Slashdot Mirror
Apple Advertises "1-Click" Licensing
scout.finch writes: "Looks like Apple wasn't kidding. Their new front page proudly advertising "1-Click Buying" complete with registration mark." Very depressing. Usually I don't pay much attention to the stock market, but seeing what happened to Apple's stock this week... well, I don't feel bad for them at all. The more credit given to Amazon's lame patent, the harder it'll be to overturn.
Apple's site has had this since they've announced the 1click thing well over a week ago. This is hardly news.
AC comments get piped to
"I'm glad Apple's stock went down"? Rob, you're getting more disconnected from reality as the days go on. ...and I've been here a long time.. (look at my user number)
So, if I posted a message that said "I really disagree with Slashdot's political agenda -- serves them right that Andover.net's stock went down", what would happen? Score -1, flamebait.
I love Slashdot lots, which is why I stay. But your editorial bias is hurting the very foundation of what made this place successful in the past: diversity of opinion. You're gradually pushing away anyone that doesn't agree with the counter-cultural anti-IP, anti-government, anti-corporate movement. Soon this place is going to be one homogenous pot of "yes men" who once had a chance to influence the world but became so out of touch with reality that the rest of the world won't listen.
-Stu
Yes, Apple is licensing the "1-Click Technology" from Amazon. But who says they actually paid any real amount of money for it? Rumour has it that Steve Jobs had a fifteen-second long phone conversation with the Jeff Bezos during a web-design meeting at Apple after one of the designers mentioned that they couldn't use one-click on their site since Amazon held the patent. They were just playing it safe.
or you might want to think about the fact that cookies go across the wire unencrypted
Cookies go across the wire encrypted on shopping sites that use https (HTTP over SSL), don't they?
<O
( \
XPlay Tetris On Drugs!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Actually Andover is owned by VALinux so you wouldn't have to, would you?
or at least with two bits.
Nope, he isn't confusing it. The fries holder is patented. McDonald's is very "developed" in the area of patents. They even patented those seeds on the hamburger buns. No, I'm not kidding
:)
Since I don't know for sure, and you seem to, I stand corrected!
I guess that is just another example of blurring and abuse of the IP laws.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Right, they still make a huge profit. It was a big drop too, but of course it will go back up. Perfect time to buy if you ask me. the 52% Drop = 11 billion in market value. Intell lost 100+ Billion in market value during the same month
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
I too was of the mind that one-click shopping is so easy to implement that the patent is absurd. but then I worked a bit with some programmers to implement a user interface, and I had a second think coming.
having a programmer (admittedly, they were very bright but not trained in user interface design) implement a user-friendly interface, not adhering to Microsoft's GUI standards and without confirmation buttons for every single move was a task! it seems programmers have a built-in affinity for implementing "Are you sure?"-directions, and that making them not do so is enormously difficult.
from the point of view of a non-programmer, one-click shopping, albeit a technically trivial concept, seems to be a massive intellectual feat, and as such worthy of patenting.
-- Rolf Lindgren, cand.psychol
Also, think about why it dropped 52%.... Lets see they are gonna see a (huge) profit that just happens to be 25% less than the ANALYSTS Thought. Thats their friggan mistake. Think about how many companies report a LOSS when the ANALYSTS were predicting a profit. Those stocks dont drop 52%. Apple is a money maker and so is its stock. If you are a stock owner and you KNOW the stock is gonna go down you SELL IT. You could've sold everything you had and bought twice as much back the next day. Anyone out there wanna load me 100K? I'll pay you back by Friday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
The only company you named was Xerox, who, while admittedly did all the R&D for GUI wouldn't, couldn't, and didn't bring it to market. Instead, they sat on it for years and Apple purchased the idea (admittedly for far less than it was worth) and brought it to the table, which was my point.
I don't care whether firewire is successful or not. They're an actual company (not a research group, not an open source hacker) who is willing to take the risk on things like that. Incidentally, it is successful. Call it "Firewire", "I-Link", or "IEEE 1394", it's the standard for DV communications.
Using the BSD kernel in a user-level OS is a major step forward. It brings a lot of power and technology to the hands of developers who want to program user level apps.
And regardless of whether or not they needed to do one click shopping, what's wrong with doing it?
I think you (and most of the slashdot crowd) just get thrills off of playing armchair critic to the corporate world.
Cheers.
One doesn't need to reverse engineer one-click technology. Anyone with a year's experience in programming could write it. And by saying a year I'm being conservative. That's one of the reason it's such a stupid patent.
--
What the finagle are you talking about?
1-Click (SM) shopping allows you to go back and view, change, or delete your order for 90 minutes after you make it! Check out their About 1-Click Ordering page.
I'm not fond of the entire 1-Click Patent mess, but that's no excuse to throw around sloppy falsehoods. I've been using 1-Click since Amazon introduced it, and it's always worked this way.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
You may not like it, but they couldn't offer that feature any other way.
They could test the patent in court, prove how ridiculous it is, then use it as they wish. However, they chose to license it, making things even harder for anyone who comes after them to win in a court battle.
Quick! Someone patent 2-Click shopping and license it to Microsoft!
--
On the one hand, we get articles on Slashdot completely supporting Apple for turning to a BSD-based OS and then we get articles lambasting them for completely logical business decisions, all because someone thinks a paten is dumb.
...
/.
It's not like Apple is one person. A corporation can do both stupid and intelligent things at the same time.
Do you guys know how many dumb patents there are?
I think that's kinda what we're complaining about...?
Yes, of course you can say, "Well, duh, it's obvious that you can do that," but these guys did it and said, "Hey, we did it first," and I haven't really seen a conclusive proof against that.
They sure did. And unless someone has proof that someone did do it before them, that is undisputable fact. I don't have proof otherwise, maybe someone else does; but they haven't come forward, AFAIK.
Boohoo that the world
Boohoo that Apple...
Boohoo that you...
The point is not that comapnies abide by laws, or that companies are interested in their bottom line, or that we didn't do it first. The point is that the 1-click patent undermines exactly what the internet is founded on! What would happen if all those RFC's were actaully patents?!? There would be NO internet, because the patented RFC owners would demand royalites...!
Sometimes Slashdot sounds really insightful, and then sometimes, it sounds like a bunch of naive kids whining because things aren't going their way.
Actually, YOU sound like a kid whining because he didn't like what he read on
Call it "Firewire", "I-Link", or "IEEE 1394", it's the standard for DV communications.
Screw DV communications, I want it on my motherboard. In fact, I want it on every motherboard. I want there to be as many Firewire devices as there are USB devices. More.
Does this have anything to do with Apple? Not really. Most of Firewire's success (or lack thereof) lies in PC land where Apple has little control. So, all in all, this post wasn't really pertitant to the discussion.
The moral: it's not Apple's fault, though I still don't consider it successful enough.
--
Their is no mention on the site of the patent. It may or may not be licensed from Amazon. HOWEVER, their is NO evidence on the site that they are licensing Amazon's patent.
Actually if you click on the graphic on the homepage, it takes you to a page which has at the bottom, this:
Read the press release: Apple Licenses Amazon.com 1-Click Patent and Trademark
Which is a link to the press release where Apple announces they licensed 1-click from Amazon. If you're going to slam someone for not fact-checking, you goddamn well better make sure you've done it.
Not quite. Apple announced that they expected to be significantly short of analyst's expectations (I think your figures are correct) when they announce earnings on October 18th. The actual news might be somewhat better or worse than this. Now, the strange thing is the 50% fall in the stock price leaves the company with a P/E ratio of 13 or so, which is just bizarre in the current market situation. So either Apple is oversold, or life is about to get waaaaay too interesting for my taste.
