Slashdot Mirror
Apple Tries To Patent 3rd Party In-App Purchasing
bizwriter writes "Apple has spared no effort in trying to injure its arch mobile rival through the courts, like blocking Android vendors from important markets through patent and trademark infringement suits. Now it's developing an additional angle: an attempt to patent in-application purchases from third parties, as an application filed on April 26, 2010 and made public on Thursday made clear."
Steam is a third party from Windows, I can buy programs/apps through that years before this filing. I am sure some 3rd party apps on the iPhone had in-app purchasing pre-filing of this. It wouldn't be the first time Apple patented something it saw a third party app do, however.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
I've finally realized how these types of patents keep cropping up.
The dumber the population gets, including experts, the more the phrase "non-obvious" covers.
Don't Lodsys already have a patent on this?
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/06/11/164209/Lodsys-Expands-Patent-Lawsuit-to-10-More-Companies
application filed on April 26, 2010
Maybe we should let companies have these patents, but drop the protection time down to a few years. That way you can stall innovation, but not for long, which gives incentive to set reasonable licensing terms.
Yeah, probably this.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Typically on slashdot, we get annoyed when we see someone trying to patent something we would characterize as a straightforward application of technology. As I watch this keep happening, I'm almost wondering if this practice of patents-as-weapons can EVER be successfully stopped.
By now, large companies have millions upon millions of dollars invested in the status quo. Any serious reform to the patent system, even just the software patents in the US, would end up flushing all of that money down the drain. Businesses are paying that money to gain weapons against their competitors - in the best case as deterrents against lawsuits, in the worst case as ammunition for the business world equivalent of carpet bombing. If all of a sudden they could no longer serve that purpose, all of that investment would be an utter waste.
Even the philosophical side of the issue is not entirely clear cut - a lot of people don't see the worth of anything if it can't be "monetized" in some fashion. To those people, any argument against software patents is going to look like wealth destruction for no purpose. If the only thing you value is commercial assets and how they can be used in the business world, things like free software are value-destroying net-negatives for society and need to be stopped. Sort of like the arguments that the Environmental Protection Agency and related regulations need to go - if the invisible hand of the free market doesn't protect things like health and the environment, then by definition they are not valuable and worthy of protection. Same for "academic freedom" and "open source" work-for-free hippies - they aren't optimal when it comes to money extraction, so they need to go.
The same dynamic is the reason for people advocating for infinite copyrights (or effectively infinite, at least) - once copyright expires, value is destroyed. The broader cultural wealth of a society with a rich public domain is not a monetary asset, and therefore is not an asset at all. As long as people with the power to influence lawmaking decisions continue to think this way, it is unlikely we will ever see anything resembling real patent reform.
Things like the GPL and other open source licenses represent the counter-culture to those trends in the copyright world, but patents have a "pay to play" disadvantage that limits the ability of people without financial resources to have an impact. Which is by design, of course - those with money want to maximize it's utility and power, and diluting it by allowing penniless students, academics and hobbyists to interfere with their moneymaking schemes would never do.
sorry to burst your bubble but this kind of behavior isn't new for Apple. Thanks to Apple though it does appear to becoming standard operating procedure for all the tech giants these days.
I'll probably be voted down for this but I can't help thinking that semi obvious things like this are clear targets for people/companies to patent.
However, unless someone tries to patent X there will always be some unvertanty over its legality. Are there hidden patents somwhere just being dusted off and about to be used against me?
If a company tries to patent X and the patent application gets refused then it makes it harder for other companies to come along and try the same trick.
As we have seen with the Lodsys patent troll cases can pop up out of nowhere and hit not the likes of apple or google but the developers themselves. Could this be an attempt by apple to block off the sort of thing that Lodsys is trying out? On the face of it, this application seems to be pretty similar to what Lodsys are claiming. Perhaps apple have spotted some gaps this the Lodsys patent's scope and are getting in with their application before Lodsys modify their patents to cover it themselves.
Frankly all this schennanagins are getting rather silly and should be stopped ASAP. However until the various Patent Offices around the world pressure their governements to sort the laws out to stop this madness, then it will continue.
Meet the new Microsoft.
There had better be a very good reason why 'in-app purchases from 3rd parties' are somehow not similar to buying stuff through a web browser...
As of late, is often seemingly ignored by the patent office.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
From what I understand, prior art has increased in scope. Where before the only prior art that counted was other patens or scientific publications.
Now any kind of publishing is prior art, if anything was published before the patent application in first to file, the patent is dead.
In the previous version, people can sit on an idea for decades without publishing, then file for a patent, and will win over any prior art (including patents) publications during the "sitting-on-it" period. This is how standard organizations were submarined.
