Amazon One-Click Patent to be Re-Examined

timrichardson writes "A New Zealand actor, frustrated by a poor shopping experience, has successfully requested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review the correctness of Amazon's infamous One-Click patent. An examiner for the agency ruled that the re-examination requested by Peter Calveley had raised a 'substantial new question of patentability' affecting Amazon's patent, according to a document outlining the agency's decision."

Comments

It's about time

[muellerr1]

I hope this is a precendent: maybe the patent system, broken as it is, will slowly get fixed over time by constant vigilant review of bogus patents.

Now we just need them to quit issuing the crappy ones in the first place.

Re:It's about time

[joe 155]

It does kind of prove his point though - people have to take out patents and protect them agressively because otherwise someone else can come and demand a slice of their business or threaten to take things away from them. I know this isn't the only reason why amazon has gone after this patent (no doubt getting at their competitor was a bonus) but it does show a fundamently flawed system

Re:It's about time

[swelke]

Re-exam is an old and well-established practice.

That may be so, but it's also a practice they haven't excercised much lately. I'd say it's an interesting precident that they're actually reexamining a high profile case.

Try learning for a change. You would be amazed at what you find out.

Try not being an ass for a change. You'd be surprised at how nice everybody else suddenly becomes.

Great, but...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

OK, so maybe there was a prior patent, but why is there any patent on a "single clisk to buy it" business process? That's just stupid in the extreme.

Re:Great, but...

[deadlinegrunt]

"Well duh. For all the ink that's been spilt on this issue, I'm amazed that all it took was a dude from New Zealand willing to throw a few grand at the problem to get it reviewed. Krikey!"

All the groupthink, anti-this.or.that that is abundant on slashdot - It has been my own personal experience that in a capitalistic society such as the United States, money is what makes things happen. Everything else pales in comparison...Including benevolent virtues, doing the Right Thing, etc.

one click...

[joe 155]

they guy is gettiong revenge because a book took too long - he doesn't even have any real interest in this "tech". Still, I really dislike the "one click" idea anyway because you cna end up buying things without realising thinking that you would actaully get to confirm and review the purchase - I think what amazon forced on it's competitor is better than what they use.
Further, this makes me wonder how on earth this actually got made into a patent anyway it is far too general and doesn't have any novelty to it; also, it's not really a "tech" is it, it's a button - and they've existed for ages

Re:First post

[hackstraw]

I guess any link gets +1 informative.

But this is not prior art, its common sense.

When I buy goods or services on the street, I typically use "one click" stuff when the price is right.

Me: What do you have?

Them: I have X for $YY

Me: Sounds good, here is $YY.

Them: Here you go.

So, what is so unique about doing this on a computer or online?

Oh, I have to keep my CC on file with people I don't know who may sell or lose that info to someone else at any time with no compensation to me for my lost time or money. Oh, I get spammed from now to the end of time by Amazon about the killer deal of the week.

Patents need to change. Especially those that are only unique because they are "online" or "with a computer". These things are not that special, if not special at all.

Oh, and don't people in Europe buy soft drinks and other stuff from vending machines with 'one click' from their cell phones? Is that patented, or just common sense?

Who cares.

[Kadin2048]

People seem to be spending a lot of time concentrating on this guy's motivation.

I really don't understand why. Why should I care what his motivation is? The point is that he got the USPTO to re-examine a dumb patent. If it did it for the publicity or to hawk his blog or because he thinks it'll speed up the Second Coming of Jesus, I don't really care. Hooray for him, in any case; the point is that the action he took was good, irrespective of the motive.

I'm not going to fault him because he was doing it for publicity. Maybe if a few more people did what he's doing -- for publicity or whatever reason -- we'd have a few less shitty patents floating around.

In fact, if you want to hurt a company these days, you're better spent going after their patents than trying to take them to court directly, especially small-claims. So if there's a company you don't like, and you can get the dough together to force a re-examination of their patents, by all means please do so. I won't question why you're doing it, the point is that it gets done.

How can this even be subject of a patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on.
A signle-click purchase is not a matter of intelectual property.
It is just the most logical way to sell any item over the internet, provided the user is logged in.

I mean, why would anyone NOT deploy a single-click system???
In other words... how can THERE BE a patent like that?
Can it even be enforced?

So,m what happens if I register for a patent for 2-clicks, 3-clicks and 4-clicks.
Then, the next guy who deploys an online bookstore is going to have to use 5 clicks?

That just doesn't make any sense.

I hope Amazon did not spend a nickel to fill that patente, because NOBODY should even pay attention to it.

This is just too scary when you start thinking about it.

Rui

There need to be penalties...

[ZSpade]

There needs to be some risk for a company in getting a patent. Especially over-simplified ones like this. For instance, if it is later found out that a company received a patent on an obvious technology, business method, etc., then that company needs to pay a fine! It is obvious that they knew what they were doing.

Likewise, and especially, extortionist who obtain patents on obvious tech solely for the purpose of suing others need to pay fines, even bigger ones. Then they need to pay damages to any of the companies on which they committed this extortion on successfully.

Let's face it, fines and penalties are the only things that *might* scare large companies like this into thinking twice about getting that obvious patent, regardless of prior art or simplicity.