Slashdot Mirror


Ninth Anniversary of Amazon 1-Click Injunction

theodp writes "Nine years ago Monday, Amazon kicked off the Holiday Season by slapping Barnes and Noble with a court injunction barring BN from using a checkout feature that Amazon said represented illegal copying of its patented 1-Click technology. 'We're pleased that Judge Pechman recognized the innovation underlying our 1-Click feature,' said Jeff Bezos in a press release. But an Appellate Court wasn't quite as impressed with Amazon's innovation. Nor were USPTO Examiners who were asked to take another look at the merits of Amazon's 1-Click patent claims. Still, 1-Click lives on, although Amazon's lawyers are currently fighting two separate rejections by USPTO Examiners, burying USPTO Examiners in paper, and employing canceling-and-refiling tactics that some may find reminiscent of Eddie Haskell's chess end-game strategy. So much for Amazon-led patent reform."

21 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Customer Backlash? by FrozenFOXX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, it's a bit of a shame this ever happened. Normally I'm a fan of Amazon but this kinda tactic has made me consider other places to buy from first ever since it happened.

    I can't imagine I'm the only one who reconsidered Amazon purchases because of things like this.

    --
    "Just a fox, a whisper."
    1. Re:Customer Backlash? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, I did reconsider Amazon purchases as this went down. But at the end of the day I shop with Amazon for the same reason I shop with WalMart -- I might have philosophical disagreements with the company, but at the end of the day they provide a damned convenient, cheap and effective way of buying what I need/want.

      It's the same way I feel about FOSS vs. proprietary software -- I didn't make Linux my primary OS until it met most of my needs. I still use proprietary video drivers because they work best. I run Windows in a virtual machine on the same box because for a few (and increasingly fewer) things there is no practical complete replacement for Corel Draw or Photoshop -- well, you get the idea.

      At the end of the day I need to get stuff done. If Amazon does what I need, I set aside my philosophical differences and plunk down my money. Call me a hypocrite.

    2. Re:Customer Backlash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're a hypocrite. Well, maybe. But you asked me to do it.

      Your argument fails because while Walmart may be more convenient than another store, Amazon is no easier than B&N or any number of internet shopping sites. Finding an alternative store is trivial on the internet.

    3. Re:Customer Backlash? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does B&N give me the option to buy with 1-click? No! See? Amazon is more convenient! :-P

    4. Re:Customer Backlash? by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I can't imagine I'm the only one who reconsidered Amazon purchases because of things like this.

      Yes you are. Bezos could be using Amazon's profits to fund Al Qaeda operations for all I care. If the product I want is cheaper than a competitor's, I'll buy from Amazon.

    5. Re:Customer Backlash? by symbolic · · Score: 2, Informative

      I haven't given Amazon a dime. And convenient or not, it's going to stay that way. I'm not going to feed the trolls that are mocking and destroying true innovation.

  2. Tim O'Reilly: useful idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Amazon was dishonest in their "patent reform", but what about Tim O'Reilly? Why doesn't anyone mention his role in this mess?

    1. Re:Tim O'Reilly: useful idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AC was pretty uninformative in his post about Tim O'Reilly's role in this mess. Why not elaborate, or at least provide a link?

      What about Obama's role in this mess? Did he vote to deny Amazon's 1-click patent? I think not! Look at what he has done to us, and now he's going to be our president! ;)

      But seriously. From a quick search on Google, it looks like Tim O'Reilly initially protested 1-click shopping, but then something changed and he joined with Jeff Bezos to reform patents. At the same time he, perhaps, dropped his stance against 1-click shopping. But if you know something more, or have a good link with an explanation it would be way more informative than simply mentioning a name in passing. Please?

      (I gave up moderating this thread to ask for this, figuring that modding your comment down would do no good for anyone, so please show me the info.)

  3. They should have copywrighted the 2 click purchase by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the 3 click... 4... 5... to 100 clicks!
    Just imagine how difficult it'd be for your competitors if their customers had to click 101 times to buy anything.

  4. How much money is at stake? by Samschnooks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All this litigation must be costing Amazon a fortune! Are they expecting to sue B&N and others to recover their costs and maybe make money if they actually prevail?!?

  5. Fucktardary by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Funny

    'We're pleased that Judge Pechman recognized the innovation underlying our 1-Click feature,' said Jeff Bezos

    This should be on The Onion, it's so ridiculous.

  6. Re:They should have copywrighted the 2 click purch by OpenYourEyes · · Score: 3, Interesting
    While a funny (and significant) comment, I wanted to just point out two things:
    • it is copyright not copywrite or wright.
    • it is patent not copyright. A lot of people get these concepts confused, but understanding the differences (including what they can be applied to, and for what term) is important in US law.
  7. Re:They should have copywrighted the 2 click purch by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've already patented the 1-hover purchase as well as the one-keystroke accessibility purchase. What other non-click methods can you think of?

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  8. But the one click was all she copywrote by GMonkeyLouie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know how you could patent a kind of interface, though. Isn't that like patenting a particular way of arranging your furniture? It's definitely not an invention, it's a way of presenting an existing invention, no?

    I think that should be copyright territory, like, "Whatever you do, you can't call your system a '1-click' system", instead of what they are saying which is, "You can't use an interface that resembles our '1-click' system or functions in a similar way".

    Does that make sense?

