Slashdot Mirror
One Click Setback for Amazon
dbrutus writes "Amazon lost its bid to continue a preliminary injunction against BarnesandNoble.com. You can find a press release to give you all the details."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The argument that Bezos and others gave for enforcing this patent was that of fiduciary responsibility: their responsibility to make full use of the "assets" at their disposal. The claim was made that they could be sued by shareholders if they failed to exploit this patent.
So now, what's needed is a disincentive. Losing the actual patent in court (as I'm sure they will) is not enough. By pushing this patent against all common sense, they have wasted company money, squandered goodwill, diluted their management focus, and generally done a bad job of doing what they're supposed to do, sell stuff on the web.
A shareholder lawsuit would be symbolic, and perhaps give the next dumb corporate management group something to think about next time such a worthless patent is being sought or enforced.
Slashdot is just trying to make sure it's covered, in case the Patent Office is about to issue a 1-Post patent to a lawyer-happy corporation.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
After I RTF-D (read the f---ing decision), the main thing I came away with is the sense that the bar has been raised for what a company can get away with in terms of preliminary injunctions related to the so-called "business method, internet, etc." patents. To quote the article:
No one questioned whether or not Barnes and Noble, et. al were using "one-click" type website buying mechanisms that most likely violated Amazon's patent. But the circuit court found that unless the patent is solid enough to withstand a challenge, a preliminary injunction shouldn't be granted. Which I agree with, BTW.Correct me if I am wrong, but the practical meaning of this is that before Amazon or anybody decides to go for a preliminary injunction, they had now better be prepared to spend the legal dollars for a full-fledged trial to defend the validity of a patent right up front.
My concern is this: what about the little inventor who gains a patent, and does not have the money to fight that kind of legal battle against, for example, a larger company? Could this decision be used by companies with deep legal pockets in a way that actually makes it alot more difficult for the small guys to succeed in developing, patenting, and bringing a product to the market? What do you think?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I think you make a very good and oft forgotten point - despite this patent ridiculousness (and I consdier it ridiculous no matter why it was done), Amazon.com has done a lot of good things, done them well, and helped people take net business seriously.
I've got to give them that.
However, I the one-click patent actually hurt the company in the end - it made them look petty, it made their competitors angry, it perpetuated the copyright-as-a-weapon mentality, and it was a distraction from needed efforts.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Books ain't workin'
Selling more stuff ain't workin'
Frivolous lawsuits ain't workin'
I know! Let's set up an honor box service and then skim 15%+ off of each transaction! Maybe the Doernbecher Children's fund or Jerry's Kids could use someone to help them accept internet donations!
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
This CAFC decision is remarkable only because Amazon.com's patent was not discussed as a "business-method patent," an "internet patent," or a "software patent." The CAFC properly treated Amazon.com's patent as it would any other type of United States patent.
I, for once, applaud the Court of Appeals on their very common sense application of the law. But honestly, we're not done yet. This appeal applied ONLY to the injunction. They still have yet to go to trial.
Hopefully, the USPTO will get a clue and consider all patents equal. That will make certain that these types of foundationless patents cease to be issued.
Every time a multinational corporation attempts to bully people with unfair patents and fails, an angel gets it's wings.
----
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
Ok, this is obviously either a troll or an idiot, but it's early in the morning and I'm bored so I'll bite.
/., the fact remains that it does exist, and the laws need to be able to separate the real McCoy from the schmucks trying to patent anything they might be able to sue people for.
You see, Amazon is a publically held corporation. Therefore, they are required to pursue the almighty buck. That's kind of the point. And I don't dislike Amazon, in fact, I think Amazon has done some good things - I like their new "honor system" that they're rolling out, both because it's kind of a slick marketing move, and it's a move away from ad based revenue for sites.
However, this patent is so obviously bogus that it's kind of a smack in the face to legitimate IP. And while the debates over IP rage long and furious and pointless on
I've been trolled, I think. Now ask me if I care.
Well, the technology here is the code.
Part of the argument about one-click is that it's trivial.
So, who'd be daft enough to license trivial code?
I don't think Apple or anyone else would have licensed "One-Click Technology"(TM).
Anyone care to make me reel in disbelief?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
What about the small ones who try to fight, and go bankrupt in the process?
Personally I think that money extorted under false pretences should be recoverable. That would be the Darwinism I'm looking for - patent something stooopid, and get fucked upside the head a few years later when everyone who ever paid you comes demanding their money back. That puts the frighteners on those making the dumbass patents.
FP.
