Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USPTO Increases Scope Of Amazon's 1-Click Patent

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the patents-that-won't-die dept.

An anonymous reader writes "While the patent office had rejected earlier attempts by Amazon to get a continuation patent on its infamous "1-click" patent, it appears that an impatient USPTO examiner has approved the continuation, apparently because of the failure of BountyQuest to come up with prior art. This continuation adds claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call to obtain additional info."

9 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. I just wonder... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...on average, what percentage of a patent examiner's net worth is actually wages, and what percent is some form of bribes and hush money.

    It just seems an inherently corruption-friendly system that allows any examiner of proper rank to step in and hand monopolies out to companies at a moment's notice.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:I just wonder... by paladin217 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am fairly certain that the percentage that comes from bribes is 0%.

      Simply put, if the art isn't there, even if the examiner doesn't like it, the allowance has to be given to the applicant. It is an unfortunate state of affairs, but it is a legal requirement. Simply put, the examiner was doing his job.

    2. Re:I just wonder... by Anpheus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, he wasn't. Because 'obviousness' is the other part of what is necessary for an invention to be patentable. And 1-click sales are obvious to all developers, 1-click sales and 1-click anythings are the reason cookies exist, they are a natural and obvious extension of cookies.

    3. Re:I just wonder... by john83 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Instead of looking like a fucking moron, you might want to read what the patent office means by obvious:

      http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#novelty

      "The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention."

      These "developers" he spoke of, might they have "ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention."? I'm not sure. I am sure however, that anyone who starts bandying about terms like "fucking moron" better have a very clear argument ready to back himself up, or he might look like an uneducated, arrogant troll.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  2. Re:nothing to see here by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole patent rant is an assumed thing here on /. The whole list of possible solutions or fixes to the patent system has also been beaten to death, and requires no addressing. We don't need to name companies which use immoral tactics, we all know the names. We don't need to cry about all of the projects which have been destroyed. We all know it's commonplace and might as well get used to it.

    All I can say in reply is that I hope nobody ever tried to tell that to Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela.

    The fact that an injustice persists, and that the abuses remain consistent in terms of action and actors is newsworthy. Talking about it until everyone gets sick of it is a valid tactic.

    Sometimes the only way to invade the fortress is by chipping away at the walls inch by bloody inch. It's boring, painful and creates no heroes right up until the walls finally do come down.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  3. Given up, have you? by AltGrendel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So this means that you've quit. You are no longer going to try and change the system (whatever that may mean to you).

    Go ahead and mod me flamebait or troll, but my point is that this isn't just about the 1 click patent. There's a company that has the patent on the breast cancer gene. Thats right, you can't try to cure a prevalent form of cancer without paying a frickin' royalty for something that wasn't even invented. At best you could say that they discovered it.

    We need to keep trying to stop this insanity.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  4. Why not patent by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 3, Insightful

    using a Skilsaw to cut a piece of plywood. One-click is a trivial application of features built into a tool set that envisioned it in it's inception. It is worst of two stupid patent paradigms, the software patent and the business method patent. When will this sort of thing be recognized as the malignant lawyer-driven racket it is?

    1. Re:Why not patent by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure it's laywer-driven, really. Lawyers certainly benefit, of course, but corporate lawyers are basically just doing the bidding of their executive masters. At least in theory, law is a profession, and has a certain ethical code. Business has none.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  5. This gets so very old... by werdna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is really pretty easy stuff guys. The examiner searches for prior art, and if he finds it, or an obvious combination of it, badda-bing, lovely rejection. If not, he is bound by statute to allow the patent, period. 35 USC s. 102 ("A person shall be entitled to a patent unless" there exists invalidating art). We all know you hate the law and the standards, but give this poor examiner a break, will you? He HAS to allow the patent UNLESS he comes up with a case to reject it. He HAS to do it. He HAS to. Suggesting bad faith or corruption as the cause of the examiner's allowance is obnoxious and naive.

    The examiner did his research, and gave it his best shot. By amendment and argument, Amazon shot down his case. Nobody came to the rescue with any new art, and the examiner didn't find any. Indeed, despite the FAMOUSNESS of this battle, NOBODY has come up with any art to defeat the new claims or the old ones.

    There are better battles to pitch than this one.