I am a patent attorney. You are clearly not.
You have no idea what you are talking about. First to file did not change anything prior art-wise. It did not get rid of prior art. I cannot see you doing something and then file a patent application on it myself. Please, for the love of god, stop spreading this bullshit FUD around. You and everyone like you that keeps saying this is making the slashdot community dumber with your posts.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I am a patent attorney.
I wouldn't say that too loudly around here, doc. We hang boys like you in this town...
PS - the above was an attempt at humor. If you find it offensive, well, too bad.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Is there a reason why nobody has patented the ability to play a game in the first person perspective? I don't know anything about patent law, but this doesn't seem any less ridiculous than other patents that have been approved and defended.
Your understanding of "first to file" is incorrect. The concept of prior art still exists, and can still be used to overturn a patent or prevent it from being granted. It does eliminate the (difficult and often arbitrary) process of determining who "really" came up with and acted on something "first" when two entities attempt to patent the same invention.
I wonder why prior art is still valid defence in Europe then... Oh, my guess some people are just uninformed.
WHATEVER. Apple should just stop being an a$$hole and play nice with the other 4 year olds in the playground.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
No offense taken. I've been around slashdot a long long time (see userid).
I am usually hesitant to say I am a patent attorney. And once upon I time I tried to educate the slashdot crowd and help them navigate the nuances of patent law. But it's gotten so bad over the last four or so years I don't even bother unless I something egregiously wrong. This first-to-file-means-I-can-steal-your-invention or prior-art-no-longer-exists keeps getting posted and I just had to say something.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Thanks to Apple though it does appear to becoming standard
That has always existed. Various tech companies have sued competitors like crazy - all the big corps have tons of cross licensing agreement. For some reason, big companies managed to convince us that they were nice people and only got patent to protect against evil companies (troll). That is simply not true - they use their patents in the way that is the most profitable to them, like they do with everything else. They are companies, not some sort of charity.
is that allowed? to patent something you have 100% no control of?
Hello I would like to patent the patent...yes the idea of a patent, I thought of it years ago...oh and make that a patent-pending just in case
A person buying produce in a Middle Aged marketplace was most likely buying from a 'third party' because the Feudal Lord du jour was the owner of the land and made the rules. I'm sure similar circumstances existed way back into late prehistory.
First, let me say thanks for trying to have a reasonable and non-torch and pitchfork carrying conversation on the subject. Now then...
From what I understand, prior art has increased in scope. Where before the only prior art that counted was other patens or scientific publications.
Not exactly, though it has been broadened somewhat.
Now any kind of publishing is prior art, if anything was published before the patent application in first to file, the patent is dead.
This is actually how it has been. Anything that was "generally accessible to the public" in the US counted as prior art, e.g., public use or sales, publications, etc. It used to be that public use outside the didn't count as prior art, although publications and papers outside the US did. Now public use anywhere counts.
Sitting on the idea wouldn't really work against standards organizations though because they typically published their standards, which would then be irrefutable prior art one year after they were published. Most submarine patents died in 1995 when the law shifted to the patent term being 20 years from earliest claimed priority date.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I should have known that first to file didn't mean first to file. It is, after all, legalese. Pray tell, since you are a patent attorney, just what does first to file mean in real english versus the gobbeldy gook that serves for legal double talk
Apple will continue to be the same company with Steeve Jobs indeed.
This is not present in-app purchasing or in-app purchasing in general. It is purchasing from within the app from an external source with external information but without actually leaving the app. I think the crux of this is you could buy something via an add in an app without leaving the app itself.
And remember the new rules are if you dont patent it somebody else can and sue you for your own idea and you have no defence.
Perhaps, but if this patent is as obvious and unoriginal as posters here are implying, and it still gets granted, and it's somehow more likely to get granted, then first to file has effectively been changed by the new law.
Admittedly a lot of if's. But, if anything in the new law effectively grants a greater presumption of originality than before, and a prior art claim requires you to sue to override the stupidity of the patent office, then first to file grants a temporary monopoly to anybody that can frame an idea in such a way as to get it past the asleep at the wheel bureaucrats a the P.O. Maybe this isn't a significant change from the old status quo, but it sure feels like it.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
If this patent gets granted, it has nothing to do with whether the system is first to file (new) or first to invent (old). I'm just saying "rail against the patent office all you want, but at least understand why you're doing it."
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
So. After a few days of sympathy for Steve Jobs, we're reminded why Apple is losing their "darling" status in the tech world.
