Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Puts Amazon 1-Click Patent in Question
sallen writes "An article in the Internet News which can be read here indicates the Appeals Court handed Barnes and Noble a victory by overturning the the injunction of the lower court based on the Amazon Patent. In the article it stated "The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found, after careful review, "that BN has mounted a substantial challenge to the validity of the patent in the suit." All I can say is, it's about time!"
I'm gonna sit back and watch their stock price soar.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Did it conflict with a Barnes & Noble one-click patent, or are the courts becoming rational?
</SARCASM>
The article is brief in the extreme, and just says that B&N raised some questions, and at the moment the court likes them.
Therefore, it doesn't do much to assuage my fears about rampant patent abuse.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Congratulations to a big, faceless corporation! (That would be aimed at B&N, not Amazon.)
B&N had resources to fight this obviously undeserving patent. And now we all stand to benefit if the case is ruled in their favor. Question is: will they "pull an Amazon" in the future and do something equally offensive to consumers? Or will they show that they give a $hit and conduct business in a consumer-friendly way?
Only time will tell. But at least we have now witnessed one rational ruling from an appellate court. To B&N and the court: thank you for your efforts. It's sad to be thanking a company and a court for doing the right thing. But it is well-deserved.
Philip Greenspun claims to have implemented
a one-click shopping system back when he had
to argue with people who thought the shopping
cart must be the way to go because Amazon was
using it.
It's highly unlikely that Amazon was really
first... (and even if they were, there's the
problem of "non-obviousness"...).
So you're saying that at the time Amazon developed this technology, no one else could have? Because THAT is the standard that patents are supposed to be held to. To be patented, somethings must be non-obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the area that the patent is granted - in this case, web development.
When you say it's non-obvious, you're saying that either NO ONE else could have thought "Hey! Let's make it so customers can click ONE BUTTON and get their order" or that NO programmers except Amazon's could have developed the technique. I would suggest that had anyone else had the thought (and many have, independently of Amazon) and that any team of web developers could have come up with Amazon's tehnique if their managers had said "Code it this way or you're fired!"
I'll grant that my opinion runs counter to that of the USPTO and most patent attorneys, but I believe that my opinion closer matches the intent of Congress and the Constitution. Patents become easier to obtain and easier to grant because the two interested parties (patent applicants and the patent office) want it to be as easy as possible - the USPTO so they can trim their budget and tell Congress "Look! We granted 40 million patents last year! Ain't it cool?" and patent applicants so they can spend half an hour filling out a form and then two decades suing everyone else in their industry.
IANAL, but if I were, I'd commit suicide.
> Congress really should get around to fixing the broken US Patent Office processes, too.
Unfortunately, that doesn't fit in with most well-heeled lobbyists' agendas.
Most businesses look at the internet more as a gold rush than an opportunity for sober economic expansion, and they won't take too kindly to having the Congress spoil the party.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> If I was an investor, I'd want to know why Amazon is so intent on giving money to lawyers to protect a buisness model that isn't even making them any money.
Actually, I think A is realizing that e-commerce isn't all it was hyped up to be as a business plan, so now they are looking for other means of turning a buck.
Ditto for all those companies who tried to score big during the "portal" rage.
However, RAMBUS has a business model that actually works (if they win enough lawsuits), so you can expect more e-commerce companies to tranform themselves into IP holding companies.
Which should give the public a hint at what's wrong with patent policy in the USA.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I "disembrace" that idea. Vigorously.
The constitutional grounds for patents (in the USA) is about promoting progress, not promoting monopolies. If you read it carefully and think about what it says, you'll realize that the only things that could be patented and still promote the constitutional goals would be things that people could not figure out by examining. The philosophy stated in the US Constitution calls for patents as a way of getting people to share ideas that would remain hidden otherwise.
For example, if I invented a new way to rifle a gun barrel efficiently, people could look at it and see that it had been rifled, but they probably could not see how my clever method did it. They would be free to come up with their own methods of rifling, but if mine was truly more efficient they would want to know what they couldn't see, and a patent would motivate me to share my idea -- all to the good of the public (assuming the public needs rifles), not all to the good of me.
US Constitution to the side, there's also an ethical issue. Anything you think of is built on millenia of prior ideas and technology. Can you fairly milk the public for the use of "your" idea, when 99.9999...% of "your" idea is just the traditions of your culture? A fair patenting system would read like the terms you get when you buy a house:Sorry, but there's just not much personal credit left over in a technological idea, once prior credit has been given where due.