Babar
But I did read it... But since IANA(f)L "cross licensing" don't mean jack shit to me...
Now if you would be so kind to elaborate on that issue...
--
"No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
You may not like it, but they couldn't offer that feature any other way.
I agree with you on that, but you have to ask yourself: Why would you want to one-click shop for computers?
As far as I know, the idea behind one-click shopping is you go to a site and order something. They keep your details - CC#, address, e-mail, telephone - in a big-assed database and give you a cookie. Next time you come to the site, they get the cookie back and say 'Hey, you must be John Andrews, CC# 1234 5678 9101 1121 exp. 01/01!'.
Now, this could be good if you were ordering, say, books, because you can get through a lot of books and the price is quite low.
Computers, however, are another matter. Most people only want a new computer every one or two years, if that often. I don't know about you, but I'd rather type out my credit card number once every two years than have if floating around in some online database that may or may not be secure.
Just my $0.02
Michael
...another comment from Michael Tandy.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
The R in a circle represents a registered tradmark, protecting the product (in this case "1-Click") and the marks (logo and devices etc). In has nothing what-so-ever to do with a patent. It does however mean if some does a similar thing they will have to come with the a name that is not 'confusingly similar'.
I searched on the IBM patent search and found no relevant patent from apple.
Somebody wanna mod up the AC who responded to the Mac fan with a few facts?
Speaking of not doing your homework...
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Apple didn't file the patent. Amazon is, and there is a relevant patent because at the middle of this discussion is whether Amazon has the right to patent the technology. In this case, Apple has licensed the technology from Amazon, which Slashdot has misconstrued as somehow lending credence to the patent.
a) Apple's licensing of the technology does not lend any validity to the patent. The patent is already completely valid. Apple's just making sure they can use the technology without getting sued for patent infringement
b) The only thing that's going to invalidate the patent is if someone shows prior art. Then, I'm sure, Apple would quit paying royalties.
Akamai is dangerous shit. Dangerous, because it's useful, and lulls people into iving up their privacy.
Think: Why does DoubleClick suck? Because they track your browsing habits across multiple websites and associate them with your meatspace info thru their partners.
Now, name another company that's used by many a popular site (including e-commerce companies who have yr name and address on file). They're not serving ads, but they're still tracking you, transparently, across all sites in the Akamai network that you visit.
Akamai's on my junkbuster shitlist permanently. I just don't trust them, sorry.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
About two seconds after I posted, I saw the link. I felt really stupid, but realized that I couldn't rescind it. Oh well, I feel like a jackass.
The (r) still refers to the trademark... not that that helps my stupidity. I'm shocked that they don't mention that it is a registered trademark to Amazon on the page.
Alex
The real sad thing is that they are advertising MacOS X beta on sale for $29.95. Shouldn't beta software be....I don't know....free?
well, the 2 posts that were above +2 (at the time of writing) seemed to blast apple. why? with this "1-Click" stuff wouldn't it make more sense? think about it...apple has a small market share compared to pc-clone-hell. I'm happy for apple, maybe now mindless drones we call humans will buy more apples because it seems easy and Buzz-Words are involved. I watch my sales-guys all day long, and when they mention a few key Buzz-Words people scramble to buy. Why? who knows, perhaps years of tv and radio commercials...
:)
:). Kinda sucks when the highest OS it can have is 7.5
Notice how fast things sell on the tv when marked for $19.95? 19.95 is like satan himself...it tells you its a great price and hell, if your getting a great price that's valued over $150 then you have to have it.
I know i fight off the demons to call the toll free number whenever i see the infamous $19.95. Funny though, $16.95 or $29.95 just doen't do it for me
hehe...It's all about the Buzz-Words people...
oh yea, me? no, i'm a pc junkie...although i do have 1 mac (which i need to reinstall, perhaps OpenBSD
---
remove SPORK.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Logic has nothing to do with it. The actual number of mouse clicks a buyer makes has nothing to do with it. It is a marketing warm fuzzy ploy:
Amazon has One Click (TM, patents, etc.), the coolest way to buy stuff on the planet. It's even *PATENTED*!!! Oooh! Wow! (other expressions of extreme hipness included here)
Apple makes the iMac (TM, patents, etc.), iBook (TM, patents, etc.), iCube (TM, patents, etc.) and all the really iCoolest computers on the planet. But Apple doesn't have One Click (TM, patents, etc.). So the Apple Store (TM, patents, etc.) has a serious lack of coolness going on. iBoo iHoo. iSob. (other expressions of extreme iUnHappiness included here)
So Steve Jobs, our iHero, steps in. One quick icall on the iphone, and the Apple Store has officially licensed the (now i)One Click (TM, patents, etc.). iJoy! iJoy! All is now iCool again! (TM, patents, etc.)
See, it is all one big marketing game. Anyone can play. All it takes is either offically licensing the coolness, or coming up with something cooler.
Of course, the US Patent Office does need its head examined for patenting marketing ploys (One Click should be a service mark, not a patent). Then again, since when has the government been catering to the wishes of the terminally logical?
...Saving you the trouble of clicking through multiple screens and re-entering personal data that you've already typed and retyped a million times.
:)
Sheesh- Talk about hyperbole. Someone's gotta calm down those marketing dept. animals.
And who's purchased stuff from their store once, anyways?
-Victor Chow (Elder_MMHS)
This actually depends on a multitude of factors. First would be the fact that if the protocol was released free of patent restrictions, the barrier to it's introduction would be extremely low, the the momentum to get it accepted above all others would be much more substancial.
Entirely true, particularly in today's environment. However, this ignores another point I'd made.
If I were writing up a patent for the IP protocol, I wouldn't write it in such a way as to strictly define this protocol itself, but as to also apply to as many other protocols fulfilling the same purpose as possible. If there's already prior art and you're creating Yet Another Protocol, that's a whole different issue -- but if, back when the concepts behind such protocols were new, such a scenario is entirely feasible. In short, not only your protocol would necessarily be encumbered by the patent; if you were succesful, you could apply your patent to competing protocols and thus (by refusing to license your patent to those w/ competing protocols) force YOUR protocol to become the standard.
As a result of this, you wouldn't need momentum from people deciding to use your patent; you could legally force them to use it by refusing to license use to them should they use a competing, yet infringing, patent.
If sufficiently broad patents -- rather than open standards -- had been created early in computing's history, 'twould be a different, and bleaker, landscape, and this is the point that I'm trying to make. Sorry if I was somewhat unclear earlier. As for software patents being in general a Bad Thing, I entirely agree.
Not anymore. All their stockholders just sold! har har har
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
Indeed. I suspect that both Apple and Amazon (even more than Apple) have a lot to gain from this. Amazon of course wants the patent validated, and Apple seems to also like to be nasty about IP. So I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Apple's not paying anything for this.
Umm- that's the (6-7 years pre-mac) Apple I made of wood, and the Apple II that was made popular by Visicalc (or maybe you mean the Mac with Excel).
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
Seriously, Apple was fully aware of what Amazon did to Barnes and Noble when they attempted to go forth with their own one-click plan.
Apple didn't file a suit to try to torpedo Amazon's IPO, though. I doubt - given the bad publicity, and given that they haven't gone after anyone they don't have reason to go after ("Revenge is sweet") - that they would have sued Apple. But if someone asks to license your patent, you can't very well say no.
As other people have pointed out, the things that make one-click a reasonable idea for Amazon or similar sites, where people come back a lot and there's a fair amount of impulse buying, mostly don't apply to the Apple store. (Very few people buy a thousand dollar iMac on impulse.) It's a mystery to me why they want to use this feature in the first place. I can only suspect a Steve Jobs brainstorm followed by quick action with little or no second thoughts. One hopes at least they didn't pay Amazon much.
