Slashdot Mirror
Barnes & Noble Challenges Amazon 1-Click Patent (UPDATED)
Smitty825 writes: "Barnes & Noble is challenging the Amazon 1-click patent. Hopefully this will invalidate that lame patent, and hopefully this will clarify what is a valid patent. Full story here." There may be certain business methods worth patenting (or at least keeping secret, if you're so inclined), but "one-click" anything seems too silly for consideration, doesn't it? Update: 10/03 4:26 PM by michael : See also this easy one-click exploit of Amazon's one-click system.
They are not only patenting "technology" but basic business processes. Amazon hold a patent or is trying get it patented on affilation. (Correct me if I am wrong) Basicly if you link my site and someone orders from that link then you get some money. This was used for years in the real business world it is called referals. Is this really novel no but since they have some good techinical writers they can get things like this patented. This harms small businesses who could not afford to pay the fees.
This could really throw a wrench in my plans to patent and license "93 click" shopping. The 92 and 94 guys are gonna be pissed, too.
xjosh
"1-click shopping" means in essence two things:
a) maintaining information in your browser cookies determining who you are
b) allowing you to make a purchase based on this information.
neither of these are things amazon did first. people have been using cookies for ages. people have been buying stuff for ages.
their claim is that they are the first to have done the two together, and that that combination is something patentable. what someone would have to do to prove it is not patentable is either:
a) show prior use of an equivalent technology
b) make a case that the combination of those two technologies is not innovative enough to warrant a patent.
barnes and noble is trying to do (a). possibly not the best course of action (ie "it's not yours, it's mine!" rather than "you can't own that"), but you can't expect any business to act ethically where large sums of money are at stake.
we all know they didn't really "invent" it, we just have to convince the patent office of that.
fross
This lawyer does, I personally don't, for much the same reasons as you mention it. The lawyer is merely pointing out that "See, we managed to ignore the (possibly valid and quite important) criticisms in the gene-patent debate, so there's a precedent." (Obviously, I'm characterizing it quite a bit differently than he would have me characterize it.)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
You can't just send copies of physical paper book out over the Net, you know, someone has to have a big pile of books in a warehouse so your non-existent staff can take a copy, wrap it up and mail it.
And this is where I think Amazon went wrong (aside from the 1-click stuff). You know (but the poster you replied to obviously doesn't) that Amazon has HUGE warehouses to take the books, stick a little bookmark in them, wrap 'em up in plastic, then stick them in a box emblazoned with Amazon's logo, then ship them out (and when I mean huge, I mean DAMN BIG - some of the largest warehouses on the planet, things that make Costco look like a side store). These are what costs Amazon it's money (heck, it probably would have been cheaper to buy that aircraft carrier they had on a commercial a long while back).
All to get their logo in front of the consumer.
What would have been cheaper would have been to instead drop-ship the books directly from the publisher (ie, work out deals with the publisher to blow the bookmark in at time of manufacture, then add the Amazon logo to the shipping boxes). However, in the long run this would have backfired as soon as the publishers realized they could do this themselves, and set up web sites to directly sell the books to the public, bypassing the middleman. It would be tough for publishers to set up the infrastructure to handle the number of consumers, but they already have most of it in place.
This is why Amazon is fighting Barnes and Noble - the 1-click patent is peanuts. Why? Because Barnes and Noble is a publisher. That's right - they not only sell books in brick and motar stores, and on the net, they also act as a publisher of books as well (which is kinda scary in it's own right, because by owning the press and the means of distribution, they can conceivably control public opinion in subtle ways - or maybe that is me in conspiracy mode). In effect, they do exactly what I outlined above. Eventually, other publishers will as well (and I am sure other publishers are doing it - anyone know which ones?)...
When the middleman is fully cut out, Amazon will die. They may then either decide to fade away - or they may take the other route: Become a publisher as well (and suffer a profit cut anyway, but possibly still remain in business).
I say they should become a publisher now, and solicit for books and short articles (to be collected in a yearly "Annotated Amazon Collection" or something) by unknown authors on the net. These authors would then have a platform from which to publish in a paper form, while still maybe being able to distribute electronically (perhaps all those adult erotica authors could make some money then).
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
> but "one-click" anything seems too silly for
> consideration, doesn't it
Hrm, I tend to disagree. I would not mind if Microsoft patented "one-click" file/folder/etc. opening. That, being the only new feature Windows 98 offered, annoys me more than any other of Microsoft's "innovations".
They might as well just assume you want to open the file the mouse is over, and open it for you.
Better yet, they could just keep all folders,
files, etc. open at all times, since people are too stupid to grasp the concept of "clicking", making Windows even more "user-friendly".
austin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"But can you get anything from my CC number shipped to you through this? "
Once they convince Amazon that they are you, they can give Amazon a new shipping address... Seems pretty obvious to me, but you apparently have a hard time with the obvious.
Ranessin
I don't have to show prior art. I just have to show that it was obvious.
Ranessin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You seem to draw the line of security very low. The point is not that I've gained anything, but rather that I've caused both you and your CC company a great deal of headache. I may not steal your CC#, but if I max out your credit card, is it insecure?
Besides, half of my exploit is about the fact that it isn't limited to Amazon. It's just a matter of time before someone uses this type of attack in a more high profile manner.
Thats where most /. readers and I disagree with you. It is an obvious invention. You run a commercial website, you have customers, you use cookies. The whole purpose of cookies is to prevent your customer from entering the same information every time they use your site. All Amazon has done was to put their cute little name on the process.
Amazon did not invent cookies, and thankfully they are something any website can use. Therefore, I argue that any use of cookies to save your customers from repeating tasks when they visit your site is fair and should be legal.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Conspiracy theories are to be refuted by proving otherwise, or at the very least by providing an alternative explanation. Pointing out that the conspiracy theorist has provided no proof is, well, pointless.
--
The shareholder is always right.
Just because something is obvious does not mean it had to be implemented (or even consciously thought of)
Ranessin
Wrong... We just have to show that it was obvious back when the patent was filed.
Ranessin
The patent criteria do not require that form of obviousness. The idea is not patentable if it is obvious to the average person in the buisness.
Storing the majority of the actual data on the server side is natural and obvious to anyone doing web development (security, bandwidth and latency issues). You just need a hash to identify the user; this is what is stored in the browser cookie. Ordinary procedure. Even more natural when reducing a HUGE security risk (storing CC data in cookie) to a very large security risk (storing the CC data on server and identifying user based on cookie).
Using databases for processing of ordering information is natural. Using databases for tracking users and saving said cookie information is natural. Combining both of them is also a natural process. Using it to avoid users having to retype info is natural (altho storing CC number is idiotic in either case). This is no invention. This is a completely natural evolution, and comes as natural and obvious for anyone involved in this type of work (now _or_ then), as natural as drawing another breath.
