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

[The Rizz]

[Re: Buying from Amazon]

What's the alternative?

I find that buy.com is generally better for books, and DeepDiscountDVD, DigitalEyes, and other sites are better for DVDs. Some of the other areas (power tools, food, etc.) I don't know about, but I can't imagine there aren't better places on the 'net to buy the same items for cheaper, and with as good or better customer service.

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

[bangzilla]

"Buy.com better for books" Buy.com has a fraction of the number of books that Amazon offers. Quick review of top 10 selling books on Amazon and Buy.com show that Amazon lists them cheaper Free shipping for purchases over $25 on Amazon (not Buy.com) and no cost shipping if you are an Amazon prime member. Customer Service at Amazon is year after year rated very high by independent surveys (*much* higher than Buy.com) So - all reasons why Amazon is better for books. What are the reasons you say Buy.com is better for books???? Price - No, Selection - No, Customer Service - No.... what? 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.

Re:1 Click

[Jekler]

If I invented something I would not be the first person to scream about protecting my invention. I don't believe in patents, I don't think ideas should be property. Many countries function well without giving people the right to stake their claim on aspects of the human thought process.

Any software I develop will be free software. I don't believe I was the first person to think of anything, and I don't deserve compensation for the ideas I come up with. I think making money by shouting "I thought of it first!" is dishonest, because there is no way to be certain, of the 6 billion people on the planet, who exactly thought of something first.

Laws governing "Intellectual Property" are broken. People don't file patents because their idea is valuable. They file patents because their idea is a trivial improvement on a similar idea and financially worthless unless given the exclusive right to use it. In order for an idea to be financially valuable on its own, it would have to be so revolutionary you wouldn't need a patent because no one would be able to understand it and copy it anyway. For example, if you were to plop down a food replicator at a tech convention, you wouldn't need a patent because no one in the whole place could even imagine the physics required to build one of those. Instead, patents are the legal of equivalent of "Infinity + 1".

Generally, 1-Click is just a concrete implementation on the concept of using stored data to perform an operation. How is saving the customer's CCN any different than saving any other piece of data? I've had companies keep my CCN on record before the internet was even around.

Patents are supported by average people because they're spoon-fed a number of myths. The urban legend about the guy who invented something but didn't get a patent so his boss/friend/wife/neighbor got rich from it. Second, patent supporters want people to believe that the good life, full of riches, women, and fast cars is only a patent away.

Thanks God

[the100rabh]

Thank God they are not patenting online shopping. List of things they can also patent
1) One click see all specification(Rather make it Zero click also)
2) Hover and buy
3) Pay by credit card
4) Get it delivered at home

Why is US Government blind all these malpractices.

Re:Thanks God

[mgiuca]

5) "Method for presenting clickable text which navigates a web browser to a new URL"
6) "Method for requesting a document resource on a remote server"
7) "Method to allow a consumer to designate desire to purchase products remotely"

Which is TFA?

[mgiuca]

Which of the 6 links is TFA?

*mindblown*

Software patents "at lawyerpoint" and under fire

[Anonymous Coward]

As pointed out by Professor Jeremy Phillips, on the unfortunate occasion of political maneuvering to bring the marvels of software patents and business method patents to Europe as well, this article in Oxford University Press's International Journal of Law and Information Technology does a great job of debunking the whole approach - while citing and synthesizing the views of IT&IP luminaries through the past few decades or even centuries. Hopefully, so will the U.S. Supreme Court, finally, at least if Justice Breyer's remarks in Microsoft v. AT&T (transcript) are any indication:

We're operating under the assumption that software is patentable... but we've never held that in this court, ever.

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?

[3seas]

It's the principle of the matter. The idea of being granted a patent on something so obviously not patentable is an indication of deeper problems. It is an obvious symptom of a disease of mental retardation, and how to propagate it.

Stop the disease from spreading, don't ignore it till it bits you in the ass.

The whole thing on the idea of software patents is mentally and completely faulty.

Its all about abstraction physics, how to manipulate the abstract communication we humans have the unique ability and natural right and duty to create and use, as a matter of advancement. But software is in essence based upon that which is fundamentally recignized as not patentable.

Asbstract ideas, physical phenomenon and natural law. A forth is often claims to be that of mathmatical algorithms but that is a subset of the first primary three.

When man goes against father physics and mother nature, we falsely limits ourselves and it's only natural and physically predictable that problems will develope due to the friction against ... in this case... human ability to think in abstract terms in order to improve productivity.

Patents are written in terms and conotations that seem to support patents, but the same abstract idea can also be written in terms of that which is not patentable, not novel, etc..

The core of this ability lies in abstraction physics. The unavoidable action set, a set of actions that are "constant" in use, by not only programmers but every human capable of forming abstract thought and of course there is the influence of such that we convert to a phenomenon of physical movement and conversion.

