Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Barnes & Noble Challenges Amazon 1-Click Patent (UPDATED)

Posted by timothy on from the and-a-one-and-a-one-and-a-one dept.

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.

5 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. It is indeed obvious by Carnage4Life · · Score: 5
    Read the actual patent, it is ridiculously obvious to anyone who has ever done any web prgramming before whether ASP, CGI, servlets, Cold Fusion, etc. It is the kind of stupid idea that PHB's come up with all the time and techies decry because it is fucking insecure. The surprise isn't that Amazon discovered this innovation but that they actually implemented it. Retrieving a customer's credit card information based on the contents of a cookie is not just insecure but incredibly stupid due to the fact that
    1. there is an Internet Explorer exploit that allows any website to
    2. any cookie on your machine.
    1. 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
  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Perhaps if I hurry,... by hezron · · Score: 5

    mouseover shopping. All you have to do is hold your mouse over the buy button for 2 seconds...

    --
    change me
  4. Amusing quote by Private+Essayist · · Score: 5
    I'm no expert on patent law, so I have mixed feelings about the Amazon 1-click patent. Yes, it ain't rocket science, but on the other hand they did come up with it first it seems. However, in that context, with the outrage so many feel about patenting such a 'simple' process, I found this quote very amusing:

    "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
  5. Here's what is happening . . . by werdna · · Score: 5

    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?