All of this was done before Amazon. I made part implementations of similar things (storing user data and using cookies to identify user) and connecting it to an order system (web frontend for a database) in, IIRC 1994 or early 95, and it was hardly a revolutionary idea for web access to legacy databases.
It _is_ and _was_ obvious to anyone involved in it at that time. Like my earlier quote, it was even suggested when cookies were dreamed up. The original spec even mentions all the keywords to trigger the idea in a few sentances. The implementation details arent of any consequence to the innovativeness; they're just a natural progression of how you can implement the original idea; store data about a user, use cookie, combine with shopping, avoid retyping.
mouseOver Shopping!©®* is an exciting technological innovation that lets you simply move your mouse over a product to own it!
With a single swipe to the general vicinity of our large images, you can purchase hundreds of items and have them sent immediately to your home! It's just that simple! No more tedious clicking, entering your information over and over, or deciding!
mouseOver Shopping!©®*: Let your impulsive buying guide your mouse to a happier home!
*Pat. Pending: US9043989309932125, US923987128974, US9209847309822342
(Someone probably beat me to this...but I have the patents!)
One click porn?
"Life ain't interesting till you blow something up" --Anonymous
Look at the draft for cookies from netscape:c .html
http://home.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spe
"This simple mechanism provides a powerful new tool which enables a host of new types of applications to be written for web-based environments. Shopping applications can now store information about the currently selected items, for fee services can send back registration information and free the client from retyping a user-id on next connection, sites can store per-user preferences on the client, and have the client supply those preferences every time that site is connected to."
Which part of that doesnt make storing user information like credit cards __**BLINDINGLY**__ obvious? This if from the original _draft_ of the cookie spec. Im sure if you ask netscape they can dig up the original date they submitted it on or something.
Is it non-obvious?
Depends what its a solution to. If one-click shopping is a there to avoid having to go to the nearest bookshop, then it is most certainly not obvious.
If it is a solution to having to click twice then I don't think it is, but (depending on how the patent is written, and the implementation)
Does anyone have some direct evidence that the patent is invalid? The fact that it is so "obvious" now is not direct evidence. McDonald's patented the seeds they put on hamburger buns. Remember, geek != lawyer. And I'd rather have Amazon than BN.
The Mcdonalds thing is more aesthetic than functional. This seems more like someone patented an icon or something (but hey you can click on it!)
- Multiple people may use the same computer.
Frankly, this patent isn't just for an obvious idea, but for an idea that is obviously stupid to anyone who gives more than a passing thought to security. This patent is no different from MSFT patenting automatically executing email attachments (another obvious and stupid idea) .Second Law of Blissful Ignorance
It is sad and unfortunate that Amazon has no way to fight this giant. Which retail chain has a greater financial clout? How will Amazon stand up to this bookstore? IMO, I happen to like Amazon's website and sevices. Amazon's online catalogue of books is actually a valuable contribution to the 'net. I do not have any complaints so far while doing business with them - until the boycott at least.
This entire sorry episode comes from Amazon reaching out for patents as a vorpal sword to defend itself against Barnes and Noble, but realizing that they have grabbed a snake instead. I am angry more at Barnes and Noble for driving Amazon nuts.
It conclusion that seems to be drawn is that competition in the online business is very different from bricks and mortar businesses. Think about it - everything Amazon did, Barnes and Noble copied. Being a bricks and mortar operation, Barnes and Noble has obviously a natural advantage that a purely on-line store like Amazon does not have.
In other words: down with ridiculous patents, but up with the underdog!
A chain of events that would be nice.
1. B&N gives Amazon the finger
2. BT's hyperlink claim kills Amazons 1 click patent.
3. The 1968 Stanford University film blows BT's claims all to hell.
4. CmdrTaco Super Hero extrordinair finds a method to stop stupid pantents and patents the process.
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
There is a very article about the background of patents & patent busting on the wired site, quite long, quite good. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.06/patents.ht ml
Houdi
Ferry C.
Ferry C.
"There may be certain business methods worth patenting (or at least keeping secret, if you're so inclined), but "one-click" anything seems too silly for consideration, doesn't it?"
I dunno about you, but keeping one-click shopping secret kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
--
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
I'll bet that there are at least 5,000 pages on category "X" that even the world's most well-rounded category "X" expert has never read, or heard of.
He's right you know. I consider myself the world's leading expert on "X" topics. I did a quick Google search for "X" and
Google results 1-10 of about 70,200,000 for X.
Wow! Now I visit about 10-12 "X" sites per day and I change up quite often to see different "X" style "topics" but this is just amazing. Seventy _million_ pages! I guess I've got some more surfing to do. Even counting each "XXX" site as three "X" sites, I'm still way behind.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
I wish someone would order 50 copies of Vagina Monologues to my door, ok, maybe 1 would do, just as long as it's the recent show, in NY, since it has my Melissa in it. Later Simon
It seems to me that what no one understands here, is the absolute significance of 'one-click' to e-commerce.
Jupiter Communications reports that 60% of e-comm carts are abandoned, due to the time/pain of filling out those (@##* forms.
One-click shopping allowed Amazon to CUT LOST CARTS BY MORE THAN HALF. This has created ENORMOUS financial advantages.
Sure, from a technical standpoint, one-click is easy to implement.
In the context of solving the problems that face e-commerce sites -- primarily, how to make shopping easy and convenient, and get more visitors through to purchases -- it was not clear that one-click would be the 'solution.' In short, there was nothing obvious about what one-click woudl be, BEFORE it had been done.
Amazon spent many dollars and took on substantial business risk to implement one-click on their site. It was an enourmous success, due to the diligence and care they took in making it work. They are entitled to benefit from taking on that risk, when no one else had, and showing the rest of the world how to do it.
Barnes&Noble, and everyone else, realizes that one-click would raise their bottom lines significantly. But they didn't pay to develop and test one-click in the market. Again, why should they get the benefit without the risk?
IANAL, but for the record: "Method of exercising a cat" isn't patented; the particular method described in the claims is. Now with that out of the way...
The patent is on "a cat chases a dot produced by a laser pointer." How silly of the U$PTO to grant this. Prior art: a cat chases a beam of light from a properly focused MAG-LITE® flashlight. Is it really that non-obvious to go from a spotlight to a laser pointer?
<O
( \
XPlay Tetris On Drugs!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Patents should be the result of research, and the patent should be an incentive for the researcher to reveal the innovation so everyone can profit from it. Amazon hasn't done much research unless you count reading the cookie specs and code examples and "html for dummies". Amazon didn't share any information for example source code in their patent text.