So lest write abstracts about abstractions called patents but exposing the perfered non-patentable version that helps to expose the honesty of abstraction physics. Why Software is not patentable.

The idea of presenting prior art, prior to a lawsuit, that it may be used to strengthen a patent is an obvious example of the application of abstraction physics. As the absolute fact of the matter is, it honestly should not make a difference when the honest facts are brought forward. Unless, and only unless, dishonesty is being applied and used to make up excuses to continue a deception.

Software is not patentable, that is provable.

The real reason this hasn't come forward is because of vested interest in the lies contridiction the facts. This includes the softare industry in general and without regard for what side of the fence you claim to be on, open source or proprietary. As Programmers in general no more ant to give up the ego, status and/or pay any more than teh roman numeral accountants wanted to (resulting in the false limitation of mathmatics for some 300 years, when the hindu arabic decimal system was first developed and shown to be easier and more powerful).

Software will become as free as doing a calculation on a calculator, as nobody is charged royalities or licensing fees for using a calculator or pencil and paper to do some math. The only difference here is that the abstraction set is recognizably definable (the point of abstraction is word = definition, function name = function code, etc..and the "summing" tools are repetitive and recursive in nature (i.e. this function name = this code which is made up of function names whith their code, recursively) ... the automation of abstraction usage.

If you think programming is more complex than that, it's really not, as "automation of abstraction usage" turned in on itself applies to code generation too. Autocoding (not the medical term, but the critical aerospace industry make use of it in primitive constrained ways - of which the constraints are recognized as false, limiting and caused by supporting the limits of proprietary claims of the software used.)

Google Abstraction Physics and Abstraction_physics (with and underscore).

Someone once asked for forgiveness for man, as he knows not what he does.
And there are those who claim they don't understand the simplicity of abstraction physics...what they and every one does.... just like I'm doing here, applying it.

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.

Who cares?

[pjt33]

Why does it matter? You weren't planning on reading it, were you?

The relevant testimony

[TubeSteak]

The Summary is wrong
Misener (who gets called out by Berman) is not an Amazon Lobbyist

Mr. Misener = Vice President for Global Public Policy, Amazon.com
Mr. Smith = Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property & Rep from Texas
Mr. Berman = Rep from California
Mr. Issa = Rep from California

(this seems like a good spot to start}
And, Mr. Misener, one last question for you. This goes to the 1-Click patent for which Amazon.com is becoming famous. And of course it's under review by PTO. But--I know your answer, but could not Amazon.com be accused of being a troll for patenting the 1-Click?

Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MISENER. Oh, we have for about 6 years now. But it's inaccurate, and here are the reasons why. First of all, there's been a lot of complaint about whether or not it was an innovation. And truly it's not innovative only in hindsight. At the time it was a radical departure from the shopping cart model which was ubiquitous on the Web. But more to the point, we have exercised this patent only against a competitor who at the time we exercised it had publicly announced their intention to crush our business. This was not some scheme to hit up small users of 1-Click or similar technologies, it was really to get at a competitor who had not invested anything in developing this technology and had, again, avowed to crush us.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Misener. And thank you all.

Mr. Berman, do you have any additional questions? Mr. Berman is recognized.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you.

Paul Barton David, one of Amazon.com's founding programmers, called the 1-Click patent an extremely obvious technology. And Tim O'Reilly, who's been involved in shaping Internet trends, describes the 1-Click patent as an attempt to----

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Misener, we did not coordinate our questions here.

Mr. BERMAN [continuing]. Has not gotten up to speed on the state of the art in computer science. It's been a raging controversy, and I have no idea whether it's valid or not--because I'm a lawyer. But the controversy itself was one of the issues that got at least a few of us 5 or 6 years ago thinking about some issues of reform.

Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

Let's talk about in your testimony you state last year for $40 million we settle with Soverain, owner of a host of broad e-commerce patents, nearly two dozen of which were purchased for less than a million dollars. We settled for 40 million. Did you believe these patents to be invalid because they were too broad?

Mr. MISENER.We still believe them to be invalid.

Mr. BERMAN. Because they were too broad?

Mr. MISENER.In part because they were too broad.

Mr. BERMAN. Did you attempt to initiate a reexamination?

Mr. MISENER.Yes, we did. And it was not going to be completed in time to be relevant to the case.

Mr. BERMAN. Do you consider this company a patent troll because they purchased the patents for less than a million dollars, which presumably didn't represent the value of the patents?

Mr. MISENER.I've shied away as defining them as a troll or not. We were----

Mr. BERMAN. Nobody has shied away from calling you a troll over one claim.

Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

Mr. MISENER.That's true. We worked, by the way, with Mr. O'Reilly; we came and met with Members of Congress 6 years ago because we agreed that there were areas to improve the patent system

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.

