Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed

Zordak writes "Amazon's infamous '1-click' patent has been in reexamination at the USPTO for almost four years. Patently-O now reports that 'the USPTO confirmed the patentability of original claims 6-10 and amended claims 1-5 and 11-26. The approved-of amendment adds the seeming trivial limitation that the one-click system operates as part of a 'shopping cart model.' Thus, to infringe the new version of the patent, an eCommerce retailer must use a shopping cart model (presumably non-1-click) alongside of the 1-click version. Because most retail eCommerce sites still use the shopping cart model, the added limitation appears to have no practical impact on the patent scope.'" Also covered at TechFlash.

Comments

My DEAR god

[alexborges]

And here I thought I being mangnanimous with the PTO people and giving them the benefit of the doubt was the sound and decent thing to do.

Not any more.

They are stupid idiots.

Now who's gonna patent the wonderful idea that is 2 Click ?

Re:My DEAR god

[WrongSizeGlass]

* Click 1: Buy Now!
* Click 2: Are You Sure?

There's some pre-existing art so no one tries.

Re:My DEAR god

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone done the half-click grab, the mouseover purchase, or the "drag-and-drop into the Buy Hole"?

Re:My DEAR god

[Mindcontrolled]

I seriously don't get the USPTO. I work in the patent law field in Europe. When I have to deal with the European Patent Office, I basically know what to expect and can prepare applications accordingly. Software, in particular, is basically a no-go. I only occasionally deal with the USPTO, and I yet have to see a concept behind their decisions. Folks, please get a sane PTO and a sane patent law. Would make my work significantly easier.

Re:My DEAR god

[dgatwood]

I'm actually thinking I should patent no-click. It's the iPod "shuffle" feature applied to an online store. When you visit the site, it chooses a random product, purchases it, and ships it to you. Take that, Amazon! I'd like to see you design a store that requires fewer clicks than that!

Re:My DEAR god

[HungryHobo]

Sometimes I hear about these patents and upon further reading there's actually some substance to them and the short description turns out to be unfair.
So I ask slashdot- does this patent have any real substance with anything that's genuinely innovative?

Re:My DEAR god

[mitchell_pgh]

MITCHELL_PGH LLC PATENTS HALF CLICK

WASHINGTON, DC—mitchell_pgh LLC has filed a 1.8 billion dollar class action lawsuit against Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google. "They are in clear violation of our half click patent. In fact, they violate our patent TWICE with every purchase!" said mitchell_pgh's director of operations Edward Smelt. "We are working closely with the USPTO to announce our 'press click' patent, 'mouse movement' patent, and 'depress click' patent as we speak." Smelt was unwilling to discuss mitchell_pgh LLC's ongoing "no click" patent.

Re:My DEAR god

[larry bagina]

have you tried reading it further?

Re:Patent

[alexborges]

With this PTO, you probably can.

Re:Patent

[Pojut]

Okay, conspiracy theorists. If we are in the "Brave New World", where the fuck is my free drugs and obligatory orgies?

College ;-)

oh crap!

[stokessd]

I just clicked on this article, now apparently I own it, so: get off my lawn!!

Sheldon

Non-obviousness.

[RightSaidFred99]

This is an incredibly obvious patent and not at all novel. Is the bar for non-obviousness now simply that nobody else has patented it yet? Bit of a..."circular" (to put it nicely) definition, no?

Re:Non-obviousness.

[Pojut]

Keep in mind that if an examiner is going to reject an application on the basis of obviousness, you can't just say "it's obvious". You have to come up with examples of why it is obvious. The Supreme Court ruled this is what needs to be looked at:

the scope and content of the prior art;
the level of ordinary skill in the art;
the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
objective evidence of nonobviousness.

And in a secondary fashion:

commercial success;
long felt but unsolved needs; and
failure of others.

Re:Non-obviousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, this patent has been fully exposed to the light of day, prior art has been submitted, and it's clearly unpatentable on the face of it.

Yet the patent has been upheld.

What this proves is that the USPTO doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be scrapped. There's little legitimate point in having it at all anymore. The people it supposedly should protect (the small inventors) are the very people crushed by it. They and the rest of us would be better off if it no longer existed at all.

Re:Non-obviousness.

[moonbender]

Well you've got to remember it's an old patent by now -- of course it's obvious at this point! But back then, we were all like "woah" and "how did they DO that?!!!" They deserve a lot of credit.

Re:Non-obviousness.

[ChipMonk]

1-Click fails on every point, but most of all on prior art. A single click to "perform action X now" has been around at least since Douglas Englebart gave the Mother Of All Demos in 1968. If nobody in the USPTO's review process could see that, then they all deserve to be demoted to janitors. (But I wouldn't hire them to clean my floors.)

Re:Non-obviousness.

[AK Marc]

1-Click simplifies purchases saying "I'll take this, only this, and bill me in the usual manner." Someone running into a store, shouting "put it on my tab" as they grab one item and run out has existed for thousands of years. "Put it on my tab --- on a computer" is somehow new and novel. It's a business method, not a technology, so it shouldn't be patentable. It isn't even a software patent, as you aren't patenting code or such, but the general business plan, and an ancient one at that...