Finally, how "ingenious" is any idea? Look at the history of inventions, and see how often an idea was independently proposed and/or developed. Technology is like a wavefront; once the wave reaches a certain point, certain ideas become feasible and people will start to harvest them. I don't see where an individual is entitled to get rich just for being at the right place at the right time. Even if Amazon happened to be first at the one-click business, someone else would have come up with it within a very short period of time afterward if Amazon had not, once the technology was there.
FWIW, I do support copyrights, though I do not support attempts to take away Fair Use (for my works or any others), nor do I think copyrights should be perpetual.
As for the patent system as currently practised in the USA, well, it's totally fucked. Powerful interests have a notion that everything should be 0wned, and the gold rush is on. It's a convenient scam for ensuring that the rich continue to get richer, since the patent owners just give each other tit-for-tat licensing, and leave the have-nots to pay what they don't have.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So does that mean you'll let me follow you around with a loaded gun pointed at your head? I promise I won't pull the trigger.
Patents are there to threaten opponents, whether they are actually employed or not is pretty irrelevant.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
To quote Kermit the Frog: "Yaaaaaay!"
Um... Is it in their best interests to change patent practices? (especially if they are being payed lots of money recently ro fight against them). If they actually take pride in what they do, sure, go for it, I trust them... but 'pride in what they do' is not the sort of thing I usually associate with a law firm.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Sounds good. Just set up a region of the screen with associated Javascript code to handle a MOUSEOVER command. Then tie that into code which (1) launches an order, and (2) disables the mouseover box (to keep the truly moronic from ordering the same item again and again). If you want you can include a quantity box above the mouseover box. THat way you could order more then one quantity of an item at a time, all by moving your mouse over the 'ZERO-CLICK ORDERING' region of the HTML page :)
:)
Heck, you could even do 2 mouseover regions either near each other or side by side (but far enough away to make it unlikely to pass over both accidentally). Use the first as a sort of 'safety toggle'. You have to pass over the first region to activate zero-click ordering, then pass over the second region to make the order and relock the system (meaning you would have to pass over the first region in order to unlock the ordering region again).
Remember folks, you've heard it hear first
You know... it may take some playing with, but I think it might actually have some interesting applications. If the ordering kicks off a child window to actually process the order (keeping the current window pointing to the same page but opening up a stripped down window for the processing and status), this might actually be a usable idea.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Amazon actually paid Apple to license 1-click in order to give the patent some credibility....
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
I didn't say that Barnes and Nobles wanted to change the tide of IP law, I said that it was this law firm that probably has the best chance of making changes in the future. In specific, they've been taking on a lot of frivolous patents lately. Well, to be accurate, they've been hired to take on a lot of frivolous lawsuits lately.
Maybe they'll be able to force some changes in patent law. Maybe not. That's all I was saying.
---
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
All that I can say is, I know the patent attornies who are working for Barnes and Nobles, and these are the best guys in the business.
I've worked with them before, and I've got to say, if anyone can change the tide of Intellectual Property law, it's these guys.
If any of you were wonderring, they're Pennie & Edmonds, LLP. Expensive as hell, but worth every cent.
---
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
And I hate to say it but you shouldn't expect the courts to reverse the trend. The current opinion is that everything under the sun which is made by man can be patented. That paraphrase comes from Diamond v. Chakrabarty which iirc went to the Supreme Court. While the patent is for a micro-organism that statement from the Supreme Court was used to uphold a business model patent which atm, I cannot recall. :P
The only way to fix the patent system, imo, is to ammend patent law. Being the cynic I am, I cannot see that ever happening. Be prepared to fight business model patents a few million dollars and a decade at a time.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
of invalidating lots of stupid business-method patents.
Congress really should get around to fixing the broken US Patent Office processes, too.
--
the methodology involved was first developed at amazon, so they may have some claim to it.
Being first hardly gives you a claim to a patent, you also need the patent to be non-obvious, a test which one-click fails. When humans colonize other planets, there will be a first person to build a hotel on another planet, although this person is the first to do it, this does not qualify the person for a patent because they are doing something obvious, the only reason nobody did it before them is because it was not until recently that technology allowed them to do so. It is the same with the one-click patent, the technology of cookies was new, and Amazon happened to be first to use them to make one-click shopping, but this doesn't mean it wasn't an obvious idea -- that Amazon immediately thought of using cookies to enable one-click shopping indicates that it was an obvious application of the new technology. Had it taken years for someone to use cookies for one-click shopping I would say that it was an innovative use, but that it was thought of immediately implies it wasn't (not that every use of a new technology is obvious, but if you hear of a new technology, the first uses that pop into your head are likely to occur to other people as well).
"Electronic Gift Certificate System" (Thinkgeek, are you violating this one?)