We shifted to first to file to get rid of "interferences" which, contrary to the hype, were really not much of an issue. The rest of the world is first to file, so it made sense for us to shift too. Here's what it means:
Under the old system, say I invented X on January 1st and you invented X (exact same thing) on March 1st and neither of us know about the other person's inventing X. If you immediately file a patent application on April 1st, and I continue tinkering and perfecting, and finally file a patent application on September 1st, I win because I was the first to invent (assuming I can prove it by documentation and I was in fact diligent).
Under the new system, you win because although we both invented the same thing, you filed your patent application first. That is all first to file means.
Now, if I publish about my invention on March 15th, after you invented but before you filed your patent application, my publication is prior art and kills your patent application. DEAD. This is why prior art is not gone under first to file. It used to be that my publication would not autokill your application and you could "swear behind" my publication, showing you invented it before I published.
Now, same set of facts, but say you didn't really invent anything and instead knew about my work, when you file your application on April 1st, you still need to submit an Oath that you believe you are the first to invent X. If you sign that oath and you in fact didn't invent X - you just copied my work - you have committed fraud on the Patent Office and your patent is unenforceable. DEAD. This is true under the old system and the new system. This has nothing to do with the change to first to file and this is why first to file does not allow you to just copy someone's idea and get a patent on it even though there isn't one.
The last scenario is a bit of a prickly pear, but it's not because of first to file - it's the same under the old system. If I invent X and sit on it, using it in secret for years and years and then you independently invent X and file a patent application on it, and your patent is granted, you can then sue me for something I have been doing for years. Remember, if I had published, your patent application would have been DOA, so it is designed to encourage people to publish early.
Hope this helps.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Edison had 1000+ patents, some appear to minor variations on previous works, why don't we complain about Him? as this article is just more anti-apple trolling, why does /, bother?
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Coward.
I'm always full of great ideas. I should become a patent troll ;)
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Apple seems determined to destroy any form of innovation with these ridiculous patents.
Ironic, they steal everybody else's ideas and then sue people who may be any form of competition.
Apple have got to the stage where they can't innovate and are losing the tech battle, so they simply use their money and mindless followers to destroy whoever they can.
Steve left behind a great legacy, "steal", "lie", "sue" and "limit innovation" at all cost.
And yet another example that the patent system is a joke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)
This first-to-file-means-I-can-steal-your-invention or prior-art-no-longer-exists keeps getting posted and I just had to say something.
I thought "first-to-file" means I can't steal your invention anymore by faking documentation that I invented it earlier than you.
Perhaps if Microsoft had successfully banned the sale of all non-Windows computers on the grounds that they came in rectangular boxes, there might be a comparison. As it stands, Apple is far, far worse than any major corporation in memory.
sue 'em until you can!
it's amazing how much stupid shit apple tries to patent. Let's patent making babies next LOL
well he did tell them to "stay hungry, stay foolish"
So, if two people independantly come up with the same invention at the same time that should be proof of obviousness. An obvious solution to a new requirement.
My goodness, a highly informative and non-inflamatory post in a Slashdot patent thread... thank you very much.
I still hope the current patent system crumbles to pieces (sorry, I imagine that might make your job a little harder), but I do appreciate the intelligent responses.
Obiviously /. has forgotten, but it was not long ago when iOS -and- Android developers started getting sued by Lodsys for apps that used in-app purchasing. I know Apple is a big bad evil company, but my first thought actually is that this is to cover the angle and protect third party devs, before some patent troll comes along to cover it from this angle too.
Regarding 3rd party In-App purchases for apple iOS apps, I would consider whether the patent covers Apple's iOS framework for In-App purchases through the App Store. It would behoove Apple to apply for a patent this software process, in order to prevent a third party from patenting the process / technology and leeching money from Apple's App store commerce, whether LodeSys's patent applies here is controversial. There are rumors that the Justice department is investigating LodeSys's actions on the basis of whether they violate RICO laws, and we will have wait and see, whether Justice takes any action in the future.
I would remind people that the Patent office issuing a patent for some collection of claims, does not mean that patent can't be overturned in court.
Also, I would remind Open Source Software programmers, that IP law with software patents and trademarks will always pose barriers and hurdles to take in mind. As the software market matures, the software industry is beginning to resemble the pharmaceutical industry, where brand-name drugs have a legal monopoly for the that country for the remaining life of the patent, after which generic drugs can be introduced in a regulated fashion. Until the Intellectual property law principles of software patents are restricted or clarified, the company with the biggest legal staff has the bigger stick.
One would support furthers efforts by the EFF, ACM and other independent groups to support efforts like the ACLU to help the little guy / company toe the IP law line, and survive.
