Slashdot Mirror
1-Click Rejection Rejected
theodp writes "On Wednesday, a three-judge USPTO panel convened at Amazon's request rejected a USPTO Examiner's rejection of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos's 1-Click patent, ruling that it wasn't obvious to them what the Examiner found obvious. The application has been remanded to the Examiner with instructions to make the obviousness more obvious."
But, but... It's so OBVIOUS!
Seriously, though... If there's even a single person that can't see what's obvious about this in the patent office, there needs to be firings until there isn't. This is pretty much the definition of obvious. Heck, if the person even had access to the internet, they'd have fallen across rants about its obviousness every other month.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Sure, it's something that relevant to Slashdot, but posting a link directly to the documents leaves somebody without much experience reading patent-speak (like myself) almost in the dark.
Maybe this was a bad call coming straight from the firehose?
It isn't obvious to me why they couldn't find obvious what the examiner found non-obvious.
Obviously?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The post which is first comes before the other posts. That is, it is the first post, if read in chronological order. Its firstness is determined by the earliness of its posting.
But no matter how hard I try, I still can't make this as confusing as the summary.
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
There has GOT to be a Monty Python joke in there somewhere....
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Bezos was reported to be so mad about this ruling that he began throwing chairs and now he's getting legal threats from some CEO in Redmond who claims to have a patent on chair launching.
Sounds like me in high school...
At first I thought someone tried to patent this " 1-Click Rejection" feature, and Slashdot would have to be paying $0.20 for every submission they easily rejected with one click.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
Where's Captain Obvious when you need him the most?!
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
How do you explain what makes something obvious when it's obvious?
It's incredibly easy, if not trivial, to design a site so that someone can save a set of data (name, address, CC info) and resubmit it along with another set of data (the order) in one click. There are first and second-year CS and CIS projects that are more complicated than that. Securing the site wouldn't be nearly as simple, but that's not the part that's covered by the patent.
As always, there are some who will find somthing obvious only after they've had their heads repeatedly banged against it.
It is time to patent a brilliant new system that will help e-commerce vendors rake in billions of dollars: half-click shopping. Rather than waiting for the MOUSE_UP event after a MOUSE_DOWN event, we will use the MOUSE_DOWN event itself to close the transaction. This will ensure that all of those customers who initiate a click in a moment of shopping excitement will not be able to prematurely terminate a transaction by dragging their mouse pointer off of the link element before releasing the mouse button. Just imagine all of the extra transactions that will initiate! Next up, Zero-click shopping by using MOUSE_OVERs.
The level of obviousness they need to show on appeal to reject the patent application is well below the level an applicant need to show to get it granted. The gap between the two is even greater now:
http://www.news.com/Supreme-Court-loosens-patent-obviousness-test/2100-1014_3-6180220.html
The court just wants to show it's done it's job. In this case the patent office has an extra problem in that it previously granted the patent, so undermined it's own right to reject on the grounds of obviousness. But that just means they have to explain why they're rejecting it now (as opposed to accepting it before), it doesn't mean they don't win by default.
"Why isn't this obvious?!" Yossarian asked
"The obviousness is just to obvious, that's why." said Captain Black
"That... that's just stupid. If it's so obvious, you should just call it obvious and reject it." said Yossarian
"Oh, sure. But if we did that, what would be the end result? Everyone would spend all their time trying to force themselves to think of non-obvious things." said Captain Black
"What?! Isnt't that the point of this whole patenting system?!" asked Yossarian
"NO! That's exactly my point - have you ever seen a good invention, I mean a really good invention? What makes you say it's a good invention - I'll tell you, it's because it makes so much sense for the situation its in! The really good inventions are only the ones that are SO obvious you never thought of them before. So, therefore, we decided it's really best that if an invention seems TOO obvious, it obviously must be something we have to encourage, and therefore has to be accepted BECAUSE it was too obvious." said Captain Black
-
Ryan Fenton
Why can't they reject it on the grounds that software shouldn't be patentable?
