Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Imposes 'Undue Hardship' On 1-Click Lawyers
theodp writes "Looks like Amazon's high-priced Silicon Valley attorneys will have to endure the 'undue hardship' of awakening early next Thursday morning to defend CEO Jeff Bezos' 1-Click patent in a Video Hearing before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The attorneys' plea for a 1 p.m. ET start time drew a be-there-at-9-or-be-square response from the USPTO. The 1-Click patent has fallen into disfavor lately with USPTO Examiners, who no longer have the same boss who once sent a 1-Click love letter to the WSJ arguing that the merits of Amazon's patent were proven by a contest run by a Jeff Bezos-financed company, an argument that was later rejected by Congress."
They're not really complaining about the fact that it's 9 AM, but that in their timezone it will be only 6 AM. It's hardly fair to fault them for that.
Often, customers cannot find the right product in the local store, which has a policy that "if it is not on the shelf, it is not in stock"; in response, customers can go to Amazon and likely find the exact product that they want. Amazon is the ultimate mail-order company online. it has taken the traditional Montgomery-Wards catalog, increased its size by a factor of 1000, and put it on the Web. Gosh. Can you even buy polonium-210 at Amazon?
In short, Amazon is wasting money in trying to defend this patent. Can the typical customer be so stupid that 1-less-mouse-click is the deciding factor in whether to buy stuff at Amazon?
The number listed was ISDN ###-###-####. Are people still using ISDN? No wonder the USPTO is a bit behind.
They're supposed to be professionals, so go they just need to bed earlier and get up in time for the hearing. Getting up a couple hours early is NOT an "undue hardship" by any stretch of the imagination. Just bill the client the "off hours" rate multiplier and be done with it.
Choice 1: Just get out of bed on time for that day.
Choice 2: Get hotel in correct timezone, fly there two days before.
et voila.
Cheers,
Ian
Although there may be valid prior art for the one-click patent, the real issue with me is that you can't and shouldn't be able to patent ideas. This is one of the most bizarre and unfair things I've ever heard of. If I had the time and money I'm sure I could patent two-click, three-click and all the other click shopping experiences. I would have a virtual monopoly on shopping. But stupid is as stupid does. Let's hope things improve.
... the real story is on the one-click patent. As it will indicate if the USPTO is even in teh smallest way serious of reform.
I have a lot of sympathy for people who just want to do research, but the free market is not supposed to provide a safety net that ensures that people only get to do what they want to do. That's why I like the new patent bill. It's a step forward, even if it's not perfect, because it puts more safeguards into place and allows judges to use more objective standards to award damages. So what if Amazon ends up getting badly hurt by losing this patent? They're a retailer. Their role in the market is to sell, not to research. If they suck at their core business now, well, that's their problem now isn't it?
Some people are still using analog copper wire for their voice systems.
Crazy, I know.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
So tell me, is there a process in place whereby a company can recoup legal costs when a litigious patent holder turns out to be holding a pile of nothing?
The issuance of a patent by the USPTO provides a preliminary presumption of validity. So if I obtain a patent on orange trees, and sue the crap out of everyone who grows orange trees without shelling out big bucks to me, I'm not really acting in bad faith. Because the USPTO provided that presumption of validity, it's not like I'm just making wild-ass, unvalidated claims.
However, if I wield my patent too aggressively and start using it to threaten growers of apple trees and fig trees, I'm no longer acting in good faith to police my patent. I'm now acting in bad faith, and can be sued for malicious patent prosecution. Such countersuits are rare, and the odds of winning them are slim. But as this recent decision shows, it's not impossible to win.
For some time there have been proposals to change the US patent system so that the loser pays costs. Thus, even if I acted in good faith, I would still have to pay your court costs if I lost. You can imagine why litigation attorneys are opposed to this approach.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You'd think the article submitter and/or Slashdot admins would know better than to improperly hotlink to images on Flickr.com.
Compared to the undue hardship their BS paten has caused the rest of the web, missing a few hours of sleep is fairly insignificant.
