Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USPTO's 1-Click Indecisiveness Enters 5th Year

Posted by timothy on from the one-puff-candles-on-the-cake dept.

theodp writes "When it comes to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' 1-Click patent, the USPTO is an agency that just can't say no. Or yes. It's now been 4+ years since actor Peter Calveley submitted prior art that triggered a USPTO reexamination of the 1-Click patent. Still no 'final answer' from the USPTO, although an Examiner recently issued yet another Final Rejection of 1-Click related claims (pdf), admonishing Amazon for making him 'sift through hundreds of submitted references to identify what applicant allegedly has already submitted,' which he complained is 'adding an undue burden' to his workload. Looks like Bezos' 2000 pledge of 'less work for the overworked Patent and Trademark Office' isn't working out so well in practice. Not too surprising — after all, Amazon did inform Congress that it 'has modified its specific [patent] reform proposals from the year 2000.'"

5 of 36 comments (clear)

  1. Simple solution ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Paging Captain Obvious: If you can't figure it out in 5 years, then the application is obviously too vague, or otherwise defective, to be granted a patent!

    Gee, do I have to do ALL your thinking for you?

  2. None of this would be an issue ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... if the USPTO had a '1-click' accept/reject option for their patent/trademark approval systems. Unfortunately either Jeff Bezos or Peter Calveley beat them to it.

  3. Bureaucracies... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The safest thing for any bureaucracy to do is nothing at all. You can't get blamed for making a bad decision, and you get to claim that you don't have enough resources to do the job, thus vying for an increased budget next year.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  4. Waiting on Bilksi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    USPTO is waiting on Bilski. It will come soon and state whether a business method (and not software as is commonly said) is valid. USPTO doesn't want to have to re-decide this afterward, and only if business method patents are approved of will it get approved.

  5. Re:applicants should pay the USPTO for expenses by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's only an incentive for examiners to drag their heels to rake in more in fees.

    It would also ensure yet another gateway open only to the rich.

    I'd prefer a merit system, where both companies and examiners who are involved in either requesting or granting a patent that is later invalidated lose brownie points.

    And I think that companies submitting frivolous patent applications should get spanked.