New Amazon Patent Cites Bezos Patent Reform

theodp writes "In seeking yet another patent related to 'single-action ordering of items,' Amazon asked the USPTO to consider a number of documents, including Doonesbury cartoons, which Amazon earlier claimed vindicated its 1-Click patent. Ironically, much of this material was collected and edited by BountyQuest, which reportedly received $1+ million from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in the name of patent reform. A USPTO examiner dutifully considered the material, and on Tuesday U.S. Patent No. 6,907,315 was issued to Amazon."

Comments

Filed May 22, 2003, covers all eCommerce

[Anonymous Coward]

Its worded vaguely enough to cover all eCommerce.

Isn't there some sort of lawsuit you can bring against the patent office to force them to do their job?

Also is there anyway to check on the sharedealings of patent reviewers? Forgive my suspiciousness but when patent reviewers are so determined to do their job badly, I wonder if they have an underlying motive.

Obviousness

[NoOneInParticular]

Just a thought I had the other day for patent reform and to get rid of the horrors of 'one click shopping' patents. For every patent, there needs to be a clear statement of the problem that is solved. Although in invention one of the hardest parts is to identify the problem, the problem (i.e., problem area) is in itself not patentable. At least not officially.

Then, the examiner invites 5 people skilled in the art that are unaffiliated to the patent seeker. They are confronted with the problem description and come up with a solution to tackle that particular problem. If some of the five come up with something substantially similar to the invention that the patent is sought for, the patent doesn't get granted due to obviousness. Even if the engineers don't come up with the actual answer but with alternative solutions there will be a win, as a legal circumvention of the patent will be on record.

Such a system would have killed Bezos' original patent right of. Problem: "I want to be able to allow my customers to buy things with a single click". The patented solution would have been proposed by 5 out of 5 people skilled in the art. Similar questions as "I want to be able to stream live video to a computer", "I want to show a picture of the product I'm selling " will be shot down.

One of the big dangers of software patents currently is locking out entire problem domains, by patenting the questions, not the answers. If the question contains the answer, it should not be patentable.

Note that with this scheme the question "How does one exercise a cat" would most likely allow for this patent.

Re:Technical Inovation Indeed

[kiatoa]

From paper bags to bottle caps to different types of paper cups. It's silly.

I would argue that a lot of those "silly" patents did some societal good. Why spend money on turning a good idea into a product when you know that someone with deeper pockets (probably a corporation) can turn around and copy your design and then undercut you. Without patents there are probably lots of ideas that would either be long delayed in being developed into a product or perhaps never see the light of day at all. The problem (IMHO) is that the current patent system no longer does what it was originally intended to do. My solution: make the patent office buy back patents that lose in court and adjust the definition of what can be patented to include the concept of "impediment to implementation". If an idea is at risk of being kept secret and unpublished then a patent is in societies best interest. Otherwise why prevent others from implementing the idea? One click is a good example. The development cost of implementing the idea is very small. The likelyhood of someone else coming up with the idea is, uh, like about 100%. There doesn't appear to be anything gained by allowing the idea to be monopolized. Does knowing that the one click idea was patentable give you an incentive to sit down and think up other good ideas? I doubt it.