Amazon's Lawyers Jerking USPTO Around?

theodp writes "Reacting to an actor's do-it-yourself legal effort that triggered a reexam of Amazon.com's 1-Click patent, attorneys for Amazon have fired back, deluging the USPTO with documents to review, including Wikipedia articles. With the latest batch, Amazon's high-priced law firm even requested that USTPO examiners review an archived page of Norm Quotes (yes, Norm from Cheers) and rule that it does not invalidate CEO Jeff Bezos' 1-Click patent."

Comments

Goldilocks Was Not a Patent Lawyer

[XLawyer]

For what it's worth, Amazon's high-priced law firm really has no way to win. If they omit something from their Information Disclosure Statement, they can expect to hear the argument that they intentionally left out something material and that the patent therefore should be therefore be invalidated. If they include it, they can expect to hear the argument that they tried to bury relevant prior art in a mountain of documents.

Admittedly I know very little about this particular reexam, but the Norm! page is not obviously irrelevant. It's on the Web, it probably has some kind of navigation feature that someone compared to some aspect of the one-click process, and so the lawyers probably decided to include it because it's the less risky thing to do. If it's really not useful, the patent examiner can probably figure that out without too much effort.

Re:Goldilocks Was Not a Patent Lawyer

[XLawyer]

Or here's an idea: it's not the navigation that's relevant, it's the content. In the majority of excerpts, Norm walks into cheers, is recognized, and, with a single action, buys a beer that is then delivered to him. It's not quite the same as one-click Web ordering, but I can see how it's relevant, especially considering the Office Action that granted the request for reexamination.

The Smackdown

[ScrewMaster]

They guy is right ... Amazon does deserve to be smacked down, for this and for other things. And you can lay the rest of corporate America right out there alongside them.

Still, if this works, if Amazon's infamous patent is revoked by the efforts of a single individual unaided by professional legal representation, then there's hope that a load of other crap can be invalided the same way. Of course, the behavior of Amazon's own lawyers probably isn't hurting his case either.

Re:The Smackdown

[Peter La Casse]

Amazon just did what the law allows them to do. And if they are going to fulfill their obligations to their shareholders by staying as competitive as the law allows them then they should do it some more.

Obviously US patent law is up the creek, but it's not Amazon's fault. If anything Bezos should be fired if he were not to use every tool and weapon available to him.

Wouldn't Amazon's obligation to its shareholders be better served by lobbying for patent reform? Software patents are like a guillotine poised to strike Amazon (and other companies that write software), and as this case shows, even so-called defensive patents have considerable cost. At some point this cost must exceed the price of a new law.

Re:The Smackdown

[quenda]

I totally disagree. Amazon just did what the law allows them to do.

No, not the law. They did what the legal system allowed them to do. They law says you
cannot patent the obvious, or prior art, but the system allowed it.
    So if you are going to accept that, you'd have to allow murder of their opponents,
just so long as they hide the body well and don't get caught. After all, they owe it to the shareholders

Re:That's how it works

[ScrewMaster]

That's roughly how it should work in regards to a question about the validity of a legitimate patent. The insane amounts of money being spent on patents (and patent defense) are a direct result of the Patent Office granting invalid patents and expecting the courts to sort it out later, and companies determined to suppress competition by legal action backed by invalid patents. That is not how it is supposed to work! The reason that we even have Patent Examiners is to try and avoid this very problem: a well-written and properly-reviewed patent should be solid and hardly worth attacking. It's the Examiner's job to make sure that's the case. Put it this way: if you're just going to let anyone claim anything and have lawyers handle the determination of validity you might as well just abolish the Patent Office right now and get it over with.

The unfortunate truth is that the USPTO has fallen down on the job, and blame for that can be laid squarely at Congress' feet.