What's more important? Some useless freedom or food on the table?
Freedom. If it wasn't then anyone who was starving would just get themselves arrested.
There is absolutely no truth to that statement. It's simply a lot faster and cheaper for them to license it. This makes no difference at all to the courts.
It sounds like you are confusing trademark and patent law.
Of course, IANAL.
You are right with regard to computers, but Apple also sells a lot of software and periphials (sp?). I think it makes perfect sense to be able to grab Final Cut Pro a few days after trying out my new iMac and deciding that iMovie doesn't offer enough control for me.
After all, Cock fights would get very boring if this weren't true.
Apple *used* to innovate. Now they just copy, badly. Their current generation of G3/4 Motorola processors is undoubtably innovation by Motorola, but I was shocked when I recently bought a new iMac at just how little of the system architecture was designed by Apple and that they had *completely* turned their back on their old installed user base of peripherals by removing external ADB, Apple serial and scsi ports... ATi make their graphics cards. Oh, and another thing: I used to have respect for Macs because they usually could run the *pre*installed software without crashing very often. I powered up my brand new iMac, put in a dvd and... it crashed. I try to run a web browser, it crashed... etc etc. Bye bye Apple...
Before accussing /. of libel, how about reading Apple's own press release about it? /. is guilty, at times, of posting stuff without fully thinking about it, but if you're going to complain about it, you might want to make sure you're not doing the same.
Of course, this is akin to expecting Usenet spelling/grammar flames to be straight out of the Northwestern English department . . .
--
-- Geof F. Morris
Microsoft. No, really. They may have the ethical qualities of lichen, and the quality control to match, but they *do* advance their products in (mostly) meaningful ways most years. They spend a great deal on usability testing, and use that to tweak the corners of their apps - which is why (IMHO) MS Office works a whole lot more smoothly than Staroffice or others (once you've killed the paperclip and most of intellisense - they weren't a great idea).
Apple is just now (after 15 years) producing an OS with multitasking, and they are doing it by taking the (25 year old) BSD kernel. NT has been doing this, multithreading and a reasonable filesystem to support multiuser computing since launch in 1993(?). It's wasn't great. It's getting better. IIRC, System 7 was the first MacOS to have task *switching* built in...
To the table - Xerox. They don't seem to be able to market their way out of a paper bag, but Xerox have brought us: Mice, Bitmap Displays, Windows, Smalltalk (OO computing), Ethernet, Laser Printing, Desktop Publishing, Hypertext (I believe - wasn't Englebart at PARC when demoing his mouse?). Notice these aren't even specific products, they are entire new concepts.
SGI - desktop digital video (O2/IndyVideo in 1993/4). desktop digital audio (Indigo in 1991/2). desktop high-performance 3d graphics (most of the late 80s to present) - I'm (literally) bending desktop to include more recent machines though. I was seriously impressed when I got my old Indy - it had all this cool stuff in it, as standard, and the base OS would happily talk to it all and just *work*.
I'm not really advocating MS or Xerox here - given a choice between eternal hell with Apple and with MS, I'd probably choose MS, because at least then I could network my pain with most of the rest of hell. I'd rather be using an SGI - they're pretty on the inside as well as outside.
The only things I can think of that Apple did innovate are wires, I think: ADB was neat, although I think Sun had a similar thing first, and Firewire would have been universal if USB (and Apple's licensing) hadn't gotten in the way.
Oh wait - those glassy looking buttons.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
That's not prior art. That's stretching an existing circumstance to try to relate it to a new 'invention'.
/pa tents.html
No, the original poster is completely right, that a patent has to be (in theory) non-obvious to someone "learned in the art".
e.g. see http://otl.stanford.edu/inventors
Using a Processing Method To Receive Data Packets Resulting in the Exchanging of Monies between Two or More Individuals.
I'll get this past the patent office and every e-commerce site will have to get a liscence from me! Muahahaha!
Yes, but it would still be fun to order a ton :)
of glow-in-the-dark dildos to be shipped to
said 1-click address.
I would assume that they would sell all kinds of accessories as well.. so if you are into the funky mice, you can 1-click(tm) them all day.
Way to go, Jobs. I'm sure this is exactly what Ghandi would have done, too.
Now I can buy $3000 computer systems without the time-wasting drudgery of having to review and confirm my order to make sure it's the exact model and configuration that I wanted!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
But the point is well-taken: why does Apple need one-click shopping? The idea of one-click is that it simplifes impulse purchases, which are generally small-dollar.
I, right now, would really like some Ben & Jerry's. If I could snap my fingers and some would appear, I'd do so. But what I actually need to do is put on my shoes, leave my apartment, walk about 3 blocks to a cash machine, another 4 blocks to the convenience store, and then buy some. Either way it costs me around $2.67. But I'm only interested in one method.
I would not use the former process to purchase, say, an Apple. I want to proceed carefully; there are few people for whom $2500 is a small expense.
It does seem like a really weird use of one-click.
-Waldo
Just think of it. In a way, Apple and amazon.com have just contributed to the "instant gratification, now, damnit!" mentality. Pretty soon, hackers will design the "one-click DDoS" (oh wait, that's already been done) and the "one-click Carnivore killer." Corporations will demand the "one-click litigation" and "one-click buyout." Terrorists will spend millions to acquire the "one-click remote EMP." Gee, what will be the next threat to civilization spawned by this?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
But that doesn't change the fact that software patents are a bloody stupid idea.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Apple has a responsibilty to stock holders not to insite lawsuits and other detrimenst to the bottom line. They were merely being cautious buy licensing from amazon.
Where's the one-click RMA page? :-)
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
"Buy now with One Click"
*Click*
"Sign up for One Click"
*Click*
"Set up a new Account"
*Click*
"Turn One Click On"
*Click*
YES!!! Now I can buy stuff with only One Click!!!
Soon, I'll be able to buy Apple with one click.
--
Apple's page is one big blank if you have akamai blockfiled.
Is there a better way to block just the ads from akamai? Most of the major tv network sites are big blanks too.
and well, how many G4's do people really buy? is this useful, at all? can anyone think of a way this is useful for apple?
-------
-------
"don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
at least i can fucking think"
Minor Threat
... one click is all they can manage.
I SAID NT!
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
that they only made 100 million profit instead of 150 or something
you should, the mouse is l33t!
I don't think I've ever heard such a strange disconnected take on morality before. Apple abides by US law which (like it or not) has been around for over a century, and you're glad their stock dropped? And the stock dropped for reasons entirely unrelated to this?
Possibly, but I guess CmdrTaco was just expressing resentment at Apple attitude (you cut the "Very depressing")
Like Apple or not, that type of statement is just childish. I'm glad to see that some people on the board realize that real companies don't have the freedom to give everyone the finger like the majority of the sit-at-home Slashdot crowd. You only have that freedom because of your anonymity. Try actually running a business and keeping that attitude. You're stock will end up as wallpaper.
Actually it is not that childish, given the way Apple advertised how they licensed "1-Click Buying". Amazon patent has become the perfect example of crap patent, not only because it is so simple, can be used so pervasively on all the Internet e-commerce sites, but also because it is actually used as a weapon and Amazon sues.
Now licensing doesn't look to bright (why not use 2-click shopping, instead ?), but maybe they needed it, you're right. On the other hand, the 1-click patent glorification and propaganda in the PR release is too much to swallow. Especially from one company advertising "being different". At best they could have said simply "we are using 1-click ordering now". A more militant company could have say something in the lines "we have licensed 1-click ordering now, for your convenience, despite the patent is crap".