The blind leading the blind

[Mydron]

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? Maybe. Maybe not. Obviousness is such a slippery slope that it's pointless to even argue about -- in court this argument boils down to a personality contest between attorneys and expert witnesses. No one wants to win or loose on those odds.

If 1-click isn't Amazon's idea, then produce some proof that it isn't. This is the sure fire way to invalidate the patent and the basis on which patent applications are vetted in the patent office. It helps to know how to do this. Start with the claims and work from there. Unless there is some funny terminology you shouldn't even have to read the rest of the application -- for novelty only the claims matter. As an example of what not to do bountyquest provides a good illustration:

US Patent #4734858 "Data terminal and system for placing orders," filed March 29, 1988. This excellent submission, dating back to the late 80s, describes the use of a remote data terminal to place orders. It was a highly relevant patent that was not cited in the original 1-Click application but probably should have been. It's a good example of how electronic shopping systems can be connected via a dial-up connection to legacy computer systems without using the Web. It also describes a simplified ordering system not dissimilar to 1-Click, as it states: "Transmission of orders is manually initiated by actuation of a function key at any time after an order is stored in the send memory." Sounds a whole lot like 1-Click shopping, doesn't it? Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about the use of HTML, the Web, and such, so it wasn't a winner. But kudos to the submitter for coming very close to the target!

The author(s) of the article dismisses this art, but failed to read Amazon's claim. Nowhere in Amazon's first claim does it mention anything about HTML or the Web. I haven't looked at the patent the author cites, but if this is really the only deficiency then it is no deficiency at all.

Bountyquest has dismissed other art for similarly specious reasons such as "[reference] isn't web specific". Well neither is Amazon's claim -- only that there be a client and a server - but these terms can be read very broadly: there are lots of client-server systems that pre-date the web. Similarly "[reference] doesn't include 1-click" is no reason to dismiss art because Amazon's claim only requires "a single action being performed". If you find art that includes a single action being performed, then Amazon is going to have difficulty narrowing the claim by specifying that the action is a mouse click because mouse clicking was a well known method of producing single actions.

Bountyquest makes yet another ridiculous assertion when it says: "However, the [reference] is not a winner, because we don't have evidence that someone . . . implemented [reference] . . . before our Prior To date. " There is absolutely no requirement that prior art must be implemented -- only a person skilled in the art would be ABLE to implement it from the description.

If bountyquest (or anyone else) is serious about digging up prior art they should educate themselves on rudimentary patent prosecution.

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.

Something smells.

[Butisol]

Patenting 1-Click is like realizing that the flush toilet has already been patented and then deciding to patent taking a dump.

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.

buy.com vs. amazon.com

[The Rizz]

Buy.com has a fraction of the number of books that Amazon offers. If you mean they have a fraction of the books listed, then yes - but whenever I do a search, over 50% of the titles that pop up on Amazon are not even sold by them, and most likely never were. As for the rest, that's probably because Amazon.com opened their doors years before buy.com did - buy.com won't have books in stock that went out of print before they opened for business.

Quick review of top 10 selling books on Amazon and Buy.com show that Amazon lists them cheaper In that case, Amazon and/or Buy.com are giving you different prices than they're showing me.
Polling the top 10 books from amazon.com and comparing them to buy.com's prices gives me 3 prices within 1 cent of each other, 3 prices better at buy.com, 3 prices better at amazon.com, and one book that isn't listed at buy.com (however, this book is from the 90s and isn't even in stock at Amazon).
Polling the top 10 books from buy.com and comparing them to Amazon's prices gives me 6 within 1 cent of each other, and 4 better prices at buy.com.
This leaves Buy.com with a lead in the number of cheaper books.

Free shipping for purchases over $25 on Amazon (not Buy.com) and no cost shipping if you are an Amazon prime member. OK, now I know you're on crack, a shill for Amazon, or both. Buy.com has had free shipping on $25 orders for as long as I can remember.
As for the "no cost shipping if you are an Amazon prime member", that's not true: You're paying monthly/yearly membership fees to be an Amazon Prime member, so you are paying for that "free" shipping - you're just paying in advance.

Customer Service at Amazon is year after year rated very high by independent surveys (*much* higher than Buy.com) I've actually never had a single problem with either of them, so from my perspective Buy.com is indeed "as good or better". I also was referencing sites other than Buy.com in that sentence, and I'm sure there ARE other sites that are definitely better for customer service (small shops with that personal touch, etc.)

What are the reasons you say Buy.com is better for books????
Price - No, Selection - No, Customer Service - No.... what? Price: Yes, by a 7:3 margin, if you don't count the books identical in price.
Selection: Debatable - Amazon lists just about every book ever published (many they have never stocked), but have an older inventory than Buy.com.
Customer Service: Debatable - They are pretty comparable from my point of view.