If the point was to do something first, you could patent the first stop onto moon and sue everyone doing it. You could patent crossing the road first and sue everyone doing it again.
That's nonsense.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
This whole 1-click(TM) fiasco reminds me of a recently shown Saturday Night Live skit, with this lawyer advertising his plan to
achieve financial liberation through litigation. I thought it was funny, anyways...
But what we need, and what you need, is to find proof that someone thought about this, wrote this down, did it, was going to do it, or wanted to do it
Actually, I don't understand *why* any business would want to do this. I mean, sure, fill out the order form for them, but one click? Do they even ask for you to confirm the order? (Sorry, never ordered there) Hence, the lack of websites that actually do it. In any case, whether it makes sense or not, I still feel stongly about Amazon's act of patenting it.
A patent shouldn't be granted for an obvious extension. While it is a specific process, it's still an obvious one.
It's like patenting the act of painting a car. It's an obvious extension of the building of the car. Or patenting a logo on a cell phone, it's an obvious extension of the cell phone to put your logo on it. Was I the first to think of putting my logo on a phone? No? Prove it. Why should I be assumed guilty until proven innocent?
Also, BN's process requires two clicks. But they were subject to an injuction anyway because it's "too similar" to Amazon's process. Explain that to me, please.
_______________
you may quote me
Hmm, maybe I'll patent the use of swear words and make millions off suing Hollywood. Or maybe patent the use of one click to use a link! Or maybe just patent the left mouse button!!! With the way things are going, someone sufficiently rich could probably pull that off.
Heck, the biggest problem with these 'risk takers' is thier complete stupidity at what they throw money at. The VC's that have been fleeced in this first round of the internet merry-go-round may have been one of the biggest group of lemmings ever assembled. I love this st ory about Kibu.com $22,000,000 down the tube and the web site only lasted 46 days! All for a website aimed at teen age girls. For crying out loud! How can you be so stupid to blow that much money that fast????? There must be a patent on that.
Patents as an argument for protecting investors is very weak these days. A fool and his/her money is soon parted. There are a lot of fools out there.
Of course, as long as the lawyers are trying to get their cut, we will continue in this morass. Don't look for any help from Congress. We gave control of that to the laywers a long long time ago.
Won't Apple look even more stupid once this patent gets thrown out. This really hasn't been a good year for them...
The factorial of geek equals lawyer?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Have you ever had any enemies?
I sure hope not, because then you could be receiving more pointless books on your front door than you could carry back to the post office.
I wouldn't. And I'm very happy to declare that reading about this 1-click brouhaha got me INTO BUYING BOOKS ONLINE. Of course, I only shop B&N now. Last week I ordered the Alan Turing biography from Alan Hodges and Michio Haku's "Hyperspace". And, this article will probably make me order a couple more. Oh, and I bought the Copyleft DeCSS T-shirt too. And a "GNU and Linux" T-shirt at a RMS speech. And, and, and...
--
Ah, but that's because you don't have my new (and probably patentable) device: RoboClick 2000.
RoboClick 2000 works by automatically detecting the "depth-of-click"-ness for your current shopping experience, and then emitting the appropriate click and keystroke sequence to get you as deeply into web-related credit card debt as you please. Of course, you can't invoke RoboClick 2000 itself via a mouse click, since that would violate Amazon's patent. Instead, you just circle the item with your mouse pointer as you hold down the shift key. This then pops up a window with a bar code in it, which you scan with your CueCat, and, voila! You're throught the check out line.
Babar
Along with the lines of what others have said, Amazon's patent on One-Click checkout is completely and unquestionably valid.
From the patent office website:
A patent may be obtained for any new, useful, unobvious invention.
A patent generally cannot be obtained on the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas;
One-click ordering, by the standards of the patent office, is not an obvious invention.
Also, its new because no one yet had turned in a patent (yes this isn't fair, but no one remembers these days that Bell didn't invent the telephone), and its obviously useful since BN is fighting over it.
Thus, Amazon is guaranteed to win since they have a valid patent.
Statements like this one are dumb to the degree of being frightening.
The statement might hold true for the old economy to a certain degree, where a lot of time and money had to go into R&D until an actual product would be manufactured.
This includes technology of course. Digital had every right to patent it's Alpha processor. They forked literally billions to research the technology and essentially bet the farm on the chip.
Now, when we come to patenting concepts (public key encryption is a nice example) then it's certainly not promoting innovation.
Patents on methods and algorithms are just a sign of an ever litigation friendlier corporate (and societal) culture. Companies like Rambus essentially suck out an economy without poring real value into it.
I really, really hope that 1 Click Parody is killed swiftly by the court.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
As has already been said, it's an obvious extension of current e-commerce methods.
Are you saying that you never thought of the possibility of someone clicking a button and an action being taken care of by previous input? Otherwise, why do cookies exist? Everyone who knows how this stuff works has easily come up with "one-click" ordering at one time or another. That makes a patent for it invalid. Case closed. Well, hopefully.
For a good comparison, do you remember the patent a guy had on a pet excercise device? It was a laser pointer that you point at a wall and move around. Tell me that isn't completely obvious. The only thing that kept me from doing it was actually owning a laser pointer. Hence, the patent is invalid.
_______________
you may quote me
Karma whore? How do you figure? I say what I feel. If I wanted to be a Karma Whore I would come up with some propaganda in line with the OSS movement/linux/whatever to spew, although it'd be off topic I'm sure I could find some clever way to squeeze it in there. In any event, you're a retard, my post had a score of 1 so I don't see how you could say I'm a Karma Whore.
Regards
Damn those French bastards to hell!!!
In democracy your vote counts. In feudalism your count votes.
Toddler Property Rules
If you don't like this patent then attack the rules that made it possible, not Amazon. Amazon are a company persuing their fudiciary responsibilities to their shareholders, and of course they're going to take every avenue possible to increase their revenue streams.
This is quite possibly one of the most disturbing statements I have EVER had the misfortune of reading.
You are saying that a corporation should be able to do whatever they want to, as long as its legal?
After all, its just trying to "persue their fudiciary responsiblilites."
If they do something DESPICABLY legal, nobody is allowed to complain? They did nothing wrong, since, hey, they need to make a profit?
Somebody needs an ethics lesson.
Perhaps a cause of this and other similar problems is calling software routines tools. When the patent office (and lawyers) see the word tools, they have some precedent to go with, namely it's patentable. Tools are tools no matter if it's a machine or some code. Assign a patent number and go onto the next application. If they had to come to grips with the beast as a new idea they would be forced to give it a good look over and hopefully realize that (for the most part) these entities shouldn't fall under the patent wand.
