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

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!!

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)

[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.

Apple's 1-click page

[goober]

here...

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

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

[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.

---