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I say no. If Apple and the other firms didn't have the cojones to fight this bogus patent, then doom on them. Maybe this will lead to a kind of patent darwinism; the companies willing to fight bogus patents and not pay major bucks for licensing will end up saving money and become more profitable, while the executives of the companies who gave in will be ruthlessly grilled by their shareholders as to why they threw away large sums of money licensing a bogus patent.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Here's the full Judgement. It's from Feb 14th, but it seems to have all the phrases quoted in the articles so I assume some other news got in the way!
I'm staring at a patent which is a threat to my business which basically patents a network using IP with some particular use. It's clearly a pile of crap, but the patent office granted it. And as with other points of law, they're assumed to be right unless proven wrong. Who has the money to challenge this?
Something has to change and soon. This victory is a great step forward.
Has anyone gotten the "double click" or maybe the "middle click"? Personally I would like to get my patent on the "emulated third button click"
In a way they're just reiterating what US patent law says in the first place. But AFAIK this is the first time a court explicitly makes it clear that just moving something onto the internet doesn't make it "new", and doesn't make it patentable by default.
Compare this with the flurry of patents lately that takes an existing business method or process and say "on the internet", and assume that because they're doing something on the net instead of in their offline business or on a proprietary data network, it is suddenly something new.
I understand that to some degree, the above assertion is irrelevant. Amazon still made a dumb move with the patent, and should be rebuffed. Obviously the outcome of the one-click case could set a really bad precedent, but it's hard for me to get up any sympathy for B&N.
The hooligans are loose! The hooligans are loose! What if they become ruffians? -- Bill Hicks
In particular, I like the part about patents being distinguished by technique and not application, so you don't necessarily get a new patent just for writing down some existing art and pencilling "...but on a web page" on the end.
I fail to see what do you like about it. I was planning to patent a smart little idea I had. It consists of a piece of text or image, that when clicked upon, will load another web page in your browser, effectively redirecting you to that other page. I planned to name it superlink, or something of the kind, and make everybody (it might well be already in use although unpatented) pay through their noses. Now this pesky ruling is ruining my dreams. Um!
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
I've never looked at it in the intellectual property realm, but a general principle of contract law is that "mutual mistake" makes a contract voidable.
Presumably, both parties to a license agreement believed the underlying IP to be valid, so a discovery taht it woas not would be a mutual mistake. However, it is also possbile that the contract terms provide otherwise, anc ould even recite that there is a disagreement between the parties as to valididty, and that the agreement is in settlement. In that case, the agreement would continue and be enforceable.
hawk, esq.
This seems to be the essence: "...critics of business method patents can read this decision as signaling that the CAFC will require patent applicants to be very specific in the terminology which is used to define their iventions..."
One billion mosquitoes stalking in the jungle. One gets swatted. Now there are one billion and fifty mosquitoes stalking in the jungle.
Quite frankly, this is an exercise in futility as long as the basic machinery which keeps on rubber stamping genuine idiocies does not get reformed one way or another.
Existence usually comes as a surprise (Idem)
Well this isn't a total victory, IMHO, but is close to one. At least the legal and governmental entities involved are starting to actually think about the big picture.
Personally, I'm hoping that this causes a review of other ridiculous patents, and raises public awareness of patent abuse. Certainly the one-click patent is so breathtakingly stupid that if the general public hears about it, it'll be extremely humiliating for Amazon (and those who liscenced the idea).
To quote one of my co-workers: no one should be able to patent something that could be designed by a marketing department.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
> Refunds for Apple and the other firms who licensed the one click?
Yeah, Amazon is setting up a one-click refund site.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And while we're at it, how many other firms all together paid Amazon for a license?
Does anyone out there know the terms? It is an annual license fee or lifetime? And how much?
A message from our sponsor
Hehehe
6 5ca7-043108e0.. read the last line..
http://www.segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=3aa
Onion
http://twitter.com/onion2k
(Note to editors, if there is a date in a press release from a submission, and if that date is more than a few days old, it's a good chance the story's been posted already, particularly in this case. But of course, this assumes that editors read the articles that are submitted).
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
It's a sad state of affairs when we're surprised that a court comes down on the side of of common sense. That said, this is a nice preliminary finding, and we can but hope that the rest of the case proceeds in a similarly reasonable manner (whatever the result).
In particular, I like the part about patents being distinguished by technique and not application, so you don't necessarily get a new patent just for writing down some existing art and pencilling "...but on a web page" on the end.
Is the US legal system in danger of finally getting a clue, do we think? ;)
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.