Maybe they prefer 1pm court hearings because it takes them a long time to ensure that their SPF 10000 cream is safely and completely on all vulnerable parts AND the Sun is available for "controlled tests" before they leave the safety of their homes.
;).
;).
If they left earlier they wouldn't be able to do the "smoke tests" - no sunlight
e.g. "Oops missed a spot there - my pinky is smoking in the sunlight".
Hey, lawyers were people too
It makes far more sense to arrange meetings in PST than EST, so why is it happening in DC?
The one-click patent is bullshit, but this is just the USPTO being arrogant eastern bastards.
They don't know what hardship is... I say toss the Perrier sippin' pansies in solitary with Bubba at the triple-max prison, then they'd learn the real meaning of hardship... hehe. I'd say these patent trolls are long overdue for hardships.
I have yet to understand it's merits of this patent, aside from the obvious financial benefits attorneys gain from it. I wonder if anyone has done any consumer behavior analysis related to 1-click vs. more than 1-click.
To date, behavior models include more significant factors such as price, economic status, alternative choices, previous vendor experience, personal tastes. I wonder if anyone has ever made a purchase decision based on the number of clicks involved.
Hope is the currency of fools
I'd take issue with labeling Amazon a troll, given that they're practicing their invention.
like a japanese cowboy, or a brother on skates.
I've shopped at Amazon for as many years as I can remember them being around, and I have never even used the 1-click checkout. I don't know about you, but when I'm placing an order online, I like to double check everything throughout the checkout process to make sure all the information is correct every time, rather than click once and assume it is.
I'd take issue with labeling Amazon a troll, given that they're practicing their invention.
I didn't mean to imply that Amazon is a troll. The dividing line for me is that a troll never intends to actually bring a product or service to market. I was answering the larger question and should have been more careful in the subject line. Thanks for the correction.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
There are courtrooms in California.
I can finally cash in on my patent for defending a patent reexamination... via teleconference.
paintball
After hours of research for a product, clicking hundreds of times, or, browsing the current list of top-selling books at amazon to read the summaies (tens of clicks), please do not tell me that 5 clicks which enable you to have a quick check on the final sum of money, the product, and the shipping address are anyhow disturbing you!
While I have no truck for Amazon's ridiculous 1-click patent or the social parasite-patent lawyers who defend it, I'm sick and tired of getting awakened nearly every day by some %^&* back-East headhunter who doesn't get that, since I live in SoCal, this means I am on Pacific Time and it's not OK to call me at 6 AM. Especially because most of the time their job requires that I relocate to some one-Waffle-House flyover town back East.
For anyone who might seriously not know what the one-click feature is for, it's the impulse buying button. Someone sees something they think is AWESOME, they say "Whoa I gotta have that!" and hastily hit the one-click-purchase button. The idea is that the customer won't go through the lengthy ordeal of cancelling the order afterwards. I'm sure there are people dumb enough to fall for such a silly tactic, but I was very careful to make sure I had it turned OFF when this feature was implemented. And even now it sits on the right hand side of my Amazon pages waiting to be turned on. I'd like it turned off thank you very much, as I'd like to review my order carefully before placing it, and I'd hate to accidentally click on it (a real possibility with a pesky laptop touchpad) while taking a look at a PS3, high-end gaming system, or fancy new smartphone.
It's a silly gimmick, but it must be making money for Amazon to go through this much trouble over it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The patent application that this refers to is NOT the original one-click patent that was used against Barnes and Noble, and was the subject of the Bountyquest contest etc. The one this post refers to is a much later but similar application filed by Amazon that hasn't issued yet. The original one-click patent was issued as patent number 5,960,411 and is currently the subject of a reexamination request filed by a blogger from New Zealand, Peter Calveley. See http://igdmlgd.blogspot.com/2006/05/united-states- patent-and-trademark.htmlfor details.
We're not talking about Bumfuck, Idaho. California is the technological and cultural centre of the US, so why isn't the political infrastructure present there?
Amazon can't be THAT good...I've survived just fine without it. I vowed never to order anything from that company, and I've made good on it.
The /. headline referred to 1-Click Lawyers®. Now if that isn't a scary and dangerous feature, I don't know what is.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell