasingly, the Fortune 500 is the court in which the issues of our lives are decided, and the establishment of a precedent in that court can be reasonably deemed to be of greater practical import in the lives of hoi polloi than any determination of a court of law.

Another Steve Jobs-ism...

[Brazilian Geek]

I guess the subject says it all... I really want to buy an imac to play around with - hey, it's cute and boots linux - but just the thought of giving Steve Jobs a boatload of money (here in Brazil an imac isn't very cheap, as it isn't in the whole universe) is enough to give me the heebeejeebees...

Nice one Steve, why don't your lawyers slam all your positive press so that they don't say good things about you... Oh, wait...

Amazon's Other Patent Pending

[smagruder]

I hear Amazon is going to patent the "Burn Rate to Untimely Death" business method. It should be ready to roll by early 2001.

Steve Magruder

here is the Apple press release

[cetan]

http://www.apple.com/pr/libr ary/2000/sep/18amazon.html

Re:Lame? Maybe

[Znork]

Not if you get the patent overturned. And morally you would be obliged to refrain from perpetuating a fraudulent patent.

1-mousebutton, 1-click

[Otis_INF]

Makes sense. To keep confusion as low as possible: do ONE click with your ONE mousebutton.

I already see this slogan slammed on every billboard in town :)
--

Sane, who's sane?

[twitter]

Have we forgoten that this is the company that thought it owned the WIMP (windows icon manipulation pointer) system? They stole my look and feel, boo hoo-hoo.

Quick register it while you can...

[cheekymonkey_68]

As far as I'm aware no one has yet registered the Hot Grits one pour patent

not *that* bad

[Mr. Quick]

i *think* that apple is trying not to put all it's eggs is one basket. if the 1-click thing makes their store better, they'll keep it, if not, out it goes.

they do have alot of money in the bank.

Schoolboy prank by the two CEO:s

[Pingo]

This is a story about patent cross-licensing and
it doesn't say what Apple gave in return for this amazing 1-Click patent.

Apple probably had a worthless patent they licensed to Amazon. (My guess)

It looks more like two CEO:s with a good sense of humor that met and had a great time making up this 'deal' just to get some media attention.

I do find it very amusing and refreshing that CEO:s can do schoolboy pranks like everyone else.

//Pingo

What the patent office needs is...

[john@iastate.edu]

... 1-click patent application.

This is just the beginning.

[SubtleNuance]

and that you don't care that we wouldn't have half the "cool stuff" we all crave without 'em.

Did everyone live in mudhuts until the idea of IP? Weren't great works of art being created before IP Law? What about the calendar - or how about mathematics? Think about our future - a world were all knowledge and creation is OWNED by someone.

Necessity is the mother of invention - Ie: If I have a scratch I itch it, the itch may be a new material, a program, whatever but it is not OWNED by me.

Standing on the shoulders of Giants - Ie: If I invent a '1/2 Click Patent' isn't it really a product of the work done @ Xerox to create the Mouse? What about electricity, without it nothing would happen when I make my '1/2 click' motion. When coldfusion becomes common on the desktop - will you have to pay a specific license to use this new "XYZCorp Brand :Cold:Fuse EMF(TM)"?

If the calendar had been patented by the gregorians - it would be 'illegal' for me to tell you: Today is September 19, 2000.
IP is fundamentally wrong. It is the epitome of selfishness and is the height of the anti-community movement corporatists are pushing.

We will end up in a world where all knowledge and all of existence is patented and owned by corporatists. This is just the beginning.

Apple just hit wrong button

[marat]

and purchased this licence in 1-click.
---
Every secretary using MSWord wastes enough resources

Not a good demonstration of innovativity

[Zappa]

This is nothing for Apples hall of fame, instead of reinventing something similar or trying to show up against software patents they prefer a simle (and maybe even danger) solution.

I always thought Apple was one of the few companies with innovation, thats not the usual philosophy. (I hope someone gets the idea of patenting some Apple-stuff, probably theill notice when they are confronted with the problems)

Re:third post

[Sunnanvind]

Actually, wouldn't that make it the first post? Sunnanvind.

Overturning Patents??

[nroberton]

This post is to people who are apposed to Software Patents (if you are not one of those people, please reply to another post which deals with this question -- Thanks).

Does anyone know if there a way to overturn ridiculous patents such as Amazon's 1-Click? Is there a way to challenge the patent, or lobby to have it re-examined and rejected (In the US, that is)?

Also, is there anything we can do to push the issue of patent reform for software in the US? Could someone point me to a group of people that is already working on this, so I can find out what I can do to support them?

Nah, it's worse than that!

[Nathan Russell]

Doesn't IBM have a patent on the closed-hardware strategy dating to that late 1970's?

Non-issue

[omission9]

This is a non issue. Why would it be expected that a sizeable company like apple should be in the habit of setting new law and breaking patents? Apple is merely doing things the safe way as well they should!! Apple , after all, is a publicly held company with a responsibility to share holders not to incite law suits and create other liabilities to the bottom line. This is very simple business sense.

Which "click" ?

[psergiu]

WAIT !!! They couldn't have licensed a "one click" patent ! Click with WHAT mouse button? A "one squeeze" or "one rub" patent will sound more reasonable with their new mouse. :)

PS: will RMS call for an Apple boycot ? "Do not eat apples GNUfriends !!! better eat maGNUo or baGNUannas !" :)


--

Re:Eureka! Zero-click shopping!