Now.. as to why he doesnt use that creative talent of his to come up with a new business model for doing business in a IP-less world beats me.. maybe he just to old or too spoiled to want to use them skills of his... you old fogee Steve... Steve if you think eschewing corporate values brought about your downfall and are now trying to make up for that "mistake" then your in for a big surprise... the world has suddenly changed, and your attitudes of the past are now the ones making headway. Your just setting yourself up for another losing battle Steve. Ho ho ho XD
-= Griffis =-
So I went to google to find an appropriate link to this story. Tried a search for "paperclip patent." I hit "I'm Feeling Lucky."
This the link. Freaking weird.
coalition (n): An alliance, especially a temporary one, of people, factions, parties, or nations.
Wouldn't big business benefit as a whole if predatory patents like this gain legitimacy? With all the bad press Amazon has gotten for this stupid patent, wouldn't it be a great way to influence public opinion in favor of it by making it look reasonable and useful?
Just a thought...
--
It seems like all the responses to my original post missed the point that I was trying to make. Here it is again but slower. Apple has nothing to gain by making a decision based on idealology. Apple had either two choices 1.) license 2.) get sued by amazon trying to protect their patent. Since Apple dooesn't want to be sued(who does?) which would cost them money the chose option 2. Furthermore as a publicly held company Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders which it must zealously act upon which is to minimize financial liabilities. While RMS's teen-aged fan club on /. does not understand simple business practices(hence the abyssmal failure of all companies who attemtp to profit on "open ource" software) Apple does.
Thus the bottom line(pun intended) is that /. geeks should code, sysadmin, and all that jazz and leave the business decisions to people that know what they are talking about.
Dream on. I'd be surprised if you get to choose what mom is making for dinner tonight.
And sometimes Slashdot sounds like it's whining about how it sounds.
You have heard of Akamai, haven't you?
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Granted, I'm stretching, but there are possible uses for this on a site that sells large items.
-30-
Quite an observation there.
Hey, look what I just noticed: Compaq is the only company offering Compaq computers. Chrysler is the only company offering Chrysler automobiles. Nike is the only company offering Nike shoes. Wow, this is amazing!
Or do you think Apple is the only place to purchase an Apple computer from? Then you would be wrong.
I choose where over 100 million goes on desktops each year.
I'm supposing you just call up Dell and do a big bank transfer to them.
I will not get a single Apple.
Good. We wouldn't want you to come back bitching about not being able to play HalfLife on it all day.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
"By monitoring the way you hover your mouse cursor over a product's picture or description, we are able to determine your intentions for this product. We have found that many consumers were confused by the one-button mouse design. So we elminated it and made the entire mouse a button. Now, on the web, we have elminated the need to make a 'descision.' We at Apple Think Different, so you don't have to [think]."
Normally I'd support Apple, they do some cool stuff... Taco has it right... it sucks that they bought into this stupid patent.
---
Do Slashdotters find a need to search out causes? On the one hand, we get articles on Slashdot completely supporting Apple for turning to a BSD-based OS and then we get articles lambasting them for completely logical business decisions, all because someone thinks a paten is dumb.
Do you guys know how many dumb patents there are? Have you ever looked at a McDonald's fry package? There's a patent there. There are patents on things like lamps, CD cases, even wrapping paper. We can look at it and say, "Oh, it's so obvious that wrapping paper should be like this," but that doesn't change the fact that the person/company/entity invented it first.
I still haven't seen a worthy challenge to the 1-Click philosophy. Yes, of course you can say, "Well, duh, it's obvious that you can do that," but these guys did it and said, "Hey, we did it first," and I haven't really seen a conclusive proof against that.
So now, a company decides to use this technology, technology which will obviously make it easier for consumers to purchase online things that Slashdot has already come out in favor of and you turn around and criticize them?! Shame on you. Boohoo that the world didn't turn out the way you want it and companies actually abide by laws instead of filling our courts with worthless and expensive litigation. Boohoo that Apple turns out to be interested in its bottom line rather than what you want it to be interested in. Boohoo that you didn't go out and register an idea that seems completely obvious (to you) with the patent office before some big company could.
Sometimes Slashdot sounds really insightful, and then sometimes, it sounds like a bunch of naive kids whining because things aren't going their way.
BTW, on another topic, this page was updated a good 10 days ago. What's that say about Apple when a geek news site doesn't notice this sort of thing for ten days?
Knowing how Jobs is, Amazon will probably be using WebObjects for their site, and showing streaming QuickTime Trailers of their video offerings. I think some MS fans will be PO'ed if the Xbox uses firewire. You can't please everyone.
photosMy Photostream
Nice use of rn to fake an m, but Carmack (assuming he has a /. ID) is probably well below 100,000.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
EVERY link on their homepage takes you to a stupid explanation of what "1-click" means... I didn't searching yet... that'll probably do the same. Jeez.. 1-Click ... its not THAT novel and new you know...
---
Am I being fooled into beliving CmdrTaco is getting more and more depressed by his creation, Slashdot? I know if this were my baby, knowing the effort I had put into it, and how it's become, I might even turn out the same way. My theory: as feul is consumed by the Slashdot engine, more feul is put out. Anyways .. back to the news ..
It's amazing - you can get 12 CDs for a "single penny" and it's a federal offense to download a few songs off Napster for one penny less.....
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
In this country, at least, the system was designed so that laws could be changed or the system itself could and would be modified... Granted, our government is pretty closed source, as it were, (why geeks should run the world) but the point is that if they agree with most sane people that a patent on something so undeniably simple and non-innovative is a silly patent, then they should take it up with the courts, something they have the power to do and we do not. (Damn that was a long sentence) This would be the preferred, still legal, provided for in our Constitution, action instead of bending over and spreading the cheeks tm for Apple.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Abit KT7. Bought it last month.
--
ok, that wasn't supposed to be a
"(score:0, troll)"
that was supposed to be a
"(score:5, funny)"
i am not, nor have I ever been, nor do I ever intend to become a troll. (and i didn't inhale)
I was simply making light of the situation we have here at slashdot....so many lamers doing f1r57 9057's, many of which are closer to 30th post.....no one cares that you sit at home and press refresh every 30 seconds all day!
SHEEEEEESH! ok, thats all for my rant today. catch you on the flip side. peace out.
Come on guys, I saw this last week. It isn't news. Apple has had the same front on their homepage for a week. Some people just wait to bring it up to pair it with something else that has gone bad for Apple. How about finding other companies to rag on besides Microsoft and Apple.
Amazon won against B&N in court ? When was that ? You have an URL ?
Duh, you could do this with Open Source code way back in 1996. Companies tried it out and their customers often didn't like it, because they wanted some sort of a "security" feature, like asking: "Hey are you sure you really want to buy my merchandise ?" Those were the times where buyers still wanted two clicks, because they were smart enough to have second thoughts...and companies had some respect for their thinking customers...:-)
...or you might want to think about the fact that cookies go across the wire unencrypted, numbnuts...
In short, AKAMAI GOOD!
-30-
If you read my comment, you would see that I said it's a dumb idea because it's insecure, not simply because I said so.
Apple to charge Licensing Fees for FireWire
Or for that matter the fact that MacOS is closed-source and non-free (in all senses).
I mean, if the headline was "RMS adds '1-Click' to gnu.org website. '1-Click is easy and fun and makes purcasing GNU software so much easier,' Stallman said.' that would be one thing, but, I mean it's Apple. Has the reality distortion field gotten to all of you too?