Is it just me or would disclosing the details of patents before they're granted revoluti*nize the discovery process for prior art?
I could be wrong, but my understanding of patent law is that in the application process you need to lay out the details of how the patentable product feature works. If the patent is granted, those details become public knowledge. If the patent is denied, those details go back into company secrecy.
So the whole patent system is designed to offer patent holders a return for opening their design secrets - a period of time where they hold a monopoly on that product feature. Obviously if your patent is not granted you do not want to share with your competitors how *you* are doing business.
Stuart
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
I'm basically against software patents, but I just got an email from Amazon about a CD ready to come out, wanted it, and did buy it because it was so damn easy. If I had to type in all my info again I may have let it pass. I'd still rather see the patent challenged, but you have to give them some credit.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Patents aren't about rewarding innovation--the benefit to the inventor is the invention itself. (E.g., if the innovation has no commercial value, the Patent Office doesn't give the inventor a cash grant.) Patents are about rewarding inventors with a limited temporary monopoly for sharing the details of their inventions with the rest of the world, so that science and industry can progress faster.
The fact that someone is first with an idea is not the only consideration when granting a patent. The invention is supposed also to be something that isn't obvious to someone "skilled in the art", which is to say there's supposed to be a real cost to having others reinvent that particular wheel that society is saved by the process of patents and licenses.
Something like one-click is obvious to anyone skilled in the art. There are no details that need to be shared to prevent duplicate effort--the only way that Amazon could prevent a competitor from reimplementing one-click within a few hours of hearing about it would be to not use it (or even mention it) themselves. But that's not the kind of thing that's supposed to be protected by patents.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> Amazon puts it around their core sales strategy. So, they try to patent it.
So only one buisiness WORLD-WIDE (because the WTO is here to ensure that us europeean will have to recognize american patents in a few years, and the rest of the world will have too) can do one-click shopping ?
In brick-and-mortar, this would means that someone could have patented the idea of going into a store, choosing what you want to buy on shelves, but them into a sort of thingy wiuth little wheels, and paying the goods before living. Would you have granted that patent ? Would you want that there will be only *ONE* store where you can buy stuff this way ? How can you be so clueless ?
> Who here hasn't pushed the rules to check how far they could go, with sports, work, overclocking, etc?
This have nothing in common with the patent case. If you want to push the rules by running faster, more power to you. If you overclock your 486 DX/33 to 1.3Ghz, more power to you.
Those cases have *no* influence on my life, or on anybody else life. Zero. Nada. You have the freedom to do whatever you want but, as we say in french 'La liberte individuelle s'arrete la ou commence celle des autres' (paraphrased: your freedom stops where the freedom of others starts)
The problem with 'amazon bending the rules' is that they have real impact on other people life, and this at two levels:
* First everybody that want to do something as trivial as one-click shopping is fucked
* Second, and much more importantly, trivial patents and IP opn software is moving into a acceptable idea (hey, you have +4 insighfull for such a lame protection of amazon patent)
> They're trying to discover their boundaries.
They are trying to discover *ours*. And they are trying to set those boundaries as far in our ass as we'll let them do.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Amazon can't honestly thing that they will get away with this one-click shopping patent do they? It sounds like we are simply dealing with a company that is slowly failing, and trying to find additional sources of revenue before it goes under....
Perhaps someone should patent applying for stupid patents?
I hav decided that I will patent the following:
Well, between British Telecom's Hyperlink patent and Amazon's "one click shopping" patent I have decided to combine the two and create my own super patent.
From this point forward I will hold the patent to one click hyperlinking, you must all pay me $1000.00 in royalties.
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
Investors are taking bigger risks than arguably ever before," said Irah Donner, patent attorney and senior partner at Hale and Dorr. "It seems very appropriate to protect these risky investments if we're going to encourage future growth in the e-commerce area."
Investors are taking big risks without using Government Granted Monopolies (aka Patents). The internet and internet commerce has been growing at an enormouse rate and will continue to do so without the help of government.
Based on this, isn't there a way to get patents covering anything internet thrown out?
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
Listen up you tosser, Screw amazons "fudiciary" ways. Noone would care about the patent if they didn't use it to slam BN right before christmas sales time. Bezos is a double talking jack ass and we all know it. Of course now this means I have to defend Barnes and Noble, so I may as well start defending Cthulu and George W. Bush.
As I was rummaging around the patent database, I couldn't help but repeatedly soil my pants as I beheld the depths of Amazon's patent depravity.
As I continued rummaging, I realized that software patents are taking around 1.4 years to clear during which time only the applicant and the PTO have awareness of the claim. Is it just me or would disclosing the details of patents before they're granted revoluti*nize the discovery process for prior art?
By disclosing pending patents, they could immediately offload the tedium to those organizations most desperate (and knowledgable) to stop ill-bred patents... those same organizations would be beaten into licensing submission by legal henchmen weilding ill-gotten patents on loan from the PTO.
Yeah, it would be much harder to get a patent when your competition is digging up examples of why your idea is non-obvious. But isn't that the whole point?
Start prosecuting people who file patents that have a lot of prior art or are blatantly obvious for fraud. Add a little risk. That should cut down on the stupid patents, such as the recent Russian patent on the bottle. Unlike the American Patent Office, the Russians were suitably outraged that such a patent would make it through the system and promised an investigation as to how it happened and moreover were planning on invalidating the patent.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There is an interview/debate between the head of the PTO and Tim O'Reilly that I read a while ago. The interesting thing is that whenever O'Reilly asks about an "obvious" patent, the PTO head always replies, "show me the prior art."
Is this really such a suprise in today's legal environment? I mean, even to knoweldgable practioners, what is "obvious" will probably vary dramatically from one person to another. The argument, "if it was so obvious, why wasn't it done before?" becomes quite compelling.
And, in fact, it seems that it is just that argument -- "has it been done before?" -- that the PTO uses when evaluating a patent.
Better prior art databases would, of course, help. However, patents like 1-click -- which I personally feel falls under the "obvious" category -- may not be possible to invalidate based on prior art. In addition to better prior art searches, the PTO (or the technical community) needs to create a set of rigerous criteria for determining the "obviousness" of an invention. Without such criteria, I'm afraid that it is highly unlikely that obvious inventions will ever be disqualified from patentability.
Have you ever posted with a name?
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
If you care about having a choice at all, buy independent and support your local brick and mortar.
To think that because you can buy your allegedly rebellious products at B&N means anything is a foolish thought indeed.....
Hey, you think your house is cool?
"Following Patent Law != MURDERING 6,000,000 PEOPLE."