[omission9]

If you've ever bothered to read the patent "one clap shopping" (ie. creating a sound to cause the action to occur) is covered as well. Your other ideas are probably covered too. Do you work for amazon?

Protecting their partnership

[Masem]

APple and Amazon are well known parterns, at least last time I checked : default bookmarks and sherlock search engine plugins.

Apple here is probably protecting that parternship, possibly getting the licensing rights for a song, instead of either implement it awaiting a lawsuit, or taking the patent to court, both which could easily destroy the partnership.

I'll wait till some other company that has no Amazon ties steps in and does the same (B&N, thinkgeek), then that might help provide the unwanted validity on the 1-click patent.

Re:why so many people have their pants is a twist

[CodeShark]

1/2 credit for an almost correct summation of why many of us are boycotting Amazon. By itself, most of us wouldn't care that Amazon patented the "One click" idea, no matter how obbious it was, because some other company could have applied for and probably got the same patent.

The main thing we are worried about is that instead of using the patent defensively the way most big operations do, Amazon decided to use it offensively in that they launched legal action(s) against other companies / websites using the same idea.

Which means that potentially Amazon's lawyers could go after every mom and pop web site out there that came up with a way of allowing their own customers to "one click order", even if those mom and pop businesses don't even compete with Amazon in any way.

Get a Clut, patent fiends...

[HarryZink]

If you look at it from a sane (as opposed to a mouth-frothing) point of view, Apple did not so much license a technology, but rather the **NAME** of "1-click(TM)" shopping.

This is similar to Apple's FireWire license - anyone can build IEEE.1394 stuff, but you need to license the name 'FIREWIRE' from Apple in order to use it (the license is free, BTW).

Since none of the busybodies on here actually know how much, if anything, Apple has paid for this license, the whole issue, except on a philosophical level, is moot.

On a business-level it makes sense, as "1-Click" is a catchy expression, and by licensing an existing 'concept', it renders legitimacy to the experience, and saves Apple from having to come up with a spiffy work-around name.

Licensing isn't all about 'inventions' - you can license the right to the use of a cartoon character, a book, a special term - that's what this is about, not about technology. I'm surprised none of the 'smart' people on here who spout their opposition have understood something as simple.

Harry

Lame? Maybe

[Mad-cat]

Amazon's patent of one-click shopping may be "lame," but it is still an authorized patent. It is therefore required by law to license it if you want to use a "one-click" shopping interface.

Apple is doing the right thing in this case.

Welcome to the real world CmdrTaco

[Katz_is_a_moron]

Companies have been licensing patented technology that they don't necessarily think should have been patented in the first place since before your pimply ass was born.

Hardly a "precedent". Do some research before writing about things you know nothing about.

remember

[josepha48]

..limited time only and prices may vary (going for funny here ;-))

I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!

Zero-click Shopping

[TwP]

Tired of looking for the best bargin on the web, or are you simply annoyed at having to provide your personnal information to all these different websites. With our patened Zero-click shopping technology, we'll make your online experience easier then ever! Just give us your credit card number and other personal information and we'll assure you that you will be purchasing the latest and greatest of everything at the best prices around. Our trained staff of Bolivian Whooping Llamas will start purchasing items for you faster than you can say "credit limit". So register today and avoid all that clicking hassle!

-----------------

The Microsoft of Hardware

[davidmb]

Notice how, through arrogance and the mistreatment of their most faithful customers, Apple are quickly becoming almost as disliked as the big ol' MS?

Who'll be around to save them when their next crisis rears it's ugly head?

Not really

[EricWright]

That's kind of dangerous, isn't it. Accidentally click, and whoops, just bought a G4-multi processor with 21" Cinema flat display. $7,500 downthe tubes.

Near the end of that page lies the text:

Change your mind about an item you've ordered? When you purchase products with 1-Click, you have 90 minutes to edit your order before it's processed for shipping.

Eric

Re:We Thought of One Click First!!

[LordNimon]

Just call a patent lawyer, and he can tell you. You probably just need to fill out a form, get a few signatures, and send it to the patent office.
--

Forgive me for asking ...

[The Queen]

... this may be obvious to everyone else, maybe I missed reading /. the day it was first discussed: What's the deal with the one-click patent? Does it just mean you can say 'one click' on your site or does it include the simple act of only clicking once to buy something? If the latter is the case, I'll get up in arms with the rest of you...if the former, then, uh, why all the fuss?
Thanks...

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

For Sale

[Spackler]

Spackler's Amazing 2-click checkout!
Not the quickest, but second place aint too bad!

Patent#:12clueless

Shortname:Doubleclick (2 on the same spot)

Stay tuned for our "Right Click" checkout!

The right decision for Apple

[localman]

It doesn't matter whether Apple thinks the Amazon patent is reasonable or not. Apple wants to sell computers with one click, and (for some unfathomable reason) the US government has made it so that Apple has to pay Amazon for it.

Besides, what's a few million between companies like that?

License 1 Click vs. Legal Fees

[mikeboone]

I guess you just need to balance the price you have to pay for the 1-click service against the legal fees you would have to pay to develop and use it yourself. And Amazon would have to be charging a heckuva lot of cash for the license to make it outweigh what the lawyers would cost you. :(