Re:Non-obviousness.

[ChipMonk]

Okay, I read it. I see nothing there that any sensible team of a business programmer and a UI designer wouldn't do.

After that single click on the "Buy It Now!" icon, I don't care how many HTTP cookie name/value pairs are sent, I don't care how much database processing goes on, I don't care how many forms are printed out in how many warehouses. Carrying out any set of actions, from popping up a message box to ordering an ICBM launch, as a result of a single click from a user, is as old as the mouse itself.

I guess the dunces at the USPTO think computing history started with the IBM PC, and the first browser was Internet Explorer. They've lost sight of the fact that Clippy is just the visual manifestation of a glorified calculator's formulas, decoded from the magnetic patterns on a spinning platter.

Re:US copyright...

[headkase]

From an outside perspective to the US it appears that anything a corporation wants done the government will bend over and give to them. Citzens however? Second-class to the corporates. The root of the issue from my opinion is that money has becomed valued over what is right. Right is such a subjective term, much easier just to value money.

Re:US copyright...

[greensoap]

The 1-click patent has nothing to do with U.S. Copyright Laws. Although I am sure that you can find any number of people that hate both equally, especially on /.

Re:US copyright...

[gront]

Uh... The USPTO isn't the US Copyright Office, don't use the same rules, laws, or concepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Copyright_Office So yeah, FUD is all well and good, but at least attack the correct legal concept.

the Supreme Court may have something to say

[ChipMonk]

The USPTO may find itself the butt of many jokes if SCOTUS invalidates 99% of software patents in their Bilski ruling.

"Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed." Respect for the USPTO, not so much.

who uses it?

[AmazinglySmooth]

I do not like the idea that I can accidentally order something. 1-click is the dumbest invention ever.

Re:who uses it?

[natehoy]

My wife signed up for "Amazon Prime" and unbeknownst to her they turned it on as part of that process. She was looking at netbooks and wanted to add a few favorites to her shopping cart so she could compare them, and damn if the "Buy Now" button doesn't look a whole lot like the "Add To Cart" button.

Thankfully, when she called me in a panic after trying to cancel the order NOT ONE MINUTE AFTER PLACING IT and getting the "order is in process and cannot be canceled" message, we determined that the one she picked was pretty much the ideal netbook for her anyway. But we turned it off almost immediately thereafter (fortunately they allow you to turn it off, or I would literally stop shopping at Amazon's site for fear of accidentally buying things).

I cannot imagine for the life of me why anyone would want a single, large, shiny button (actually, no, two of them) on the information page that commit you to buying something the instant you click it. I'm sure there's a good reason (other than Amazon wanting to sell more stuff via accidental clicks), but I can't think of it.

Re:who uses it?

[R.Mo_Robert]

My wife signed up for "Amazon Prime" and unbeknownst to her they turned it on as part of that process. ... I cannot imagine for the life of me why anyone would want a single, large, shiny button (actually, no, two of them) on the information page that commit you to buying something the instant you click it. I'm sure there's a good reason (other than Amazon wanting to sell more stuff via accidental clicks), but I can't think of it.

I have the same problem on my Kindle, which essentially uses the one-click model as well (all you have to do is accidentally move the joystick to the right button--or, better yet, do it without realizing it because the screen is relatively slow at refreshing--and click down). It seems like a terrible idea to me, too, without even so much as an "Are you sure?" confirmation.

Luckily, the one time I accidentally bought a book, I e-mailed customer service, deleted the book (per their request, although we all know now they can do it themselves), and they refunded my money. (Then they charged me again, I called again, and they refunded me again. Don't know what that happened, but, if we ignore this second mixup, it was easy to get fixed.)

Re:Jobs saw it coming?

[Reverberant]

Apple has been a 1-click licensee for quite a while now.

Prior art, sorry

[Weaselmancer]

Those CD of the Month clubs are prior art.

Although you did do the clever thing and add "with a computer", so it'll probably fly.

Barrier to Entry

[headkase]

How big of a barrier to entry are software patents to innovators? You and I come up with a great idea but to implement it requires three other patents (which we would argue two of them are obvious but have been granted anyway) - which large players conveniently hold and cross-license with each other because well, they can afford it. How twisted away from the original purpose of promoting innovation by individuals will US Patent law become? The Futurama vision of Momcorp springs to mind.

Re:US copyright...

[shentino]

That's not unique to copyright.

It's part and parcel of being able to buy your way through a trial.

Re:Easy workaround

[natehoy]

Then I shall trump them with a CTRL-right-click! :)

In other news...

[SeaCrazy]

... the USPTO saves millions of dollars with their newly introduced 1-click patent approval process.

Re:US copyright...

[Kalriath]

Anyone know how to skirt the child labor laws in D.C.?

Don't pay them, and call it Work Experience.