Amazon & Barnes and Noble Settle One-Click Dispute

rtphokie writes: "C|Net is reporting that Amazon.com and Barnes&Noble.com have settled the over 2 year old lawsuit over the expedited ordering process known as '1-Click' ordering on Amazon's site and 'Express Checkout' on Barnes and Noble's. Details of the settlement are (of course) unavailable."

Comments

Will this affect other sites?

[_Ash_]

The outcome of the settlement is most certainly very important. If Barnes & Noble licenses Amazons technology or if Barnes & Noble have paid some amount of money, lots and lots of other websites can expect legal action from Amazon. After all, there are tons of sites which use the 1-click technology.

Re:Will this affect other sites?

[Surak]

Hey...isn't the 'reply' function (and the fact that it remembers your login ID, password, e-mail address, yada yada) of Slashdot essentially the same as the '1-click' function on Amazon? Maybe Amazon oughta go after LNUX next. :)

Details of the settlement are unavailable

[Semi_War]

The suit set off a firestorm of protest on the Net, with many charging that the 1-Click technology was not innovative enough to warrant a patent. The suit also touched off a larger debate over Internet-related patents.

I would be interested in discovering exactly how they settled this. A pattent on the 1-click technology should never been issued in the first place. In my opinion a lot of Internet technologies were pattented, look at an earlier /. article and have a good laugh:
Slashdot infringing on Microsoft patent #US5819032
quote: a computer having a communications port coupled to a back channel to the publisher, a processor, and a display; like a browser connecting to a web server

Re:Details of the settlement are unavailable

[weston]

I would be interested in discovering exactly how they settled this.

One wonders if there shouldn't be a law REQUIRING public disclosure of any settlement for any patent related suit. After all, patents were once ostensibly about stimulating general progress and the public interest, so it's a public interest matter.

stock holders, etc.

[Alien54]

The Barnes and Noble corporate site doesn't have a press release yet. For that matter, neither does Amazon, although I would expect someone to say something, if for no other reason than they are both publicly traded, and it will be difficult to keep things completely under wraps.

After all, this is something that involves huge amounts of money. and investors/owners will want to know some details.

Patent regime

[ma_sivakumar]

Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos responded to the criticism by calling for patent reform and by sponsoring an organization that investigated dubious patent claims.

Does this mean that Amazon really does not want to patent this process? They had to do it only because, if they don't someone else will do and Amazon have to battle them in court?

It is sad indeed that the system has to encourage such wasteful actions

the old water trick?

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

It is not that software patents are bad or good. It is not even required that they be fully litigated.

But, few software patents truly deserve that kind of protection.

Years ago someone filed a patent for a new novel idea he had for cleaning the manure from the cow barns. He unleashed a torrent of water and away the filth went.

The patent was denied. Why? Because many years before Spartacus or Hercules did the same thing by diverting the flow of a local stream. It was not a novel or unique idea. It worked back then. It worked now.

The same is true with the one-click patent.

How many years ago do you think the farmer came into town, dropped by the general store, grabbed a bag of rice and gave the shopkeeper a high sign as he left? Is that not "one click"? Sounds like it to me. And, that was a long time ago.

Reducing the number of steps required to complete a task is not a novel or unique idea. Should we grant a patent to the 5-step guy? And, then the 4-step guy? And, then the 3-step guy?

It is really too bad that more patents are not fully litigated. It might remove most of them from the books.

Hey. I am all for protections of intellectual property. But, they should be ligitimate patents. And, despite the claims, very few new or novel ideas actually are developed in software. Almost all are simply variations on a theme. And, the problem with most software patent applications is that they fail to fully disclose the pre-existing work that has been around for years. And, yes, the failure to so disclose is one reason for disqualification of a patent.

Amazon Sued by Half-Click Patent Owner

[guttentag]

I keep waiting to see Amazon get sued by the owner of the Half-Click patent, because every "One Click" is really two half-clicks. Once that story breaks, I'm sure they'll have a real field day with DoubleClick.

I guess the half-click people are somewhat slow. It's hard to get things done when you're busy holding the mouse button down with one hand.

BountyQuest 1-click contest results revisited

[Seth Finkelstein]

In light of this result, it's interesting to go back and review an old interview about the BountyQuest 1-click patent contest, back in April 2001 :

On March 14, 2001, BountyQuest announced that while no one had uncovered the prior art that would invalidate Amazon's 1-click patent , a few were able to surface information that could make the patent more difficult to enforce A pyhrric victory? Perhaps, but one that has called attention to the exponential growth in overly-broad and often questionable patents.

It isn't obvious to me whether the contest helped (by turning up near-prior-art), or hurt (by letting Amazon claim a PR victory). Just food for thought in view of the settlement.

What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

I imagine it happening like this...

[mystery_bowler]

Amazon's Top Lawyer: Look, we know you guys want to do the whole 'One-Click' thing. But we got a patent on it. We have to protect it. How would we look to other companies if we didn't? Like big wussies, that's how we'd look.

B&N's Top Lawyer: But your patent is too broad and ill-defined. You knew you were taking advantage of the patent office's ignorance toward technology. And we're pissed off enough about it to get it over-turned. And if you think inactivity would make you look like wussies, over-turning your patents is going to make you look like money-grubbing vampires.

ATL: We don't have to go through this, you know. You could just pay a nominal license fee...

BNTL: Yeah, and you could lick my #expletive#.

ATL: Oh come on, is that really necessary? It wouldn't hurt your bottom line in the least.

BNTL: It's the principal of the thing.

ATL: Ok, then. What's your idea of a compromise?

BNTL: Ideally, all of you out of a job. But since it's not an ideal world, how about this: We don't pay a license fee and do the 'One-Click' thing anyway.

ATL: Alright, alright. But only if you sign an agreement to never co-operate with, testify for or help any other company we come down on to protect this patent.

BNTL: Only if Bezos goes public and says he's in favor of patent reform.

Bezos: What?!?

ATL: You've GOT to be kidding.

BNTL: Nope. And say it like you mean it.

<Some general grumbling on the Amazon side of the table>

ATL: Deal. But don't ever have the same book of the month as we do!

BNTL: We've got no problem with that.

<End scene>

Obligatory Reference

[pangur]

Amazon (deep breathing): This is your destiny, search your feelings, you know it to be true.

B&N: No, I'll never join you.

Amazon: Join me, and with one-click purchasing and patent enforcement, together we can rule online book sales as Father and Son.

B&N: Well.........OK. But we have to keep our settlement secret, all right? I'd hate to have my friends know about our little meeting.

Amazon: I'll have my stormtrooper-lawyers work on our non-disclosure agreement.

B&N: Oh, and could you help me find my hand?

Not really

[autopr0n]

Well, according to Bezos, the suit against B&N was just in retaliation for B&N suing them for calling themselves "The worlds biggest book store" (Since they wern't a 'real' store. the suit was for false advertizing)

Bezos has prettymuch said that they would only use patents in a defensive manner, although I'm sure they're happy to license it out to people.

Sorry, I Ain't Going Back

[VegeBrain]

Here's what I have to say to Amazon.

I used to buy a lot of books from you. If you check your records, you'll find just how much money I used to spend at your site and it was not an insignifigant amount. I liked the idea of an online bookstore and considered it a privilige to buy from you because you represented the new and innovative idea of buying off the web.

Your 1 click lawsuit exposed you as just another greedy business. I quit buying from your website and started telling all my friends not to buy from you because of your idiotic lawsuit. I also started telling all my friends not to buy from Amazon because of this lawsuit. Your settlement isn't going to settle my own beef against you. And I'll still give nasty replies every time you send me an e-mail trying to get me back.

And besides, there's no reason to go back. After all is said and done, I realized you did me a favor. I now buy all my books from your competitor. Now I have a Reader's Advantage card that not only gives me a discount at all B&N stores and website. Even better, this card gives me discounts at all B&N's affiliated bookstores such as B. Dalton and Scribners. To add icing to the cake I have a B&N credit card that gives me credits for B&N books every time use it. Why go back to Amazon?

I am glad you haven't gone out of business though. I like your website's organization better than B&N's. And I use it regularly to look up book information. Then I go over to the B&N website and make my purchases there.