Slashdot Mirror


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.

13 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. My DEAR god by alexborges · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ?

    --
    NO SIG
    1. Re:My DEAR god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:My DEAR god by mitchell_pgh · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

  2. Re:Patent by alexborges · · Score: 4, Funny

    With this PTO, you probably can.

    --
    NO SIG
  3. oh crap! by stokessd · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    Sheldon

  4. Re:Non-obviousness. by Pojut · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Non-obviousness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. the Supreme Court may have something to say by ChipMonk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Non-obviousness. by moonbender · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  8. Re:Jobs saw it coming? by Reverberant · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  9. Re:Non-obviousness. by ChipMonk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.)

  10. Re:who uses it? by natehoy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  11. In other news... by SeaCrazy · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    .sig? Get your own damn .sig!