According to TFA, they are trying to patent malware (and same could be considered prior art).
Claim 1: A method comprising: presenting an application offering a product for purchase, the application being from a first entity; presenting a purchase interface overlaid the application, the purchase interface being from a second entity; and completing a sales transaction without navigating away from the application.
The method of claim 1, wherein the application is an advertisement.
The method of claim 1, wherein the application is from an application server that targets applications to users.
The method of claim 1, wherein the purchase interface is for purchasing a product directly from an online store.
This sounds like a common practice by which old-school adware and malware operated - in the case of ad-supported software, an ad for a purchaseable product would be presented in the supported application's window. When clicked, either the user's already-installed browser or an embedded MSIE instance would open for the user to complete the purchase using 'the internet'. For bona fide malware, the ad-spawning application was windowless and lurked in the background, popping up ads on top of whatever "app" the user is currently working in, and obviously without quitting said app (being a multitasking OS and all). Oftentimes, the specific ad would be triggered by what the user was doing in the other app (e.g. by monitoring for specific words typed or URLs visited). Knowing lawyers, the nuanced prior-artiness of each case might hinge on whether an IE instance and webpage embedded the the app constitutes a third-party "purchase interface" or not.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
No, the patent office did that years ago, as they've proven that either they can't recognize it, or they draw the definition so narrowly that adding magic words like "on a mobile device" mean it doesn't count any more.
Of course you can. It's fraud, but what's to stop you?
Eh, my job is my job. It's actually much more difficult to get a patent than most think, at least it has been in the last 3-4 years due to KSR and Bilski, and I don't lament that. I want high quality patents too since a lot of my work is also defending companies against patent tolls. And that work is dreary, pissing match work.
I know there are a ton of bad patents out there from the mid nineties to the mid 2000s, but what can you do but try to write good patents yourself and set client expectations as to what they can reasonably expect to get a patent on. *shrug*
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Maybe. But maybe their above someone having ordinary skill in the art. I'm not disagreeing with you - it's a common theory.
What is "obvious" is a very muddy lake. I mean, you have to compare the claims to this nebulous test of what a hypothetical person having "ordinary" skill in the art would know.
But I hear ya.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I havent heard of this before. An app on steam does not have the ability to let it's user buy third party add-ons (a custom game map, say) thru steam
See, this is what is frustrating about slashdot. Do you really - I mean really - think that a patent examiner is sitting there refusing to allow a patent until someone adds "on a mobile device" to the claims. Really?
As for the fraud, as I said above, it renders your patent unenforceable, i.e., dead. It will come out in litigation, trust me.
Please try to be a little more open-minded. It's kinda the whole point of a "discussion board."
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
What's frustrating is that there are indeed patents which claim some common technique "on the internet" or "on a mobile device". How they got to be that way, I don't know. I doubt the "inventor" started out trying to patent technique without the "on a mobile device" and then added it on after initial rejection, if that's what you're implying. No, the "inventor" stuck it there in the first place to pre-empt any prior art claims.
I find your faith in litigation disturbing, but unsurprising.
I know Apple is a big bad evil company, but my first thought actually is that this is to cover the angle and protect third party devs, before some patent troll comes along to cover it from this angle too.
If this explanation is true, then the patent lawyers certainly dealt themselves a big hand. Where do we buy futures?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I respectfully disagree about first to file
The patent on the laser would have been granted to someone other than the inventor due to the inventors mistaken belief that there was still a "reduction to practice" requirement.
You have to grant that that particular case would have unfairly gone the other way under the first to file standard.
First to file is going to favor large corporate interests with the ability to pay for the work necessary to complete filings, and disfavor individual inventors and entrepreneurs.
I say this as someone who has spent most of the last two decades working at the companies who are favored under he new state of affairs (IBM, Apple, Google).
-- Terry
I find your faith in litigation disturbing, but unsurprising.
Experience. I has it. :-P [sic, if you couldn't tell]
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Patent attorneys are the worst of all lawyers and make money off no contribution to society.
Did I mention that I'm a rocket scientist? Literally. Oh wait, nobody cares. Just like nobody cares that you're a patent attorney. You're not seen by any techy as having any value.
What's frustrating is that there are indeed patents which claim some common technique "on the internet" or "on a mobile device". How they got to be that way, I don't know. I doubt the "inventor" started out trying to patent technique without the "on a mobile device" and then added it on after initial rejection, if that's what you're implying. No, the "inventor" stuck it there in the first place to pre-empt any prior art claims.