If you cannot compare unequal objects, why even compare at all?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Yikes... listen to myself. Strange bedfellows indeed. That's war for you. Who says GNU zealots can't be pragmatic? ;-P
The Problem is that patents cant be obvious. They have to be a non obvious innovation.
A perpetual motion machine can't be patented in France, but can be every where else.. A perpetual motion machine breaks one of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics *hence it is impossible*..
But why did the French not allow you to patatent a perpetual motion machine... Not because they thought it was impossible, but because they thought it was so important and to much of a benefit for mankind...
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
No, there is no direct bribery. However, when applications come in, some people's names get recognized and other people's don't. Some applications have all the right fields in triplicate, and others don't. It definitely can make exactly the difference between granting and rejecting.
Just out of curiosty, what happens if the patent *is* ruled invalid? Would, say, Apple be able to recover the fees they paid to Amazon for the use of the 1-Click license?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Many of those involved with the setting up of the US patent system did not support the patenting of every small derivation of some concept; a patent was for some big, new, non-obvious idea. Even in the early 19th century some were worried that patenting of every minor idea would encumber further development and impede progress.
Note that European patents were often similar limited duration monopolies granted by the powers that be; however in some cases a patent had no limit on its duration.
Jefferson was for a limited duration of patent and copywrites, believing that ownership should expire with the originator of the ideas. He felt that each new generation should be free of entanglements of the previous one, that debts and restrictions incurred by one should not be inherited by the next. See0 327.html
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1999-01/
for some of his thoughts on this.
Given that a corporation is effectively immortal, the ownership of ideas (patents and copywrites) by such entities is in conflict with Jefferson's ideals.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Therefore they are infringing on someone else's idea.
And anyway, who said bookselling was a free-for-all? It was around long before the web. Pay up, Amazon.
I may be way off track here, but I look at it this way. It seems that Amazon pantented an Idea - not a process or a specifc way of doing business.
Did B&N use the same code/setup that Amazon did to create their process. I am not a law expert but I don't think that Tide sued Cheer, Gain or ALL when they created laundry detergent.
How many companies have one click methods in their Client/Server technology that brings up everything about their customers - I can think of several that I worked for.
don't touch me
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're halfways correct. As quoted from Nazi germans: "We were just following orders."
Sorry pal, but just because you're inside a bigger system doesn't mean you have to follow its rules. There are no scapegoats, only confused humans unaware of their potential.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I think that the reason no one implemented one-click buying before Amazon isn't because no one thought of it, but because it's just such a really bad idea.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
That's an old-new-economy model. In order to succeed in the new-new-economy model companies will need to proactively seek out and deliver goods to consumers, collecting money later. Only yesterday the Fedex man delivered a Christmas tree, a waffle iron, 100 unopened wax packs of baseball cards (may contain valuable rookie cards!) and a nordic skiing machine. The week before I got a Honda Civic, a Tivo and two different steak knife sets.
I hope all this stuff won't cost too much.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's my next patent: "A method for storing a user identification string across a network using transparent network-based hashing protocols." Think it'll make it?
The reason this doesn't deserve a patent is that it is not innovative, not creative, and did not require any significant capital in order to implement and bring to market.
Before you judge it to be a valid patent, go back and review what the purpose of patents is. Why do we have patents?
We have patents so that inventors will not keep their inventions secret (so that, in the long run, the sum of human knowledge and technique is increased), and so that they will have a temporary monopoly on the invention in order to recoup the development cost while making a good profit too. We want them to have an incentive to invent and publish how their invention works -- an incentive that they otherwise would not have without the patent.
Look at the One Click Patent in this light. If Amazon had not filed the patent, would we all be scratching our heads wondering how they pulled off One Click Shopping? If the "inventor" died, would we all lament that he took his mysterious and wonderous secret to the grave, forever depriving us of the knowledge of how One Click works? If Amazon had not been granted the patent, and then one of their competitors copied the technique, would we all be shouting out about how unfair it was that Amazon spent a massive $1.98 developing this advanced technology, and then never got a sufficiently long monopoly in order to recoup that heavy investment?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In fact, the headline is entirely appropriate. As the linked article clearly explains, the b+n position was not previously based on the validity of the patent-- b+n were simply arguing that they were not _infringing_ on that patent.
Arguments presented by b+n today, however, state that the preliminary injunction should be lifted precisely because the patent will be proven invalid in the upcoming trial. This is a substantial shift in the substance of the case, (in fact, it indicates an entirely new defense strategy) and merits the announcement that b+n will indeed challenge the validity of the 1-click patent.
U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman issued a preliminary injunction last December blocking use of "Express Lane" unless it was significantly modified. In granting the injunction, Pechman ruled the Amazon.com patent was probably valid and infringed by Barnes&Noble.com. The judge found Amazon.com would be harmed during the 1999 Christmas shopping season without the injunction.
Now... how would Amazon be "harmed"? I see two scenarios:
1) Customer goes to Amazon first. Either they're looking to buy, or they're price shopping. If they went to Amazon to buy, they're not going to know/care B&N has a one-click option. They're going to buy from Amazon. If they're price shopping, they don't CARE about one-click hoo-ha. They care about the price.
2) Customer goes to B&N first. Again, if they went to B&N, they're either looking to buy right then, or they're price shopping. I sincerly doubt anyone would be on B&N's site, see their "Express Lane" option, and say to themselves "Gosh! If it wasn't for this option, I'd be shopping at Amazon!" They went to B&N for OTHER reasons.
I love how bloodsuc... er, lawyers love to try and portray Joe Consumer as so completely gullible and idiotic that they can't figure out the difference between Amazon and B&N (or FuckedCompany and idealab!, etc etc).
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
If you're dumb enough to store your credit card with us, then doggonit, you're dumb enough to pay us whatever we tell you to for products you didn't know you wanted.
Why is it invalid? Because it is a shade of an idea. A trifling device. Because it's obvious and not very different from other systems. Because it STIFLES rather than ENCOURAGES innovation. Want to know what patents are supposed to cover? Here are the words of a Supreme Court justice, from way back in 1882 that pretty much cover this situation:
"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufacturers. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith." - 1882 by Justice Bradley
Granted, Amazon does tend to have good prices, and it is usually easy to find what you are looking for on their site, but there are other online bookresellers you can use.
If Amazon's customers stop shopping because of this patent, they will have no choice but to not enforce it or go out of businness. Granted, getting that many people to actually stop using Amazon (especially when 90% of them don't even know about this situation) would be pretty hard, but I for one am not going to send my money to a company who's business practices I disagree with.
So there you have it. If you disagree with what Amazon (or any other company) is doing, stop sending them money. Instead, send them a letter saying you will not use their products/services while they continue to do whatever it is you disagree with. So what are you waiting for -- feedback@amazon.com.
