Slashdot Mirror
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."
...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
... 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.
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.
No sir-ree, there is noting to see here, just the USPTO doing their jobs just as well as ever.
...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!
Anti-Globalism
there is only one solution to this madness and that is to use evil plan #236, yes that one- where the entirety of slashdot bands together and does some of our own patent trolling. slaghter this system with its own sword- call it patent slashdotting.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Congress didn't buy Amazon's argument that the failure of a defunct Jeff Bezos-funded company to award a $10,000 bounty offered by Tim O'Reilly for prior art that could bust Bezos' 1-Click patent was proof of 1-Click's novelty. The Commissioner for Patents, on the other hand, was duly impressed. As was one of his patent Examiners, who broke ranks from a less-impressed fellow Examiner and re-Examiner, to push through last week's issuance of U.S. patent no. 7,222,087, a 'continuation' of 1-Click which adds innovative claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call to obtain additional info.
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. . . .
:-)
-ScottMy other sig is a Glock
This patent stuff is madness, but I have a solution! I need your help. Come to my website and join the cause. All you have to do is click the link. Just one click, that's all. Just..um..one click..oh shoot, an Amazon lawyer is on the phone. Gotta go.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
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
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?
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!
Meh.
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?
It wasn't vague, bizarre and obvious enough! Glad the government came in to clear things up.
On a related note, will someone please wake me up, or yell April Fools, or give me the red pill or something to let me know that reality isn't some kind of joke?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
greasing the right palms might still get a patent granted
Greasing the palms?! C'mon these patent assesors are obviously being paid with child-sex prostitutes!
I mean once you go accusing an entire class of people of corruption without a scintilla of proof, why stop there?
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.
Or it could encourage a character accent arms race, as people throw in all manner of whackiness just to force an upgrade.
Or maybe Amazon's patent shall have grown to consume any physical contact that triggers an exchange of information, so we'll all be safe in the bosom of Bezos.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
"which adds innovative claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call [flickr.com] to obtain additional info."
I for one see those new claims as astounding innovations. I know that we were all thinking that we would have had to send a runner to get the info. I know, I know, some of you more advanced types may have been thinking "pony express" or even postal mail, but come on, you know most of you were thinking "send a runner" like me. Naturally, cavemen were thinking of going themselves...
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Additional limitations on an already issued patent are no big deal. Amazon already has the 1-click patent. All this does is keep someone from patenting on top of amazon, it doesn't really give them anything more.
Here's how it works...
Amazon patent A: (1 click)
Amazon patent B: (1 click) + (other stuff)
Anyone infringing B also infringes A. All Amazon has done is prevented someone else from patenting this particular flavor of (1 click)+(other stuff). They don't get anything extra because patent A already covers the stuff patent B covers.
So, the only people who should be upset by this are patent trolls who want to patent the nuances around 1 click and then sue Amazon and other etailors.
I am a lawyer, but not yours. Anything I tell you might be a total lie intended to benefit my clients at your expense.