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.
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
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
"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.
--
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.
You have heard of Akamai, haven't you?
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
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?
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.
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.
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'
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"
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.
-----
I guess last week they debuted their 1-click stock selling.
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.
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.
(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!"
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.
[