  9. This has never made sense to me : by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why doesn't the patent office just charge fees sufficient to fund enough examiners to get anything done in a month? Meaning, they should be allowed to charge whatever fees they need in order to, BY LAW, respond to anything filed in their office within 30 days. So if you send them 10,000 pages of documents, you have to pay $5 a page or whatever it costs them to employ an educated person to read and respond to said documents.

    1. Re:This has never made sense to me : by db32 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because then the guy in the garage that comes up with the next supergadget goes broke trying to patent it and some megacorp patent troll comes along and claims its theirs anyways. I think the alternative would actually be a maximum page kinda thing. "Look, you either write it concisely, or you go to hell, your choice."

      A bit of a side issue but I actually wrote a paper for one of my english classes for college that addressed this problem. They teach that you should write clearly and consisely and then immediately following that say "and it must be a minimum of X00 words or Y pages". So even if you can get your point across clearly in 200 words you are stuck writing a 500 word essay. The paper I wrote was the first paper of the class, a little intro thing and background in writing. 500 word minimum. I titled the paper "Off by One" and wrote on the subject of the insane rules of grammar, format, punctuation, etc we are held to for writing while being told to write clearly and consisely and that the greatest writers like Shakespeare and friends all broke all the damned rules and made words up. It was exactly 499 words.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  10. Bilski by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Informative

    Doesn't the Bilski decision make Amazon's chances on appeal/re-exam pretty much dead?

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:Bilski by brianosaurus · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's more or less the point. Amazon's lawyers are using sleazeball tactics to stall the verdict at this point. As long as they keep shoving new briefs at the court, the examination will never end. I don't understand why they keep fighting it.

      Perhaps its so deeply rooted in the Amazon legal department that they just don't want to give up. I'm sure being a total pain-in-the-ass is a full time job for at least a couple of lawyers, so if they give up the fight, they are out of a job. The licensing fees Amazon receives on this (Apple licenses 1-click for their online store, and I assume there must be other suckers) must be more than its costing them to drag out the inevitable, or else this makes no business sense either.

      As for Bezos, it makes him look like a fool. On the one hand he's fighting for patent reform, while in the other he holds one of the most absurd patents ever granted. If he'd give up on this one, perhaps people would take his call for reform a bit more seriously. Was this the first patent he ever received? Maybe he has a sentimental attachment to it, like a woobie. Grow up, stick a copy in a scrapbook and let it go, Jeff.

      --
      blog
  11. It isn't quite as simple as that by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The 1-click patent is more complex than some people seem to appreciate; it is not just "buying something with one click of the mouse". And it raises an interesting point about business methods.

    Checkout in shops has always been subject to innovation. Remember the overhead pneumatic tube system to avoid having lots of cash registers and to protect against thieves? Supermarket tills have been constantly improved with innovations like conveyor belts and laser barcode readers. All of these things are patentable. Now consider the back office. Business methods are not patentable, but you don't let the competition into the back office to see how well you have integrated all your systems.

    Amazon's problem is that their ingenious checkout system is in software so it cannot be patented, but also it is seen by the user so it cannot be a secret clever backoffice system. They fall between two stalls. This will inevitably discourage people from developing innovative POS systems in software, because it is far cheaper to reinvent something already known.

    Solution? Yes, I have a solution. Reasonably, if a large department store introduced a pneumatic system, their competitors could follow them in around a 1-2 year timescale. What's more, they were free to visit the first one installed and look at its advantages and disadvantages. So why not allow software patents and business method patents but give them only a 2 year life from filing and a 1 year life from first commercialisation, whichever results in the earliest expiry? A year of leadership is a long time in retail.

    In fact, short terms for different classes of IP seems reasonable nowadays, when books are usually remaindered in a year or so and and popular music rarely lasts more than a few months. As a first shot, how about:

    • No time at all for algorithms
    • 1 year for business methods and software patents
    • 5 years for books and recordings
    • 10 years for medicines
    • 20 years for heavy industry and advanced technology

    At present, musicians get a ridiculously long copyright period even when they are just making derivative works, and this probably does more than anything else tobring the system into disrepute.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  12. Re:Bad link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I agree, and the chess game reference was buried in that horrid formatting. As a public service, this AC will save others the trouble of digging through that link and explain the joke here:

    When Eddie Haskell saw that he was about to lose the game of chess, he would upend the board and claim it was an accident. As such, he would claim that the game is not over and they would need to start again. This parallels Amazon's attempts at withdrawing and resubmitting their appeal when they sense that they are losing, thereby restarting the process.

    Ironically, my AC post will also be buried in this thread most likely...

  13. Get back to business, Amazon! by Heddahenrik · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Stop fooling around with crap like this! It's simply not worth the problem and just makes the world a worse place. Maybe it creates a few problems for some competitor, but Amazon's real competitor is that people can buy stuff off-line. Other online competitors help Amazon both selling and inventing, exactly like your lawyers don't.

    If you want to use your useless lawyers to something I would suggest suing some banks and fix so that you can deposit my income from you into a non-American bank account.

    Another real problem is that it's expensive to order stuff internationally. Just a button with "Buy this from another country" (So that one can see if it's available from a closer Amazon and maybe possible to pre-order for really cheap shipping) would be great for me and my international customers. I personally often don't care if it takes a month to get some stuff, as long as it's cheap (Like the pirate-flags for $2) and the popular stuff is available from all Amazon shops so just ship from the closest.

    It's also a pain for affiliates when someone reads their review of a book, and then buy it in Japanese from the Amazon in Japan and the affiliate gets nothing unless they register there too (which demands knowledge in Japanese).

    All of this is more important for Amazon to fix than this stupid patent-fight.