Apple may be a cooler company and Steve Jobs could probably kick Bill Gates' ass, but there is absolutely NO REASON for Apple to be all "Down with IP" when it comes to acquring a technology they want. They expect everyone else to adhere to the idiocies of IP laws, so I don't know why it sounds so strange for them to do the same.
> Apple stock went down because they are trying to innovate. They are trying new things.
Hey, now. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it's worth doing. Penis bird guy and the goatse.cx guy were both innovative too.
BTW, what was Apple "innovating" that caused their stock to plummet? This is a serious question, I didn't realize the company was having problems above and beyond (below & behind?) the usual Apple woes.
Ryan
The shares of Apple I was "stupid" enough to buy are still worth four times what I paid for them.
I'm still laughing all the way to the bank.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Even worse! Can you imagine some of the sick stuff some of these skript kiddies would order in that case? Ew! I feel like I need to throw up just thinking about it... ;-P
-RickHunter
Personally I think the ultimate in user convenience and shopping efficiency would be 0-click shopping, wherein the retailer just assumes you're going to buy something. They just pick something at random, charge you for it, and ship it to you.
Patents pending, of course.
I wonder how many people are going to be afraid of one-click shopping, and aren't even going to take the first click on the apple site - like the people using AOL or MSN passport that have already given their credit card and address, or those who just found out that their e-trade account information was being stored insecurely and lost a lot of trust in ecommerce.
Now, no matter what side you take in the open/free/closed software battle, you should at least give Apple a little respect in the business department. If the challenge to Amazon's patent is successful, what has Apple lost? Nothing, really, if they were smart about their licensing. While IANAL and I haven't seen the agreements, it'd make good sense to have Amazon return all licensing fees if their patent is eventually shown to be revoked. If the patent is held up--now doubt to the chagrin of the Slashdot crowd--Apple has simply beaten the competition to the punch, like Amazon did in patenting one-click in the first place.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
One-click order cancellation
Sorry, Steve and Jeff, I thought of it first and I'm going to transfer the patent to the public domain.
And by third quarter of 2001 I should have another completely new technology ready to patent: one-click stock fraud.
I went to their site.
They showed a mouse, and it said "buy with 1 click" under it.
So I clicked.
No, I didn't get my mouse. I got another page saying "sign up for a 1 click account".
Wait a minute!
That's not one click!!!
I think Apple is just playing by the book.
I mean, look at their track record. Apple is one of those companies with trigger happy lawyers; they go after EVERYTHING. You can't even post pictures of upcoming hardware without getting in trouble with these guys.
Wouldn't it be hypocritical if Apple *didn't* license this from Amazon?
The absurdity of Amazon's patent isn't at issue here; it's the fact that when Apple goes after someone with legal letters, they're not just barking loudly. They mean it, and are willing to bite the bullet and tolerate the absurd if it keeps their record spotless.
Kind of a lame way to define integrity, but hey. In this world I guess you gotta take it from wherever you can.
I don't care if it's "clickless" shopping, I am not paying $59 for a mouse.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
They were supposed to have a profit of 165 million but instead they said it will probably be a profit more in the 110 million dollar range. Everyone in wallstreet is still spooked from when apple nearly died a few years ago so now all the people who made a living forecasting the demise of apple are back.
Nope. http://slashdot .org/us ers.pl?op=userinfo&nick=John%20Carmack
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
I still can't believe a patent was actually issued for single click purchasing power. What next? "1-Swipe" buying? Is Visa going to license with Amazon (or another entity) when I swipe my credit card and make a purchase? Apparently our patent office isn't consciously aware of what it grants in terms of significant and insignificant patents. To grant a patent on single click buying is as silly as it would be for me to file for a patent on frivolous lawsuits and make lawyers and their clients pay me royalties any time they want to file an absurd lawsuit.
Single click buying utilizes another technology: cookies. Maybe Amazon should have to pay royalties to whomever owns the patent on cookies. (Chocolate chips and M&Ms and peanut butter.)
At some point the line has to be drawn. I understand that Amazon has to make money like every other company out there -- the American "dream" is composed of one word: "profit." (Of course, you could substitue "profit" with "theft".) Anyone who licenses this "amazing new technology" (notice the sarcasm) from Amazon basically says this is a significant patent worthy to be in place. And of course, royalty costs get passed on to the consumer eventually. I have no idea how much Apple is paying to actually license this... But if it's more than 1 USD, they're getting ripped off.
I'll be honest. I've never liked Apple to begin with and my exboyfriend (well, we'll see how long he stays an "ex" after last night) and I (almost 5.5 months ago) often fought over Apple versus PC... However, all biases aside, I think this comment is a little harsh. Yes, Apple will pay for making such a blataintly stupid and absurd decision, but let's not get harsh or hostile. Every company is allowed to make mistakes along the way. My hope now is that they are the only company to actually license this stuff. If any other company joins them, it will grow harder to overturn.
But this is just my soap box in condensed form. I could type an entire dissertation of Amazon's (unethical) behaviour over the past few months. I'm tempted to cancel my account with them, and have been since I heard about their price "tests" (reread: "fixes")... I think Amazon is learning from Microsoft just like I learned from Clinton: "Hey, if he (they) can do it and get away with it, I can too!" (Note the sarcasm.)
Have fun...
As opinionated as ever,
Seth Anderson BTW, I'm not 23 anymore -- I am TexasCowboy26 now. =)
I don't really read the Slashdot forums anymore because 90% of the time the post is written by someone with the mindset of a prepubescent asshole. However, this is to be expected and can't really be helped by the Slashdot owners.
However, I think the "stories" that Slashdot posts are awfully written. It is not "news" when CmdrTaco spews his acidic, wrong opinion all over a tidbit of stale information. Anyone who thinks this is actually journalism should put down the joystick for 5 minutes and read a real newspaper. Personally, I know I'll probably not visit Slashdot anymore, simply because the authors have revealed how low-class they are time and time again. I also don't respect the supposed philosophy of Slashdot, which essentially boils down to "I want that...gimme". You all think that everything should be free; well let me tell you something, free stuff usually sucks.
This community remains so negative about Apple, one of the few companies that is really doing something new with Unix, and whose new operating system I'm sure you will all admire and copy as closely as possible, just like everyone did when Apple's first idea of a GUI came out. Their OS isn't free because they actually have R&D to test useability, unlike Linux. In reality, you have to pay for art, and if someone's trying to give away something for free, it's either terrible or stolen.
Now obviously I'm an Apple user, and I read Slashdot; doesn't it seem like just maybe you guys should try to stop inspiring huge Apple bashes that drive viewers like me away? I could get all my news from Wired and BBC Science, real news sites that don't attach nasty, untrue inanities to scoops. I'm sure MacSlash would be happy for another set of eyes.
Essentially, what I'm asking for, once again, is an end to this OS war, at least on this forum. I think the Slashdot owners might possess enough restraint to not bash Apple repeatedly. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of being labeled an idiot because I pay for the privilege to use a powerful multimedia computer with an OS that is easy to install and maintain and has anti-aliased fonts. There are things Apple does that are wrong, but I don't think they deserve the kind of nasty reaction I've seen here, given all they've done that is right and that has truly revolutionized they way we use computers.
Well this topic is stale so no one will probably ever read or moderate this post, but I just wanted to register my disgust for the nasty nerd owners of Slashdot for the record.
a prophet on the burning shore
Apple computers is a type of computer. Like the Intel based PC market. Not really someone can compair to brands of shoes. That is far to simple and example.
Compairing a Dell PC vs a Compaq PC would make more sense. Apples are in the own catagory. So, they are alone in that market and do suffer from it.
My message was not flamebait as someone has tagged it.
