Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USPTO Rejects Amazon's One-Click Patent

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-at-least-there's-some-sanity dept.

igdmlgd writes "A while ago I filed a reexamination request for the Amazon.com one-click patent and recently checked out the USPTO online file wrapper -it seems they have rejected all the claims I requested they look at and more!" And it only took many many years to remove what would have been obvious to the most incompetent web developer.

11 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Obvious... by Tetsujin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "And it only took many many years to remove what would have been obvious to the most incompetent web developer."

    You know, I think it's unreasonable that patents can so greatly reduce people's freedom to create things, for fear that some of it may infringe upon some fairly trivial patent... Obvious or not, it places an unreasonable burden on developers, to use what they've learned except for those things they've learned about which are patented.

    But was Amazon One-Click really "obvious" before they adopted it? I mean, the whole idea of
    1: Storing user information (pretty obvious and common)
    2: Launching a user order as soon as they click "buy it" (Not too challenging, except for the other issues that #3 solves)
    3: Ensuring that situations where a user accidentally orders something can be readily corrected by the user (basically boils down to giving them the opportunity to back out)

    It's easy to say the idea is obvious once someone else has thought of it and presented it to you - but was it "obvious" to people before Amazon did it? If so, then why was Amazon the first?

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:Obvious... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fall of 1999, I was working on "patsgold.com". They were getting some orders, and I noticed that there were a lot of repeat customers. I came up with the idea to allow people to set up their account such that items added to their cart would automatically be submitted as an order an hour or two after the last item was dropped into the cart. That way, they would have time to go back and remove something that they didn't want, and at the same time, it would be unlikely that it would create multiple orders where only one would do.

      It was one-click shopping.

      Right before I started implementation, a story came out about Amazon's new patent for one-click shopping. At the time, I had never even looked at amazon.com, I came up with the idea independently of anybody else's implementation. But I was unable to use the idea because Amazon had run down and suckered the USPTO into giving them a patent.

      Far from spurring innovation, this patent killed it.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    2. Re: Obvious... by BBandCMKRNL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's easy to say the idea is obvious once someone else has thought of it and presented it to you - but was it "obvious" to people before Amazon did it? If so, then why was Amazon the first? This is one of those "... on the internet." obvious bogus patents. The only difference between this and something that was common many, many years ago is doing it on the internet. You walked into the General Store, said hello to the owner, picked out items, told the owner to put the items on your tab/bill and walk out with those items.
      --
      Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
  2. Interesting, but not great by PatentMagus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not too excited by this non-final rejection. A quick edit will revive claims 1 and 11. After that, every claim that depends on claims 1 and 11 will also be allowable. It'll only take a few hours of attorney time to make most of the claims allowable. I'm sure that they'll battle over the claims that remain rejectable though.

    What was interesting, to me, is that there were so many 102 (novelty) rejections. In patents, novelty rejections mean "super obvious". Oh well, claim 1 got rejected on a 102 and will be put in allowable form easily enough.

    I really liked that a Bezos patent was used for some of the obviousness rejections. That was cute.

    --
    I am a lawyer, but not yours. Anything I tell you might be a total lie intended to benefit my clients at your expense.
  3. Re:Patent was for a result, not a process or desig by theantipop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In order for a process to be patentably eligible subject matter it has to produce a tangible result. What this really means in cases like Amazon's gets confusing as hell, because while reading 35 U.S.C. 101 and it's various court interpretations over the years it becomes obvious that computers operate in a way completely unimagined by those who drafted the Constitution.

  4. Re:Apple gets a refund ? by J-1000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd like to know this too. What happens when a company licenses technology based on a patent that is later rejected?

  5. well yes and errr, no by paulbd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I helped to start Amazon (I was the 2nd employee there). I've spoken out against the 1 click patent in the past. However, this comment "And it only took many many years to remove what would have been obvious to the most incompetent web developer" is not the reason why the patent should be permanently rejected. 1 click shopping was "new" at the time - if it was obvious, we would have done it right from the beginning on the web site. The issue with 1 click is not whether or not it was obvious to a web developer. It is whether or not business method patents that fundamentally simply map a practice in the non-online world ("put this on my account") to the online world ("1 click") should be permitted.

    I don't believe that they should, and I am glad to see the patent struck down.

    1. Re:well yes and errr, no by jvkjvk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't quite get what you are attempting to communicate, due to my obstinate nature I guess.

      First, you claim that 1 click shopping is not obvious. Then (in the same paragraph even!) go on to say that it's been done in the "non-online" world as a "business practice". I would agree that as a business practice it is unpatentable. BUT, I would also say that even if didn't fall under that category, it's obvious. I mean, how much more obvious can you get than - "Dude, someone's already doing that!"

      And, no, teh answer is not "But THIS is using a computer!1!!! OMG ponies!".

      It's as if there is this mysterious divide between "being done with a computer" and "being done without a computer", which seems to me completely specious yet so pervasive that even someone such as yourself seems to fall for it.

  6. Re:Apple gets a refund ? by zsouthboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    AFAIK, diddly squat.

    The company that liscensed the patent goes "It's all the PTO's fault!!11 one", and there's not much anyone can do. If the liscence involved a per-device fee, you can stop paying that, but anything you've already paid is gone.

    IANAL

  7. Re:Apple gets a refund ? by bstone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IMHO, fixing that would go a long way towards fixing the patent situation. If the patent holder had to pay back all licensing and attorney fees for a patent ruled invalid, the patent holders themselves would be far more careful in asserting rights for "inventions" that are not likely to stand up to scrutiny.

  8. Re:Apple gets a refund ? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Depends on the license/contract I believe - I seem to remember that Hitachi(?) had a clause in their patent license with Rambus that if Rambus' patents ever got thrown out, Hitachi got their money back.

    But I imagine that's tricky to get into a contract.