"My job is being right when other people are wrong." -- George Bernard Shaw
Read the story. B & N isn't challenging the patent, they are saying they don't infringe on it because their implementation requires more than one click.
B & N isn't looking to change anything about the patent system. They are playing by the "rules". If they can win, they will probably patent their version.
How is this stupid patent any different?
Genes are not inventions. Patenting genes is like patenting carbon. It's obscene. All thats required is a marker, and some guess as to what the gene does. Classic example - there is a small village in Italy, kinda inbred i guess. Because a large family developed a unique genetic condition - choloesterol doesn't harm them at all. They were wondering about their weird test results and started consulting with doctors. Eventually they see some specialists in America. Guess what they do. Extract the genes, PATENT them, and tell the family to f**k off, they're not needed anymore. How can your unique genetic heritage be patented by SOMEONE ELSE strictly for their profit? They didn't create it. They never owned or possessed it. They didn't alter it. They just described it. Gene patents are bad - the genome should belong to the species as common property. Software patents are also often bad - ignoring the criticism doens't invalidate it.
Actually, if you made a mouseover shopping site (and if Amazon's patent is upheld) then you are infringing. Sure, it's called "1 Click" but if you read the patent application itself it actually covers ANY SINGLE ACTION. Presumably this was Amazon's way of also wrapping up 1 Word shopping, 1 Stare shopping, and 1 PauseForAMoment shopping.
Read the patent app at USPTO or IBM. Read the whole thing. It'll send chills down your spine like you just _thought_ you'd experienced.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Then I can patent 7-click click here to order are you sure? are you sure? are you sure? are you sure? are you sure? are you sure? order confirmed
"no mouse balls to fish out and clean. Besides all that, there's no distinguishable mouse button." (http://www.apple.com/mouse/)
Leave it Apple to license "1-Click Buying" just when they've perfected the zero-button mouse!
Kinda explains the latest financial statements, eh?
Rod
Is this sig nificant?
Let's assume that Patents are handed out like AOL CDs. I can't imagine that smaller business could risk going after patent infringers if they're afraid it was a lame patent. Companies shouldn't have to fight over patents after they're granted; the fight should be before they're granted!
Face it: My idea of a lame patent can be someone else's life-long dream. I guess I think of 1-Click Shopping as a useless gimmick, as I'd never want to Click-and-automagically-buy something anyway, but Amazon puts it around their core sales strategy. So, they try to patent it.
My point is this: Companies try to patent everything they can due to the fact that they've had to pay for their employees to think up such things. Not everyone has the ideals of the FSF and all of the OSS developers. Businesses need to differentiate themselves, whether it be through functionality, appearance, etc.
That's why businesses need patent protection - ensure that their good idea makes themselves money, not their competitors. I don't see how we can blame Amazon. They're trying to discover their boundaries. Who here hasn't pushed the rules to check how far they could go, with sports, work, overclocking, etc?
<opinion>
Don't blame Amazon. Blame the Patent Office for giving Amazon an overly large protected space in which to operate.
</opinion>
Following Patent Law != MURDERING 6,000,000 PEOPLE.
Got that?
Now stop posting, and go back to your room and think about what you've said today, and I will take it on good faith that you will never compare the slaughter of innocents with Patent law again.
sub tounge_n_cheek {
Apparently, the issue is not whether it's a good patent or not. The issue is whether the patent is less stupid then the others. }
In all seriousness, the patent office has quite a large task at hand. 9 times out of 10, I'd be willing to bet that they don't understand what they're reading. Of those 4,000 rejected applications -- it is very possible that 3,000 of which just plain weren't written right (you'd be surprised how many companys might apply improperly), and the other 1,000 might simply just be incomprehensible.
Maybe a better question should be: Should the Patent office have a tremendous budget for hiring consultants? And should they be required to do so? I can see the day when they hire some Linux Guru to explain why one can't claim a kernel patent.
Patents are supposed to be novel and not obvious to those skilled in the art.
--
Infuriate left and right
Okay, so let's say that Amazon gets 1-Click shopping. B&N turns around and patents 2-Click shopping. Buy.com patents 3-click shopping...
:P
This is ridiculous! How many clicks does it take to get to the checkout page? (The world may never know.)
The answer is 'yes'. It was an obvious idea in that sense. 'Fifty two clicks' would not have been obvious, and that would be patentable (if anything of the sort was patentable) but one click to do the whole job was obvious to any ordinary web designer for all the same reasons that ending a sentence with a single period is obvious - while ending one with 52 periods might not be.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm gonna build a online store with One Glance Shopping! All you need to do is look at the online listing of a product and it's automatically shipped to your house. Sure, we'll get lots of returns.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
!!kaerf a ton m'I
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the article: :) delivered by Britney Spears, either... What have they done with all that cash? The more I think about it, the more a bookstore sounds like the optimal thing for an online just-in-time shopping site. They don't need giant warehouses, no giant shops (of course), no shop staff, no nothing. Sure, I guess they have quite the machine park, but a couple of million dollars should buy you that. Have they burnt it all on advertising, or what?? I guess my limited knowledge of economics and accounting really adds to my confusion, here...
As it struggles to cut costs and earn profits after losing at least $1.5 billion over the last six years...
Um, OK. I knew Amazon didn't go that well, but how do they manage to lose that kind of money? Is every book sold at loss, or what? I don't remember getting the few books I've bought from them (way before this 1-Click parody, so back off
main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
I don't know why the patents office looks at it as a new and unusual technology. I could create a one-click order button (albeit in a less secure way than Amazon.com, but still) easily.
The patent system of the US is a jungle.
Now we will see whether it is the Amazon jungle or not.
:wq!
I think the bigger problem here is the USPTO. (US patent and tm office or whatever.) Businesses are greedy, we all know that, you can't really blame them well, expect them not to work within the law if it will benefit them. What really needs to be done is a reevaluation of how the USPTO is structured, how they grant patents, and who's in charge of this evaluation. What is a common problem in government is people who do not understand something, are often the ones in the position to make laws regarding it. This needs to change. If we had tech-savvy people on a comment panel, or better, as part of the review panel in the USPTO, we would see a drastic reduction in these garbage patent filings. Anyone have ideas on how we can make something like that happen? As I currently see it, governments are juggernauts not able to be moved by the people, the exact entity government is supposed to serve.
Regards
If you don't like this patent then attack the rules that made it possible, not Amazon. Amazon are a company persuing their fudiciary responsibilities to their shareholders, and of course they're going to take every avenue possible to increase their revenue streams.