I like Apple, I'd like to be a customer again. They have in no way pulled me from the Intel PC market, or Intel based server market.
The 1-click thing is just simple example of odd marketting. Why place that as the main item you are crowing about. They are a computer company. I for one would like to see them crow about a computer.
Apple has been doing poorly as far as market share. I'm sure we can all see that. This may upset some people. One might assume that one of those people upset my Apple's poor preformace marketed my message as flamebait. No matter.
If my comments are seen by some as such, it cannot be helped. People often look for personal attack where none exists.
I had some person experience that makes me more than a little careful when it comes to purchasing from some comanies. One of these companies is Apple. They have not alway been open and friendly to thrid party operating systems.
I did not purchase Diamond video cards at the time they were not open to the XFree86 people. They just did not want to share. Ok, that's fine. I like computer parts that can be used in a way that I choose.
To a lesser degree Apple wants you to use their computers in a certain way. They want you using Apple's OS and applications. In short they wish to control the playing field.
I have had many good experiences with Apple software and computers, but I have had many more bad ones. People like me have come to be somewhat jaded about Apple. Things like the 1-click item, are just one more Apple mistake, in my book.
I like them. I grew up on them. I don't give them much hope.
Be seeing you.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Now I hate Amazon for the whole 1-Click patent deal, and I don't really see that why Apple has to roll this out with the tremendous amount of hype they are giving it (dedicating their front page to 1-Click?), but it *does* kind of make sense for them to do it.
Yes...
--
"No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
The legal term of art "unobviousness" refers to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. s. 103, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.
What makes you think so? How do you know what I think it means?
obviousness is a highly technical legal issue
Obviousness isn't a highly technical legal issue. It's the most subjective and debatable aspect of any patent - despite the mythical "person of ordinary skill in the field, and omniscient of all prior art", there doesn't exist a N point rule to decide on the obviousness of a supposed invention.
Unfortunately for everyone, Apple, as a publicly traded company, cannot just do an about face and become a new company.
They could have simply not used a 1-click shopping method, that woudl have been fine.
But if they want to, they HAVE to license it from Amazon. If they don't, they would be knowingly exposing the company to lititgation.
Note: In big business, you don't let a small licensing fee on a little patent ruin your business.
OOG was a funny troll kind of guy. The difference from normal trolls is that this one was quite intelligent and funny. So people liked him. But like most trolls he got fed up. Just like the pankake ninja guy... and like the beowolf dude... and the natalie naked and petrified troll... and soon probably the penis bird guys...
--
"No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
I do oddly. You might find it odd, as do I, but the fact remains.
At this point it looks like over 1200 offices will be getting IBM thin clients connecting to NT "Terminal services" and/or acting as XTerminals.
No room for Apple there.
Be seeing you.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Lots of posts seem to be asking why Apple needs 1-click shopping, since few would seem to be regular customers for computers, but it's important to note that since its introduction the Apple store has been slowing growing the range of products it sells. The Apple store now sells 27 games, 23 "Productivity" applications, mice, printers, speakers, monitors, etc. etc. Since 25% of Macs are sold through the Apple store, it's possible that more and more users will go through the store for other products as well, and make use of 1-click.
Funny, when I signed up for amazon (years ago before all this patent fiasco, get off my back) it was precisely for that and ONLY that reason (getting a copy of H2G2 omnibus hardcover)...
---
The legal term of art "unobviousness" refers to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. s. 103, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.
The claim is the thing -- you compare the elements of the claim with those elements in a single piece of prior art. if all the elements are present, you have what is called anticipation, or invalidity under Section 102. If even one element is not present, then the patent is valid unless the DIFFERENCES between the claimed patent and the single piece of prior art would have been obvious to a person of ORDINARY SKILL in the art.
This issue of obviousness is a highly technical legal issue -- essentially, the question devolves to whether there exist other pieces of art that have the missing elements, and whether there exist prior art or teachings suggesting the combination. In the absence of that, obviousness is almost impossible to show.
In the present case, substantial art has already been presented to suggest invalidity on theories of anticipation and nonobviousness, yet the Court still found cause to grant a temporary injunction. This is a very unusual occurrence (patent temp injunctions are rare), and does not bode well for those claiming this patent to be invalid.
Time will tell, of course, but no one has yet to propose prior art here on Slashdot that gave me reason to think this patent was invalid.
Well, considering Apple's recent zero-button mouse, I'm sure they will need zero-click shopping too.
-- 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2
So this is what happens when you take both the red and blue pills... You get stuck somewhere between the "Real World" of cool hardware and software and the "Matrix" hell controlled by the likes of Amazon and the USPTO.
But here you have a place to buy computers. I mean how realistic is it that i, when buying an iMac will forsee the need for more iMacs at a frequency that would warrant me not wanting to put in my login name and password?
Not very likely...
Ñ'
Why don't all you muppets go and live in a cave or something, paranoid about everything! Does it really matter that Apple has this, going by the theme of this site none of you wankers will buy anything from Apple's site anyway.
Analyst predicted (if I remember right) $0.45/share earnings...Thursday, Apple announced $0.33 to $0.35/earnings.
This was a really nasty shock to the capital markets community.. You could relate it to how you would feel if you were to wake up tomorrow and find out that Linus Torvalds has admitted that NT is the superior OS.. We would all go nuts...
Implying this as the cause of Apple's stock devaluation is pretty ignorant as well. There was a slump in computer sales in general last quarter, causing many companies earnings reports to come in under expectations. Why this fact triggered the massive drop in Apple's stock but not so for other stocks like Intel and Dell is the mystery.
Perhaps an excessively large number of shares were owned by /. whiners?
there goes my karma... oh well ;-P
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Hey, that's the first good explanation I've heard for why Apple would be doing this. Congrats!
It may be one click shopping, but these are macs we're talking about.
So it's Shift-Option-Click!
I've used Amazon's one click before (once), not fully realizing that it truly is a "done deal". No amount of clicking let's you change your mind, or preview an order. So let it be known that I am proud to announce my
Two Click Shopping (TM)
U.S. and foreign patents pending.
With this revolutionary technology you will now be able to "check" an order, or "preview" it before we ship to you. If you want to back out for any reason whatsoever, or change the order, you can do that with a "second click".
But Two Click Shopping is even more versatile now, as you can use the "second click" to "affirm" the order. It will henceforth be processed in a prompt manner and you can expect speedy shipment.
If you have any problems with the above, or disagree with it in any manner, or want to use any "multiple click" technology, this will be in violation of the EULA of this post. Moderating this post "down" as "troll" or "flamebait" will be considered as circumvention of the original intention of this post. Please consider this as your Cease and Desist Notice. If you do not bring youself into compliance immediately, I will be forced to contact Dutch l33t h4x0r Nohican who will change your password and email it to the penis bird troll.
Thank you for your attention, and I hope we can come to a satisfactory
resolution to this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Slashdot user eclectro #227083
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
The fact of the matter is that Apple has made some poor choices (the Cube, for example). This announcement makes it somewhat comedic, since Apple is basically saying, "Gee, now you can buy what put us in the dumper with one click, instead of three!" - a real blessing for the stockholders.
That this one click shopping thing is considered such a wonder? Wow, I tried using Amazon's one-click shopping, and I ended up making substantially more than one click...the entire process getting to the point where you can click once is just a pain in the ass....and as far as I'm concerned, buying books by clicking once is fine....buying a computer? That's another matter....
:)
Darn, I'd sure hate to accidentally get shipped a 22" 16x9 flatscreen display!
"Life ain't interesting till you blow something up" --Anonymous
The issue is not whether they abide by the law -- they're supporting a silly patent, instead of "thinking differently".
