Amazon Using Patent Reform to Strengthen 1-Click

theodp writes "As some predicted, lawyers for Amazon.com have recently submitted 1-Click prior art solicited by Tim O'Reilly under the auspices of Jeff Bezos' patent reform effort to the USPTO, soliciting a 'favorable action' that would help bulletproof the patent. Last June, an Amazon lobbyist referred to deficiencies with the same prior art as he tried to convince Congress that 1-Click was novel, prompting Rep. Howard Berman to call BS."

Comments

One-Click?

[WannabeAnonymous]

Amazon seems to have made an error in its patent claim. When I try to use amazon.com's one-click system to make a purchase, I hear and feel two clicks.

1 Click

[nagora]

1-Click is an obvious use of cookies. In fact, it's almost exactly what cookies were developed for. Amazon are lying bastards when they claim that this is their idea.

Don't buy from Amazon. Is it really that hard to understand?

Re:1 Click

[bangzilla]

"stupid manipulation of the patent system" - and what is the manipulation? Amazon files a patent, Patent review is performed by examiners, patent is granted. Where is the "manipulation"..? If you can't provide proof of "manipulation" then please keep your rhetoric to yourself - it does nothing to help this dicussion. You may not like the patent process - that's a valid complaint. But don't try and mislead others about "manipulation" without eveidence or proof. Thanks!

Re:1 Click

[nagora]

Then let me make it clear to you; Amazon invented this capability.

No they didn't. Cookies were introduced to identify returning users by a unique code. The fact that Amazon made that code synonymous with a credit card number is a minor detail.

The reason you say it is "obvious" is that Amazon has made it so by their wide and successful use of it.

No, it's because it was obvious. It was obvious then and it's obvious now for the simple reason that it was a trivial and obvious use of someone else's idea.

And spouting off about cookies is not prior art -- you have to actually show how this was being used in the same way

Cookies are the invention, you moron. Identifying customers is what cookies were invented for. I don't have to find prior art because this is the SAME art.

What is the big deal?

[LaughingCoder]

I have to admit I don't really get this one. I don't get Amazon's insistance on defending this patent, and I don't get the venom spewed towards Amazon by /.ites regarding this patent. While I haven't done an exhaustive study, I don't detect any perceivable difference click-count-wise shopping at Amazon versus any other site. I click around tens or hundreds of times finding the item I want before deciding to buy. "1-click" certainly doesn't factor into where I will buy - my decision is based purely on price (including shipping and "handling") and availability. In my view Amazon is wasting a ton of money and time defending their patent(s). As regards /.ites, save the venom for something that matters. If Amazon wants to defend their silly patent, who cares? It simply has no effect on us at all (except for perhaps inflating Amazon's prices to cover their legal fees, which will only tend to make us shop elsewhere).

Re:What is the big deal?

[Kazrael]

Just because they are not using it to go after anyone yet, does not mean that they won't in the future. In the end, their legal department funds, matched with this patent, can shut down any small company competitor with a threat of a patent suit. /.ites are pissed because we recognize this as a threat to innovation by the little guys.

Re:What is the big deal?

[jlarocco]

Because Amazon was granted a patent for using a web browser and cookies the way web browsers and cookies were supposed to be used. It's like if I get a patent for "Using bleach to clean a surface," or "Using antacid tablets to get rid of heartburn." It's not just obvious, it's using existing technology in exactly the way it was intended to be used.

It's probably the best example of why the patent system in the US is fundamentally broken. That's the main reason for all the /. rage.

Re:I have yet to make a single purchase from Amazo

[symbolic]

I haven't yet made single purchase from Amazon, and that's apparently the way that Mr. Bezos wants it. No skin off my back. I prefer to reward my business to vendors who aren't so caught up in their own, unique little perception of a completely stupid patent. Go for it, Jeff. I hope "one-click" serves you well, but I sure as hell won't be part of it.

Re:The blind leading the blind

[nagora]

Obvious is difficult to define. Sure, it's obvious now in 2007 a whole 12 years after cookie functionality was added to Netscape. But was it obvious in 1997?

Yes. Blatantly obvious. They took cookies and used them for the purpose they were designed for. It's like patenting travelling in cars and claiming that the invention of the car itself was a separate issue.

The One Click Patent is Irrelevant

[popo]

Billions of dollars trade hands in Internet commerce annually. A very small percentage of which is one-click.
Undoubtedly, the "One Click" patent is ridiculous because it fails the test of being "obvious", but the issue
is -- if "One Click" wasn't patented would it be as commonly used as many believe?

Amazon has touted the one click patent to the ire of the world, but its important to remember that most Amazon
purchases are *not made through one-click*. Why does Amazon fight so hard to keep "One Click", then?

The answer is two words: "Stock Price". Remember that Amazon went for years and years as an unprofitable company
with a lot of expectation of future profit. Throughout those years they touted their ultra-efficient infrastructure
and their patented IP (including "One Click") as justifications for their high P/E ratio.

The battle for "One Click" is less of a battle for vital, core-business IP and more of a battle for the public
perception that Amazon has a "secret sauce".

Let 'em keep it if they want it. IMHO "One Click" is as much a 'security nightmare waiting to happen' as it is a
revenue booster. I see it as Amazon's Active-X. But even if it never turns into a security risk, its tough to
claim that Amazon's deathgrip on "One Click" is stifling internet commerce, which grows by leaps and bounds
annually.