Personally, I'm attacking Amazon's revenue streams. I just bought over $200 worth of books, and did it from Barnes & Noble instead of Amazon, solely because of this stupid patent.
In fact, the headline is entirely appropriate. As the linked article clearly explains, the b+n position was not previously based on the validity of the patent-- b+n were simply arguing that they were not _infringing_ on that patent.
This is false. See the District Court Opinion granting Plaintiff's motion for an injunction, which focuses substantially on the question of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness as well as unenforceability of the patent.
Further, if what was quoted above were true, B&N would never be permitted to argue invalidity on appeal:
The purpose of an appeal is not to re-try a case. Appeals are permitted only to test whether the Court properly applied the law to the facts as the case was tried below. It is a a cannon of appellate law that you may not (with extraordinary exceptions not relevant here) argue any issue for the first time on appeal. If, as was suggested here, B&N did make a "substantial shift in the substance of the case," the Federal Circuit would be obliged to affirm summarily the preliminary injunction.
Though I was not myself present at the initial hearing before the District Court, news reports of the Preliminary Injunction made quite clear that B&N relied heavily on the validity of the patent.
Do any business methods require a lot of work and development to set up? No. Its just an idea. If someone else sees that the idea is succesful the amount of work involved will be the same as the person who came up with it first. The time taken will also be the same. In this time it will give the person who came up with it first a competitive advantage.
Its not like patents are needed to encourage business processes either. People will implement them whther they're protected or not.
Because there's an inverse relationship between education and the number of children women have. Uneducated women tend to have a lot of children, highly educated women usually stop at two, if they have that many.
Makes sense to me, I wouldn't want to carry around a kid for nine months, then babysit it constantly for ten years or so. Ugh.
But it does mean that stupid people breed more than smart people, as a rule.
mouseover shopping. All you have to do is hold your mouse over the buy button for 2 seconds...
change me
B&N has challenged validity and enforceability from the get-go, particularly during the Preliminary Injunction hearing. As you can see by reviewing the District Court Opinion, the Court rejected those arguments.
This is not to say there aren't new arguments of invalidity that can still be made at trial. Maybe, maybe not. However, only arguments made during the preliminary injunction hearing can be argued on appeal.
--
--
Pay no attention to the errors in my post. I am the great and powerful Oz.
I just patented breathing... i think it's safe to say that i'll be receiving some big ass royalties soon :)
From the District Court opinion on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
"Defendants raised a number of defenses in their pleadings and during the hearing. In support of their position that Amazon.com is not likely to succeed at a trial on the merits, Defendants placed particular emphasis on arguments that the '411 patent is invalid on obviousness and anticipation grounds and that the Express Lane feature does not infringe any claims in the '411 patent. To a lesser extent, Defendants also suggested that the '411 patent is unenforceable. "
I avoid Amazon whenever possible. Actually for computer books, bookpool.com is cheaper!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The problem is not only is it obveous it's been done before.
Basicly BBS style online books stores did this. Exactly the same busness and everything however on a BBS.
Amazon basicly addapted commen BBS practace to the Internet.. fair enough.. They waited so all such prior art was dead and gone.. Fair enough.. they patented it...
The reason nobody did it on the Internet BEFORE now is becouse it's DANGEROUS.
The technology is not anywhere near secure enough to do something like this.
On the other hand it's not that hard to do.. A bit simpler than the way Slashcode or ZenToe.cgi keeps track of your sig file.. Add secure credit card athentication and you have one-click...
It's like a lot of thies patents lately...
And finnaly the artical comments that people are taking huge risks going into e-commerce.. more than anyone ever did before...
Well if there is such a huge risk factor... maybe it's not somthing you should be getting into to start with.
I don't actually exist.
I agree.
Companies trying to patent items/processes that they own/use is NOT the problem. The problem is the patent office's granting of such patents. View it from the eyes of a company. You have a process that is integral to your business, you need to use it, so try and patent it. If the patent office has their sh!t together, then all is well with the world, the patent will get denied and EVERYONE can use it, free from worrying about some other fewl trying to patent it.
It's only when the patent office doesn't have their sh!t together that things go awry for everyone else.... In which case the company can still use said process.
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Blame USPTO for granting s/w patents in first place. Also blame lawyers for expanding the scope of their industry frivolously (to s/w patents), counterproductively, and (drum-roll please) selfishly. In particular, lay the blame at the feet of Bruce Lehmann, USPTO commissioner who institutionalized s/w patents after two for-show-only hearings. Finally, blame whoever appointed (elected?) B. Lehmann to his post.
Bleah.
= Joe =
Perhaps some of us slashdotters could get together and form a not for profit corporation that picks up the slack of the patent office. It's purpose could be to review these internet and business process patent apps at the same time of the patent office. Then when it finds particularly stupid or broad patents that look like they stand a chance of making it through the process, it sues the shit out of the people filing it. Or if not sue at least make a big enough stink to keep the patent from passing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why does it seem that the stupid people are breeding faster than the smart people?
Rasputiin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
lol, looking back it looks like he'd died or something....
.....anyway he's left /., see see http://slashdot.org/ users.p l?op=userinfo&nick=Signal%2011 for details
This way of arguing really slants things. The general form is devious: "Some have criticized [insert reasonable criticism here]. Some of this criticism comes from [insert more radical elements of the larger critiquing community here]. Similar kinds of criticisms were raised in [some other situation in which we ignored the criticisms]". The basic idea is to invalidate the criticisms by saying "yeah, but some of them come from really out-there people, and see, we've ignored this stuff before!" It's kinda like guilt by association. "If you agree with these criticisms, then you must be in this group over here which is at one extreme."
No sir, I don't like it.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
While companies like Amazon.com seek to protect their innovations, critics say the patents are too freely granted and threaten to stifle the freewheeling Internet economy.
Interesting...isn't this exactly why patents were put into to place?
Jayson
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
Does Ook the Caveman pointing at what he wants and grunting count as prior art?
The web has gotten to be rather large. I'll bet that there are at least 5,000 pages on category "X" that even the world's most well-rounded category "X" expert has never read, or heard of.
How do we _really_ know that Amazon was the first to come up with 1-click checkout? How do we know that it wasn't first conceived or implemented on some obscure site selling hubcaps for '55 Buicks?
_If_ Amazon (or some other company) was the first one to the patent office with an idea, you can't really blame the patent office for granting an "obvious" patent. Would reactions be different if this patent was held by some 15 year old kid that wanted to license it out? The world is about making money, and patents have value. Personally, I think this is mostly a PR thing for Amazon to continue to grab headlines. This is the sort of thing that they can milk continual mention out of.