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
I still can't believe that Amazon got a patent on 1-click buying.
...Crap, I'm going to get sued now for not using the TM...
~LE
First off, just because you didn't think of it, doesn't mean other people haven't. I remember saying to myself lots of times after ordering something, that I wish it could be as simple click to order something. It's just the way my reductionist mind works. However, I don't have a web site that sells stuff, nor would I ever imagine that such an idea would be patentable. It's possible hundreds or thousands have had the same thought. Just because it was no implemented, doesn't mean that no one thought of it. Quit making assertations you cannot prove.
Secondly, the original author said it was one of the reasons it was a stupid idea. I always love it when morons get on and say things, when they don't even read the article carefully enough to make an intelligent statement.
Thirdly, you say it's a dumb idea, because it's a dumb idea. That kind of circular thinking will never get you your long sought after membership into Mensa.
I would
Can you really blame Apple on this one?
Seriously, Apple was fully aware of what Amazon did to Barnes and Noble when they attempted to go forth with their own one-click plan. Now one could argue that Amazon was only aggressive because Barnes and Noble was also an online book retailer, but I doubt Apple's legal team advised whoever not to take any chances.
If Apple wanted 1-click shopping badly enough, yet didn't want any thorny legal issues to deal with, it was really the only way to go.
I don't like the fact that Amazon has the patent either, I think the USPTO needs to be looked over and reviewed, but hell, I don't blame Apple for making the move they did. I'd prolly would've done the same thing.
-----
But let's also not forget that Apple doesn't *only* sell computers through their website. Granted that computers probably make up the majority of their sales (duh), but the fact remains that they also sell accessories (such as mice), Apple software, and third-party software. Such things can cost as little as $30 and do comply with the whole impulse-buying philosophy. Hell, in their press release, Apple even uses iMove 2 ($49) as an example of a good product to purchase using 1-Click.
Excellent point. I'd completely overlooked Apple's sales of devices other than their computers.
-Waldo
Sorry.
Evidently people thout I was serious.
Here's one for you "One Point Shopping":
Go into a physical store. Leave your credit card
number and address.
Inform the store owner that when you you point
to something and say "Buy it", to charge you
credit and load it in you car.
If you think the idea is good or worth a patent, I'm sorry.
---
It's not like amazon sells you some sort of pre-prepared one-click shopping package infrastructure that you install and run, they just let you use the 'idea' of one-click shopping. Not because they thought of it first, but because they were the only ones with the gall to patent something so completely obvious.
I guess they have to make money somehow, they sure aren't going to do it by selling books.
Apple stock will probably rise when they cash in on selling all of the replacement parts for the poorly-designed G4 Cube. Its like the computer-equivalent of the edsel, except it doesn't do all that much except stay quiet and look pretty.
Spill a drink on it by accident, and with the help of the badly-placed top vent, suddenly you have a very fancy coaster.
Hey, I should patent that....
I guess last week they debuted their 1-click stock selling.
Penguins in bondage. - Frank Zappa
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
War is necrophilia.
Let me sum this idea up in other terms. All of your personal information including your credit card number is stored somewhere that you don't have control over so that with a single click you can spend thousands of dollars. What's to distinguish your click from someone who stole your computer's click, or someone who used the public terminal after someone who doesn't understand the technology logs out. I'm surprised that the companies that use this can get insured. It's like an invitation for fraud.
Anyway, One-Click is a patently original idea, but if I Had though of it I would never have admited it to anyone. I'm done ranting now.
One-click orders aren't *that* fast. Besides, with Apple, it'll be a week or two before they even get around to looking at the order. Plenty of time to cancel.
Granted, I don't follow the stock market very often, but I just looked at their 3-month prices,and they dropped abou 50% in the last week! Anybody know what caused such a drop? (Granted, the entire market didn't so hot in the last week, but stilll....)
Apple has had the announcement for 1 click up on the site for ages. In fact it went up as soon as they announced they were patenting the technology. This is old news and adds nothing to the previous story when apple announced they were patenting 1 click.
I honestly don't see why everyone is so pissed off at Apple about this. They wanted to offer a service to their cutomers and amazon has a patent on the service. If they had started using the 1click "patent" without licensing it they would get sued. So what would the rational action be? lincense the patent or get into a protracted legal battle that some other huge company already lost before? Once Amazon won against B&N this thing was over because a precedent was created. Every person who tries to fight Amazon on the patent will have to face an uphill battle. Im sure the cost of litigation would have been much higher so end of story. If you want to be mad at someone be mad at Amazon. I guess it is cool to diss apple on slashdot so everything they do is open to being ridiculed here.
On the validity of the patent. It does seem pretty silly to be able to patent something as "simple" as a 1 click shopping system. I used to buy lot of books from amazon and i remember when 1 click began to be offered as a service (I for one made so many impulse purchases because of it...). I also remember that my first reacition was "Oh how cool. Whata great idea. so simple yet so convinient." I also remember going to B&N later on and seein their blatant copy of Amazon's 1 click technology. My first reaction to that was: " It figures. everything they with their website is a bad attempt at copying whatever Amazon does." I felt that B&N was ripping Amazon off and that they were going to try to muscle Amazon out of the business by using their clout and provide similar services by copying Amazon's every move (This was years ago and Amazon was not the market cap monster it is now. It was more of a fledgeling internet copany). My fear at the time was what looked like a half hearted attempt by B&N to move into the internet market and win by simply being the established one. So while a patent for 1 click seems excesive I can understand wanting to keep it and patent it. I guess what i mean is that I can see both sides of the argument and it simply isnt as clear as most people here on slashdot want to make it seem.
This is the only insightful part of your comment.
I recall seeing '1-click' style mechanisms on several sites prior to Amazons patent.
I still haven't seen a worthy challenge to the 1-Click philosophy. Yes, of course you can say, "Well, duh, it's obvious that you can do that," but these guys did it and said, "Hey, we did it first," and I haven't really seen a conclusive proof against that.
Yes, you can say "Hey, we did it first" ... it doesn't mean that it's true. In order to challenge Amazon you'd have show HTML files with datestamps prior to their patent filing AND hire a team of lawyers to go up against Bezos' mob.
This is a classic case of "He who has the deepest pockets wins".
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. No duh, that's why I go through the windshield when I try to stop my car really fast, unless acted on by my seatbelt. Seems pretty obvious to me. Why did it take thousands of years to be discovered? Sometimes things seem quite obvious after the fact. Sometimes the more obvious it seems after the fact, the more ingenious it really was.
Would one-click shopping have been "invented" if it weren't for the patent? Hell yeah. Not only would someone have come up with it by now if it weren't for Amazon.com, Amazon.com would have still "released" the idea if it weren't for patent law. Amazon.com's patent is legal, it's the law that's messed up. Amazon's (and Apple's) executives are required by law to perform in a way to maximize their companies profits. But go ahead, boycott away, but I hope you intend to live alone and build everything you ever use by yourself, if you intend to boycott every company that follows bad laws.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
The more credit thats given to Amazon's lame patent, the harder it'll be to overturn. I'd like to know where people get these ideas. The FACT of the matter is that the validity of a patent has NOTHING to do with whether or not someone takes a license and pays the fees. Lots of companies make the decison to license a patent for the simple reason that it is far cheaper to take a license than to contest it in court.
If that is true then Apple shouldn't have paid Amazon a penny and neither should anyone else.
Have there been any cases of Amazon coming along and telling other sites to stop using one-click?
If not then Amazon are not really the bad guys. They're just keen to avoid getting screwed by opportunitsts exploring a stupid patent.
So now it has gotten to the point where it is alright to ignore laws if you do not agree with them?
