USPTO Increases Scope Of Amazon's 1-Click Patent

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."

Comments

Patents should be abolished...

[Anonymous Coward]

... not just because of the problems they cause, but more importantly because of the blatant stupidity of the USPTO staff. Maybe we could sue them as individuals because of the bad effects of their obvious mistakes? Let's start naming names of the PTO officials who do stupid things, embarrass them in public.

Voting is 1-click

[jihadist]

...soon we'll pay Amazon for the privilege of choosing between uniformly corrupt leaders with narrowly deviating opinions.

Oh well, Plato warned us about this. We're in the age of oligarchy and timarchy. Next stop: authoritarianism, then third-world insignificance. But my PS/3 is so cool it makes it worth it, I swear!

:wq

This is ridiculous

[Zzyzygy]

I already boycott Amazon because of their stupid patent nonsense; I wish there was a way I could boycott the USPTO, now that would be fun. . . .

:-)

-Scott

Re:This is ridiculous

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Make innovative inventions and do not patent them. That's how you boycott the USPTO. At least until the "first to patent wins" system comes into play.

Realistically, that's how it works now -- if you come up with a useful new algorithm, say, and Microsoft or Adobe or Oracle or someone else with much deeper pockets than yours patents it, do you think your prior art is going to stand up against their army of lawyers? Non-obviousness as a standard for rejecting a patent is already quite dead; prior art is going away fast.

Re:This is ridiculous

[PAjamian]

Non-obviousness as a standard for rejecting a patent is already quite dead; prior art is going away fast.

The Supreme Court's recent decision should do a lot to bring back the obviousness argument.

Patent reform needed

[ylikone]

It is obvious that corporate entities are patenting things that should never be patentable in the first place. It is also obvious that patents can't be eliminated completely. The Patent Reform Act of 2005/2007 is a step in the wrong direction! Sensible patent reform now!

The Real Enemy

[BillGatesLoveChild]

If anyone ever tries to patent "Stupidity", the USPTO can itself show plenty of prior art.

Or as one poster suggested, "Corruption". This sham has been going on for years. Why haven't the fatcats in Congress done anything about it? Could corporate donations have anything to do it? Patents work in established big businesses favor. Witness Balmer's recent threats to us MS Patents to go after Linux customers. If big business whined about patents, you can bet their Congressmen on a string would change the law quick smart (as they did for the Mickey Mouse^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCopyright Extension act for Disney).

Do patents work in small businesses favor? In theory they can. "In theory". By the very act of writing software (which has an absurd number of stupid patents) Microsoft daily must infringe hundreds of patents every day. Not just big business with patent exchange agreements, but smaller ones without. When was the last time a small business took Microsoft to the cleaners over such a patent? Eolas came close... kind of. No one else by a long shot.

The problem isn't USPTO incompetence. It's Congressional Sloth and Greed. What can we do other than crying to the converted on Slashdot?