Patents were never intended to protect ideas but rather an idea + method of accomplishing it. The purpose being that it wouldn't stifle innovation because other people could come up with other - perhaps improved - methods to accomplish the same thing. Thus innovation continues forward, but the particular device that the original designer came up with is protected, not the goal he set out to accomplish. It's akin to patenting an octagonal wheel. Someone else is free to come along and patent a circle based wheel. But with software patents, even if you do it better, you can be sued for it. Thus obvious stifling of innovation. Sure you could do it on your own time, but you have to wait, what, 50 years before you can make money from it?
Question everything
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I suggest using the following pseudo-code:
// THIS IS THE OBVIOUS PART - a simple IF!
// This applies for both normal checkout and 1-click-buy
// This is for non-1-click buy // NOTE: These are pseudo-functions, the actual implementation may differ according to the programming language used (PHP, java, ASP.NET, C#).
function button_click() {
add_item_to_shopping_cart();
if(one_click_enabled) {
checkout_and_buy();
} else {
continue_showing_items();
}
}
function checkout_and_buy() {
process_financial_transaction_to_buy_items_in_shopping_cart();
empty_shopping_cart();
show_thankyou_screen_and_continue_showing_items();
}
function button_checkout() {
show_checkout_screen_and_wait_for_confirmation();
}
there ya go.
Sir Lancelot: We were in the nick of time. You were obvious.
Sir Galahad: I don't think I was.
Sir Lancelot: Yes, you were. You were very obvious
Sir Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and be obvious
Sir Lancelot: No, it's too obvious
Sir Galahad: Look, it's my duty as a knight to be as obvious as I can.
Sir Lancelot: No, we've got to find the Holy Patent. Come on.
Sir Galahad: Oh, let me have just a little bit obviousness?
Sir Lancelot: No. It's unhealthy.
Sir Galahad: I bet you're Jeff Bezos.
Sir Lancelot: Am not.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
The problem is "Obvious" to whom?
There are a number of things that are perfectly obvious to me that may not be obvious to someone else. One of the things I think is lacking is the notion, actually used in patent law, "obvious to someone skilled in the art." But what "art?" Software engineering is not one art. Like it or not, it is splitting into a number of (sometimes and sometimes not) overlapping fields.
Web, GUI, networking, search, OS, embedded, etc. these are all specializations and what is obvious to an OS guy may be completely incomprehensible to a web guy. An OS guy who only sees mouse clicks as merely system interrupts may not think 1-click is obvious, hell he probably doesn't even like mice.
The 1-click patent is totally obvious and trivial to anyone doing any sort of GUI and/or web programming.
This appeal decision did not even address obviousness. Obvious type double patenting essentially means another application has the same claims as this patent. The appeal board recommended a rejection under 112. That means they think the claim is indefinite. They explicitly said they didn't treat the obviousness rejection on the merits. Stop bashing software patents. Stop bashing the patent system, when you have no clue what you are talking about.
Maybe it's useless for this particular implementation, but what if someone creates a site that allows you to buy items/services (such as songs) for a fixed fee (say $1) with one click while you're browsing? That'll be useful, but in comes this patent and that site can't use their system any more.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
I don't get this argument. If it looks obvious in retrospect, it's still obvious. Patents exist because it's good for society to have a system where individuals or companies that choose to spend money on expensive research, have a way of profiting from it. If your research wasn't expensive, and your "invention" was the result of a single aha-moment, then society does not benefit from you getting a patent.
And that's the way obviousness should be interpreted. There's no way someone else wouldn't have "invented" ("discovered" is perhaps a better word) one-click shopping, if Amazon didn't. Perhaps Amazon was first, but it's still obvious.
Perhaps you meant this URL instead?
http://www.artlum.com/dilbert.gif
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Your link leads to nowhere.
That's what you think. In fact, you've just ordered a 36 volume encyclopaedia, and the first instalment of $199.99 will be debited from your credit card next month.
That's what comes of not reviewing your order.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?