Slashdot Mirror
Judge's Ruling Spares 1-Click
theodp writes "Agreeing with Amazon's characterization of its 1-Click feature as a feature of an electronic product ordering system and not an electronic fund transfer or transaction system, a Judge has tossed out a $50M lawsuit that threatened Amazon's 1-Click patent. But outside of Court, Amazon touts its patent-pending Amazon Honor System as a way for Web sites to use 1-Click shopping technology for voluntary payment transactions - most notably for 9-11 donations and campaign contributions - that do not involve consumer goods or Amazon-specified prices, which the Judge argues are essential 1-Click ingredients."
This is what happens when you are the ones who give the whores in DC money to write laws and regs for you.
Large companies in the US are not held to the same standard as others are.
Regretfully, what happens in civil court doesn't orften reflect the outside world. I think another suit will have to be filed with Amazon's claims as part of the complaint for them to be taken seriously and the patent thrown out (or at least clarified).
Put identity in the browser.
How can a company patent one-click shopping? If you think about it, one-click shopping is just a system for storing credit card info and address info in an account, then facilitating purchases without requiring to enter that info again. Software patents are just pathetic.
When you have the money, just pay the judge off. It's the american way.
Interesting, but you must realize:
Devising a 2-click shopping mechanism is simply the 1-click mechanism two times. Now you're in violation twice.
Some of these patents are way out there. I like to shop at Amazon, but a one click patent, come on? It reminds of that company that tryed to patent linking, now that would have killed the internet, crazy.
roamingfeet
This ruling doesn't actually say that 1 click ordering is a good and just patent, it just says that it doesn't infringe on another similar patent, is that correct?
In other words, if someone else were to implement 1 click ordering, and Amazon sued them, this case would have no bearing on that one.
Programming is the act of automating the use of complexity, usually made up of simpler complexities, so to enable the use and reuse of the complexity by the user of that complexity, easy.
There is a world of prior art here, going back even before computers were invented, to the initial use of abstractions to express a more complex thought.
Even if one-click was leitimate (which O'reilly said it very well may be) the honor system is definatly not non-obvious building on the first. So the honor system certainly shouldn't pass.
PS, I think software patents are bad, but in the framework that they are legel there is a case to be made for one-click.
I am more pissed that software patents tend to patent ideas and not implementations (the source code). If a software patent required the code to the application, whch would then become public domain it would make a lot more sense.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I don't see how any company thinks it can win by trying to pull this kind of stunt. Well, other than by the fact that companies usually do win by pulling this kind of stunt, because nobody really pursues it, since they expect the company to lie through their teeth anyway.
That, I think, is the biggest problem. Because nobody expects a business to have any integrity, they don't do anything when that proves to be the case. If you want better, sometimes you've got to believe you deserve better and do something about it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
First Microsoft filed a patent for double-clicking, and now Amazon has a single-click patent. Geez!
Sig Nature
Surprise! Your 9th grade social studies book was wrong. America is not a Democracy, and it's not a Republic either. It's an Oligarchy disguised as one or the other. People like Jeff Bezos aren't merely above the law, they get to surf on it.
Do not mix...
Companies should compete on their implementation of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Amazon's implementation of 1-click is so excellent that it makes me want to shop there rather than anywhere else. Amazon's attempt to patent 1-click makes me want to shop elsewhere.
I hereby claim my patent: 1-stick.
"A method that allows multiple users to, using a single mouse operation, to stick their finger up at Amazon."
I've already got a better method. I've patented 0-click shopping. If you mouseover anything in my store, you buy it. I've placed all the popular items in the center of the pages with the overpriced crap around it.
Combined with my no-return policy, business is booming!
This may be a nutty idea (as I'm still hungover this morning), but let's say you coded a form to accept a click input, then submitted to a second page which then did the second 'click' via JavaScript or some other silly method, would that violate the patent? Technically it's a two-click method, but would appear as a one-click method to the user.
Have they patented the process, or have they patented the 'look and feel' - which cannot be patented (to the best of my knowledge)?
I'm suddenly reminded of the Dilbert comic where Dogbert explains that he has patented "zero-click shopping" and that if Dilbert doesn't click the mouse soon, Dogbert will have to ship him some books.
Look, if you're so outraged by Bezos and his stupid fucking patents, STOP SHOPPING AMAZON and STOP ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO DO SO. Might I recommend bn.com or, God forbid, get off your ass and drive to your local Mom and Pop bookstore? The latter is almost certainly more deserving of your loyalty than is Amazon.
Buy the President
AC comments get piped to
It's been around for ages. BMG "music club" has had zero click shopping for years. If you don't tell them NOT to ship the cd, you get it and are billed.
I hate to say it, but Americans are *screwed*. The real reason for things like software patients isn't to fight other big companies - they are already well down the MAL (mutually assured litigation) path, the real reason is to stop new people entering the business world, and to keep the economic caste system well in place.
Did anyone else get the feeling from the Lawyer Press release that they were disapointed that the case was over so quickly? Loss of billable hours and all that?
-Ariel
Reminds me of the Dilbert strip where Dogbert patented no-click shopping.
You better click something or I have to ship you some books.
The poster (and most replies) misunderstand what's happened, probably because they don't have access to the judge's opinion (I looked at it through Lexis) and because they didn't read the CNET article.
Amazon was sued for allegedly infringing IPXL's patent. IPXL's patent was VERY specific and the court found that Amazon's 1-Click system did not do all of the things that IPXL's patent claimed as their own invention, hence Amazon won.
It is true that PART of Amazon's defense was that the 1-Click system is not an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) system. The poster suggests this is disingenuous because they are touting their EFT capabilities in the CNET article. However, the article explains that Amazon is seeking OTHER patents to cover those EFT systems, and so the 1-Click technology is not relevant to those applications unless it turns out to be prior art. It might seem obvious to the lay person that it is (and probably it should be) but the lawyers writing patents for Amazon get paid a LOT of money to write good patents, and you can be assured that they will find a way to write up these new patents in such a way that the 1-Click technology is not invalidating prior art.
If you want to be irked with something, it's not this judge, Amazon, or even the lawyers involved that should upset you. They are dealing with the system they've been handed. Only Congress can decide that software patents themselves are a bad idea, so tell them you want to see a change if you're upset by all of this. Complaining about the rest of it is misguided and won't solve anything. The only other thing you could do is donate to EFF who is actively involved in busting bad patents. See link in sig.
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.