"Internet-based customer referral system"
"Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network"
"System and method for refining search"
"Identifying the items most relevant to a current query based on items selected in connection with similar queries"
"Uh, a spellchecker"
"Hypocritical and inherently contradictory process for the written and/or verbal justification of ridiculous patents by an exploiter (and beneficiary) of an easily-abused Patent Registration Office"
Here's an idea for you...
:P
The zero click ordering process.
It basically works just like the Columbia House selection of the month. Every month you'll get some crap that you didn't want mailed to you, along with a nice little bill for you to pay. Just remember you heard it here first
The article is a little scarce on the details, but I expect so is the actual court ruling. They said that B&N lawyers raised several valid objections to the validity of the original patent. They didn't exactly say whether this was because of prior art or obviousness or some technicality. On this basis, the court stated that it would be inappropriate to grant an injunction against the use of the technology pending a full trial.
So the only difference is that while the original court said "You are obviously infringing. Stop now, until a full trial makes a decision either way.", the appeals court said "It's not that obvious that they are infringing. We're going to let them continue until the full trial makes a decision either way"
Mmmm.. Donuts
The sad part of the story is this: everyone I talk to about amazon and software patents has no idea of the problem. It seems like over half of even the technical people are not aware of the problem. How do we increase publicity on the problems with the software patents?
For our voice to be heard, we need to make sure everyone understands the problems. For our government to act against the wishes of big companies (those who like patents), it takes lots of public outcry. It's just sad to say, but money has way too much influence on politics.
People need to understand that the internet exists due to the open standards found on the internet. They need to realize that trivial patents on software can be pushed through the system by merely providing a complex sounding description of their "invention".
The patent system was designed to increase innovation for inventions. Manufacturing inventions demand patents because it requires lots of funding to setup a factory to build an invention. But software (and especially the internet) is quite a different story.
Everyone, do your best to explain the situation. Do your best to make sure voters understand this topic. Put pressure on the legislature to change these laws.
--
Twivel
I don't know how that cleared the patent office in the first place. If patents are going to be granted for technical innovations, shouldn't they be reviewed by specialists in the fields they affect?
Ok, so today Barns and Noble wins, tomorrow Amazon will win, and then next maybe Barns and Noble will win again.
The real winners always have and always will be the lawyers.
Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"
Innovation flows from the notion that someone can earn money off their hard work and clever ideas, but it certainly also follows that patents on basic innovations can do more damage than good. Balance. That's the key.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
How can they call it "1-click ordering" if you have to click 2 times just to open up the window?
I am !amused.
If I was an investor, I'd want to know why Amazon is so intent on giving money to lawyers to protect a buisness model that isn't even making them any money.
The 1-click patent has always been part of a war between Barnes & Nobles and Amazon. The fact that it touched off so many passions on Slashdot is just an unexpected side effect. Read my earlier post about the punches that B&N has thrown Amazon or even better do a search for Amazon, B&N and the words lawsuit or sue and you'll be rather surprised to see the amount of blows that have been thrown by both parties. The rivalry between both companies is similar to the irrational hatreds that run deep within the Sun and Microsoft camps. The reason few geeks know about is that it's been mainly news for the book industry and few else.
After all, you'll note that Amazon hasn't sued anyone else for violating their patent.
Then explain why DuPont spent 3x as much on PR than they did on R&D.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Now hopefully they start going after other frivilous patents like British Telecomm (the hyper-link) and AltaVista. In both cases (and so many more), prior art has been shown but the patent office still issues patents! Are they stupid or just dump? Perhaps the patent lawyers that worked on the cases should be looked into, too, and barred from patent cases if nothing else.
This is clearly a case of companies grabbing technology and honing it for money and name-sake, but they didn't invent it! This is bad business practice as well, and I urge you /. readers to keep usage of such sites to a minimum (obviously you can't with the hyperlink very easily).
Maybe it's time courts (like the Supreme Court?) start evaluating whether or not people should be able to patent certain technologies that have become a mainstay in the Internet community, like XML, HTTP, the hyperlink, SGML, indexes, etc. If companies keep privatizing what they don't own in the first place, bye-bye Internet, hello big-brother rule again!
It is a lot more than just disclosure of secrets. If you think that pharmaceuticals are only made by secret techniques, you are wrong.
Finding out what chemical cures what illness is a lot of it. Once that is out, copying is easy, and POOF goes millions or maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. The copier gets for free that that chemical is safe and effective and what it is and what disease it is for.
All he has to do is start a factory, and drive the first maker out of business.
Sorta sucks in my book. Obviously, not in yours.
You can get the opinion at either Findlaw(HTML) or at the Federal Circuit(MS-WORD) web pages.