It's become evident that the Internet has changed the way that we do almost EVERYTHING. The problem is that the bulk of our lawmakers and governmental bodies are folks who have been for the most part "passed by" by most of this new technology. Do you think that these people _really_ give a shit? I doubt it, they grant the patent, and let the courts sort it out, while the rest of us sit on the edge of our seats, taking bets in office pools on the day that society at large meltsdown on itself from not understanding the technology it created.
-This sig intentionally left blank
"In the fiscal year that ended Saturday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said Friday it will have granted about 1,000 patents out of 5,000 applications for computer-related business methods."
Man, if 4,000 applications failed while something like 1-click made it, makes you wonder how stupid those 4,000 were!
'Application for patent: Method -- Slamming forehead on keyboard'...
________________
________________
Private Essayist
BT announced today that their patent on the hyperlink results in Amazons claim becoming invalid.
BT claims that their patent covers any text displayed on a surface which when pressed has an action. Light switch manufacturs are alledged to be one of the next targets for BT's lawyers.
...I'm starting:
.sigs??
http://www.oneclickpatents.com/
Where you can patent anything that you can do in one click! Some ideas:
The one-click toaster!
The one-click can opener!
The one-click coffee maker!
The one-click 'make a letter appear on the screen'!
The one-click lightswitch!
-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
It may not be a particularly "insightful" patent, but that doesn't by itself disqualify it from being invalid. The patent office does have guidelines about these sorts of things, and I think it's clear that Amazon were the first people to actually use this kind of system in a real-world situation.
To me this means it is a valid patent.
If you don't like this patent then attack the rules that made it possible, not Amazon. Amazon are a company persuing their fudiciary responsibilities to their shareholders, and of course they're going to take every avenue possible to increase their revenue streams.
Nothing is too silly for a legal system. Legal system works by the law, not by "common sense", and this is probably good because some 90% of earth population is lacking that sense completely and the remaining 10% have very different view on what it is.
You won't blame your computer when it does something stupid - you don't blame legal system for it. You blame the law (or lack of it) which made it to work this way. Your americans should call (or write) your government representative and make the law change, not blame some poor guy at the patent office because he doesn't know is the "one click" obvious or not - most probably for him it's just half of "two click", whatever that be.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
How about a double click method instead?
It doesn't sound as trendy as single click technology, but realistically, it wouldn't take any longer to buy stuff. From what I see on the patent, This would be a great loop-hole to work around.
Barnes & Noble's 2-10-Click patent is much like Amazon's 1-Click patent, and may actually serve to change Amazon's process. Sources have reported that as many as 10 Clicks are needed to actually use this service, as opposed to a simple 2 to click "buy now" and then "submit order". Barnes & Nobles tells neildogg news that this new approach to ordering doesn't serve to make the user experience more enjoyable, but to make Amazon have to change their 1-Click ordering processes as to make them actually use 1 Click.
On par with their naming scheme of OSX, Apple is currently patenting any number of click ordering, stating that they were the first people to actually use the mouse, yadda, yadda. Another piece actually bundled up with this same case is the single button ordering patent. Apple's mouse is the only mouse to have one button, and almost all sites require only one button be used to order. Apple's mouse being the mouse that fits this reasoning should definitely, then, obtain the patent.
Am I the only person who has a mouse that clicks on both the button press and button release??
In order for their technology to be "one-click", I must be able to mouse-over the link, press my mouse button and power-off my system before releasing the button (which would cause another click). I'm afraid this is not the case. And besides, it makes me fsck forever.
I guess the USPTO has the corner on those pat. pending mouse buttons that somehow silently release.
Information wants to not be anthropomorphised.
YES !!! Somebody has actually been granted a patent for Method of exercising a cat !!
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Hell yeah. There's already talk of Sun Microsystems and Netscape battling to be the first to create the "one-click crash" (Sun with Java 2, Netscape with Navigator 6). IMHO, we should take every possible step to supporess the "instant gratification now, damnit!" movement, of which Apple, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.com are a part of. Apple already created the one-button mouse, and now with this one-click patent, they want to finalize their monopoly of choices. Pretty soon, every dialog box in Mac OS will have ony one button to click! It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I justifiably came under fire just yesterday for being an absolute idiot, by having an online petition against software patents underneath an amazon banner. This was done due to my absolute bone-headedness. It was good to be given a bash with the clue-by-four.
/fpt/view.cgi?id=1.
I'd still like everybody to take the time to sign this petition against online petitions. I'm not making a cent. At the moment there are no sponsors.
http://freepetitions.com/cgi- bin
Please sign against software patents if you believe they halt innovation.
thenerd.
The camels are coming. I'm in love.
From the headline and story, you'd have almost no idea what is actually going on. In fact, this is a continuation of the Amazon v. Barnes & Noble case filed last year, where Amazon sued B&N for patent infringement, sought a preliminary injunction, and Amazon prevailed.
Now, when a preliminary injunction is granted, the losing party is entitled to seek appeal directly to the Federal Circuit, rather than waiting until a final judgment is rendered in the case. This article is just that appeal. There is no new evidence or prior art that has been or can be raised, just a review of the decision below in view of the record that was then before the Court.
Maybe B&N will prevail, maybe not. If Amazon does prevail, however, do you suppose that we can expect to see a headline stating that the Amazon 1-click patent has been cleared as valid? Of course not. It would not be true, nor would it be appropriate -- that's not what will have happened -- this is just a case resolving an appeal of a temporary injunction. For the same reason, the present headline and story is likewise inappropriate.
I would, however, be interested in the specific issues being appealed -- does anyone know if a copy of the briefs may be found on-line?
Here's a useful link on Prior Art http://www.ipmall.fplc.edu/ipcorner/bp98/welch.htm
Presumably Amazon only has the US patent on one click shopping?
;o(
I realise its been said before, but couldn't you just set up your server elsewere.
Given that patents have always been national exploitation rights, (ie granted monopolys) and the net is inherently international it should either get its own patenting body (which countries would have to agree to enforce) or be outside the realm of the patents system
Sig11, you'll be missed
Lets patent everythign possible.
I'm going to patent the fact that my car door opens with only one handle. There are millions of cars sold every year that are in direct violation of my patent.
I'm also issueing a patent on the one power button on my computer. People have been pressing one button to turn on their computer for the last few years. Just one button. The only thing better would be for them to have to pay me to do it.
Maybe there should be a patent on one click message boards. I type a message and one click. BAM!!! My post is being read and moderated.
</sarcasm>
I'm sick and tired of this attitude in America that we should patent turning on the computer with the left hand vs the right and sueing everyone over the littlest thing. I personally feel Amazon should have to pay Barne's and Noble for wasting there time with frivilous and otherwise annoying patents. Not to mention the loss of buisness B&N felt.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"