Slashdot Mirror


Amazon 1-Click Lawyers Make USPTO Work Xmas Eve

theodp writes "In a move that would do pre-makeover Ebenezer proud, Amazon.com's 1-Click lawyers put the USPTO to work on Christmas Eve. On Dec. 24th, the USPTO acknowledged receipt of yet another round of paperwork submitted by Amazon's high-priced legal muscle, the latest salvo in Amazon's 3-year battle to fend off a patent reexamination triggered by the do-it-yourself legal effort of actor Peter Calveley. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' 1-Click patent is also under attack on another front — on Dec. 23rd, the USPTO received $810 from Amazon's attorneys together with a request that the agency invalidate Patent Examiner Mark A. Fadok's final rejection of 1-Click patent claims on the grounds of obviousness. On the bright side, patent clerks — unlike Bob Cratchit — get the day after Christmas off!"

7 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt by sir_eccles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Loosely translated means they filed the paperwork online and the whole thing was accepted automatically. So if anything, it was Amazon being Ebenezer making its lawyers work Xmas eve, the USPTO didn't have to do anything.

    1. Re:Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Loosely translated means they filed the paperwork online and the whole thing was accepted automatically. So if anything, it was Amazon being Ebenezer making its lawyers work Xmas eve, the USPTO didn't have to do anything.

      Yeah, no kidding. I mean, we're talking government employees here.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Re:This is a lousy business decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Negative PR? Only with the tiny audience that reads slashdot or sites like it. That's not a slam of slashdot, but you have to admit this is not anything like a mainstream news site.

  3. Re:Obvious patent? Not back then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    one click buying was as obvious as n[anything], it starts off with a bunch of steps and slowly gets optimized to the minimum, which is a very logical progression.

    see 'one click recording', 'one button printers' and so on. Eventually all technology gets optimized to the minimum number of interfaces required to make it work.

    Not only is this an obvious patent, it is part of a special class of obvious patents, the ones that are destined to happen anyway, no matter who patents them.

  4. Re:This is a lousy business decision. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Is it a lousy business decision?

    Pushing this absurd patent is costing Amazon more in negative PR than the patent could possibly be worth.

    Negative PR with who? The people that already feel questionably about Amazon? Because the truth is no one outside the Web world (that's us) cares, and we represent a very tiny part of Amazon's customer base, and most of us will keep on buying things from Amazon anyway (though I try to buy from Powells when I can).

    My point is that hoping Amazon gets "embarrassed" about this isn't going to happen, and your statement simply isn't true.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  5. Re:Obvious patent? Not back then. by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so should TV commercials have been patented because before TV was invented "advertising on TV" was a very radical concept?

    Amazon didn't invent e-commerce. they only popularized it. and even if they had been the first to implement one-click check out, it's still not a patentable non-trivial/obvious invention.

    if businesses are allowed to patent trivial features like saving a customer's credit card information, then you risk destroying the software development industry. within a few years any software development firm would have to license 99% of all of their products' features because everything from autosave to file menus would have been "pretty unbelievable" at some point in time.

  6. Re:Not everyone's Christian... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you pay your respects to Jesus/Santa/Novi God then you are taking part in a religious celebration whether you believe in it or not.

    Please feel free to point out what in my description depicted religious ceremony. And please - are you really implying that Santa Claus is a god?

    Again - there are underpinnings of Christianity in many Western Christmas traditions. Sure. But then, there's also lots of underpinnings of other religions as well. Just because one follows such a tradition, does not make one a participant of that religion. If it was otherwise, Christmas as most Westerners observe it would present some serious problems for devout Christians (who are pretty uncomfortable with the idea of practicing multiple religions).

    I should also note that I do not claim to be an athiest. My religious beliefs are, frankly, nobody's business but my own. The point isn't that Christmas is some Atheist field-day but rather you do not have to be religious to participate in the holiday.

    I know that upsets the "reason for the season" folks. They'll have to get over it (they won't).