I think that the /. community wouldn't mind getting rid of Method based patents that require open protocols to achive.
Doh!
I'm really surprised more companies aren't fighting for the same rights we are. Why aren't the MP3 patent holders fightiing alongside Napster? There is MUCH less incentive for me to pay for MP3 software (and they get a cut of that purchase price) without Napster. Why aren't the hardware producers fighting laws saying they pay royalties to the RIAA for things like tape recorders? Why aren't DVD player makers fighting on the side of DeCSS? Why isn't Microsoft fighting Apple's assertions of control over the Aqua interface?
I mean really, a bunch of people are fighting RAMBUS! I'm surprised we don't hear more of this.
MyopicProwls
MyopicProwls
My homepage
Associated Press
Washington, D.C.
With all the hype of 1-click patents, the patent office has decided that they would like to actaully implement such a solution. Anyone will be able to create thier patents with just one click from the patent office's web site with this new system being introduced. A spokesman with the patent office stated "We at the patent office have decided that we would like to move in to the 21st century. To do this we will leave behind the cumbersome ways of registering patents like we have in the past and move to our new 1-click system of registering patents." This new method of 1-click patents will make it easier then ever to register a patent. This plan was annonced just after the appeals court put Amazon's 1-click patent in question.
If you look at it, Amazon probably got what they wanted, which is make Barnes and Noble.com waste resources in the courts for over a year (Since December 1999) and to make them remove the "one-click" shopping with their affliate stores. Believe me, I'm pretty pissed that the courts made Bn.com remove its version of "one-click" payment. This is such as stupid patent that Bn.com should be compensated for their legal fees and any possible revenues! Unfortunately, that requires cash, something that both companies need to spend elsewhere.
Remember, though, this is just a ruling on the injunction, not on the actual court cases. An injunction is simply used as a preliminary step to prevent one side or the other from significantly damaging the other; there was obviously no need to apply an injunction here as Barnes and Noble's use of a one-click shopping scheme has only a tenuously connection at best to damages to Amazon. An injunction not a final decision by any means. (Note that the Napster "ruling" was also just a ruling on an injunction.)
A full trial is still on its way (starting in September, according to the story), so we could see a different result then -- or the same one. (Barnes and Noble actually stands a better chance of victory in a full trial, as their lawyers will have more of a chance to outline the flaws in the "one-click shopping" patent. Amazon would want to put this case through as quickly as possible so that the jury wouldn't get to hear all the arguments that could be levied against them.)
Yu Suzuki
Yu Suzuki
Deamcast. It's thinking.
Because: a) they believe that if a process is being copied by their competition then its a worthwhile process - therefore has a licensing value that translates into possible revenue, which they could use, b) if they don't sue in protection of their patents they'll get sued by their shareholders for negligence and incompetence ("The management has not been actively protecting the company patents, thus causing damages to us, the shareholders"), c) Amazon believes it will eventually turn a net profit through use of various "innovative" business methods, of which it believes 1-click buying is one, its an advantage that could allow them to turn a profit at their competitions cost so its an advantage worth exploitng. And a patent is not necessarily a monopoly. And I don't work for them or agree with the 1-click patent, I'm explaining the thinking behind these suits.
Well, first off, Amazon didn't actually patent the online shopping cart - - in fact, Amazon cited consumer frustration with the online shopping cart as one of the reasons it sought to develop it's one-click method. Second, and more importantly, read the appellate court decision. It does not finally resolve the question, since as other /.ers have noted it only vacates the District Court's injunction, but it certainly suggests that Amazon does not not have a valid patent because the "innovative" one-click method had been previously disclosed by others, and was thus not patentable. The decision describes scores of prior art references....
I would be asking for a refund!
::I will not moderate my opinions for your stinking karma
Although the idea of the "click" as obvious prior art, the actual patent touches on many idea's for the methodology of grabbing the cart information from the db, storing that data, and calling it later.
i think its a pretty lame thing to patent, but the methodology involved was first developed at amazon, so they may have some claim to it.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
It never ceases to amaze me how companies that are struggling to turn a profit are willing to spend money on silly lawsuits.
If I was an investor, I'd want to know why Amazon is so intent on giving money to lawyers to protect a buisness model that isn't even making them any money.
Honestly, it's like having a patent on "exfoliating creams for ring tailed lemurs" or something. It may or may not be patentable, but if you can't turn a profit on the invention even with a government enforced monopoly, is it worth patenting? Is the pattent then worth enforcing? Of course not.
--Kara
--Kara
Before you ask, I already have a boyfriend and he's more of a man than you'll ever be.