I think most people have it right - it was easier/cheaper to licience it than to fight it (or even use it and then get caught).
In the mean time, however, a law is a law even if you do not agree with it. If Apple decides not to be the crusader against Amazon's sill patent, that is their right. They have a right to follow the law.
Do you realize how silly that last line would sound in a normal conversation? Yet a lot of people here think nothing of it because "information wants to be free."
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Why doesn't apple just skip all this one-click nonsense and just use zero-click shopping?
I mean, Apple knows what's best for you anyway...
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
He probably went outdoors and got a life..
Unilke us...
--
"No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
Well, this is somewhat speculation, but it seems to me like investors are nervous because of stuff like OSX and the G4 Cube.
Most companies don't rewrite their OS from scratch (I know it's got a BSD kernel, but that's just a good foundation). Also, pushing dual processors, firewire, gigabit ethernet, desktop video, creative hardware design... these are fairly gutsy moves for a mature corporation, and people seem to like to see them fail (I guess it justifies their own laziness?).
I'm not saying these are all necessarily good ideas, but I wish that companies got points for trying new things, since it's a sign of vitality, in my opinion. Instead, companies get points for being predictable.
On a factual level, the stock went down because they reported profit growth. Except it wasn't as much growth as analysts had predicted. Why that shows poorly on the company (they grow and their stock drops 52%?) I don't really know.
Just my 2cents.
And what have you got against goatse.cx? ;)
WTF, it's been like that for three weeks and this issue has already been beaten to death on slashdot. Jesus give it a rest already
...i clicked three times before i could even register to use the '1-Click'(tm) odering?
-----
"Almost isn't good enough - but it's almost good enough."
-Me
Maybe be Apple is taking on Amazon in order to distract their stockholders.
*That* would be newsworthy.
(a) Secure and unable to shop (with 1 - click)
(b) Unsecure and have script kiddies able to shop (with my credit card).
Hmmm. what a choice.... Steve Jobs - well done!
Microsoft - not all bad.
I see a $3,000 Cube. Gotta have it. <click> Oh, shit, wait... I can't afford that! Damn.
"Hello, Visa? I need a credit extension, quick!"
Apple. Innvating shareholdervalue. Think different.
--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
You bring up some good points that got me thinking about the whole OneClick idea. Say we take a lool back and try to figure out the lowest common denominator... the venerable mouse. Now, I can't for the life of me remember at the moment who really invented 'the mouse'. I am sure someone will chime in with the dirty details as to who and when(Jobs stole it from someone) but what I don't understand is how come that particular patent owner and the idea of 'point and click' doesn't constitute prior art. The idea essentially boils down to this: 'With our newfangled and beautiful graphimacal (l)user interimface ya can gets jobs done by clickin here and theair. Uh click here and this here doodad runs a program and this here X closes it.' Now, I apologise for dumbing down the essentials to that level but this one click thing has got to be among the stupidest patents ever issued. Steve Jobs and his cronies at crApple villifying the patent by licensing it bothers me. They managed to steal this concept and now they seem to be backing up Amazon. If the concept of 'point and click' doesn't constitute prior art in this case (as you requested proof) then Amazon must have somehow comeup with the idea of clicking here to complete this particular task before the GUI and the utilization of the mouse as an input device. Jeff Bezos is a genius on many levels but this is a stretch. They would have a decent argument for copyright on the 'One Click' term as IP but essentially 'One Click' is... well... false advertising by virtue of it requiring (just slightly) more than the proverbial one click to accomplish the task. Maybe someone out there will get a patent on 'Almost One Click' or 'One Click after a little typing'... /. $authors)
Note to self: IF s/N ratio>=facts(old news +
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
If you bothered to read the press release, you would have read the following on paragraph 1.
blah blah blah.."as part of an e-commerce patent CROSS LICENSING agreement."
So, in short, no.. not a dime was exchanged.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
I don't think I've ever heard such a strange disconnected take on morality before. Apple abides by US law which (like it or not) has been around for over a century, and you're glad their stock dropped? And the stock dropped for reasons entirely unrelated to this?
Like Apple or not, that type of statement is just childish. I'm glad to see that some people on the board realize that real companies don't have the freedom to give everyone the finger like the majority of the sit-at-home Slashdot crowd. You only have that freedom because of your anonymity. Try actually running a business and keeping that attitude. You're stock will end up as wallpaper.
Good luck, Apple. I'm glad some companies are taking the risk of doing innovative things. And no, 1-click shopping isn't one of them.
It would be pretty easy to clear up... the merchandise would go to the preregistered One-Click address.
[
Someone should reverse engineer the OneClick technology and write up an open document that explains it.
This is needed for those of us that cannot afford to pay Amazon to for the OneClick specification.
We could call it OpenClick or DeClick and print out how to single click on T-shirts.
I recall seeing '1-click' style mechanisms on several sites prior to Amazons patent.
...'?
Well then name one! This is what I'm talking about when I say a 'worthy challenge'. People are very quick to say, "Well, I remember seeing 1-click-style shopping" but they can't say where. That's what happens when someone patents what might be an obvious idea. Everyone says, "Well, duh, everyone did that," and then they can't think of anything. That's because what they're really thinking is that it's such a great idea that of course everyone should've been doing that. Of course, they weren't, and the patent holder jumped on it.
So, can you name a company that had '1-click' shopping before Amazon filed their patent? Or is it always going to be 'Well, I recall seeing
What if Apple spends all this money on one-click shopping and then Amazon gives in to the public and releases the patent? It would be another bad move on Apple's part.
--
Their is no mention on the site of the patent. It may or may not be licensed from Amazon. HOWEVER, their is NO evidence on the site that they are licensing Amazon's patent.
I see 1-Click(R), meaning a registered trademark. As there is no mention that the trademark is registered to Amazon, I am inclined to believe that Apple trademarked 1-Click (in the realm of buying or e-commerce if their is a new catagory, or whatever).
Trademark means only THEY can refer to their feature as 1-Click, not that they own the term.
I am SICK of factually erroneous stories being passed for news, especially with the "editorial" staff adding the incorrectness.
If a submitter is wrong, you should verify it. If you are adding commentary, do SOME homework. Last time I checked, what you are doing is close to libel.
Alex
suprised someone hasen't patented one-click hyperlinks yet... only a matter of time, after all BT already own the patent for hyperlinks....
When iClick on the shiny button that says "Buy now with 1-click(r)" that is under a picture of a mouse or software, it does NOT take allow me to buy that mouse or software with one click, OR even take me to a screen where I can buy that mouse or software at all! It takes me to a screen telling me how cool 1-Click(r) is! Argh!
Is Jeff Bezos giving Steve blowjobs or something? What's up with this?
I freely admit that I hate Macintosh computers. The idea that Apple computers might assimilate the market scares the hell out of me. But just a second ago, I realized: Apple is not a threat to the PC industry. To be successful in marketing to... erm, those who like computers simple, they have to think in such a simple manner themselves. When the company does things like this they are just trying to improve their image. It's like building a house out of playing cards -- Many Apple customers who bought the cube thought there was a crack in the case, and when they found out that it wasn't, they wanted a refund because it wasn't pretty enough. Apple is building a home out of playing cards. Case in point: Who really buys computers frequently enough to benefit from signing up for a 'one-click' service?
*Whew*
Apple will do themselves in.
_
-- Decimal
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
I sure wouldn't be surprised if Apple was allowed to use the 1-clik for free, or even got payed to use it!.. Now Amazon can point at Apple and say that "See, people are taking our patant seriously - you should too!"...
Hmmm...
--
"No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
actually, im thinking about buying some apple now...hehe