I'm going to call bull on this. I know it is bandied about on slashdot all the time, but seriously, show me patents on bubble sort "on a mobile device" or shopping "over the internet" that are literally that broad. Most times people read patents on here, they ignore that every claim limitation matters. EVERY. And that most of the "broad" patents are actually not that broad when you look at the claims.
I totally get that you may look at something and say "that's obvious." Everyone had differing levels of skill in the art and what is obvious to you could be pretty inventive to someone else. I get that. But patent examiners aren't dolts. They aren't. I've spoken to many, MANY examiners over the years and they routinely reject claims for being too broad and they combine references that have some remote relation to each other to find that doing X here would have been obvious to do it in Y situation. I have NEVER, in my eight years doing this, EVER, had an examiner say "wow, no one ever thought you could do this on a mobile device/over the internet/one a computer" and somehow allowed it. It doesn't happen.
It's easy to say, so I'm asking you to put up: show me a patent that over the Internet or on a mobile device was THE point of novelty.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Remember all the patents that came out 10-15 years ago that were common business practices, but computerized?
Well, now Apple's doing "X with an iPad".
Pathetic.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Rather than make a better product or compete on their merits, apple continues to try and get ahead by litigation, frivolous patents, and buying up the competition.
This is par for the course for the company.
>I am a patent attorneystop spreading this bullshit FUD
Thing is YOU are doing just that we need rid of patents completely now
So basically Apple's trying to patent this. http://i.imgur.com/m5O0Z.png
Under first to invent, you could publish first, and patent within a year. So a publication within a year of filing wouldn't necessarily invalidate a patent, so you could wait for someone else to publish something, then patent it. As long as they never filed, you'd be the legal owner and withstand most legal challenges (including the real inventor, should they go after you). But with first to file, you are expected to file before publishing such that I've been told that publishing before you file could block you from successfully filing (but that sounds wonkey to me, and I can't be bothered to read the laws myself to find if that's really the case).
Learn to love Alaska
If someone would please break the chain?
First to file did not change anything prior art-wise.
I've read here the "experts" saying things that imply that under first to invent, if you saw someone else's publishing of their invention, and then patented it before one year from that publish date, you should be awarded the patent, unless the actual inventor applied as well.
But, under first to file, you are expected to file before publishing such that if you did the same thing with first to file, you should not be awarded the patent.
Is that how it is? If not, where is the error? If so, then your statement about it not changing anything would seem to be over-simplified.
Learn to love Alaska
One-Click was awarded and lasted quite a while. It was called "running a tab" for longer than history existed. In fact, the oldest writings ever found (going on 10,000 years old) were database entries from a one-click accounting system. They worded it more obscurely, but patented "running a tab - on a computer." So yes, to us out in the stands, it looks like taking a stupid and obvious 10000+ year old idea and adding "on a computer" or "on a mobile device" is sufficient to be awared a patent. Whether it is DEAD or not is irrelevant. Such invalid patents shouldn't be awarded with the intention of having them "fixed" in litigation.
Learn to love Alaska
Most times people read patents on here, they ignore that every claim limitation matters
Fuck yeah. Why should we expect patent examiners to do their jobs when they can approve absolutely everything to the same effect (what's valid is valid, what's not will be sorted out later by the courts). In fact, your way is faster and easier. Abolish the patent system. Just send a letter to the patent office with the description in it and get awarded a patent, whether for the wheel or One-Click or whatever. No need to even examine the application if you require the courts to rule on every single patent out there to determine validity.
Only a lawyer would suggest such an insane system.
show me patents on bubble sort "on a mobile device" or shopping "over the internet" that are literally that broad.
One-Click - "running a tab - over the Internet" Yes, after years of paying people like you it went away, but then I'd expect a lawyer to endorse a system that gained them income and job security.
I have NEVER, in my eight years doing this, EVER, had an examiner say "wow, no one ever thought you could do this on a mobile device/over the internet/one a computer" and somehow allowed it. It doesn't happen.
What did the guy who approved One-Click say?
Learn to love Alaska
sauron is dead, the evil empire will slowly shrink and finally collapse.
Since the U.S. has encouraged patent filing, all tech news is starting to trend toward it.
How about changing the mechanism to:
1. Company doesn't patent some arcane, small mechanism in a product of theirs.
2. You, yourself, file for said patent. You know, just for the hell of it.
3. PRO^H^H^HPost an article online saying how dumb the subject company was for not patenting it first.
It will be the new Rick Roll, or whatever referential point you want to use in this sentence.
What are you even talking about? My point was that the claims are what matter, and no claim that took an obvious idea and added "on a mobile device" was ever granted based on just that. Patent Examiners do their jobs; YOU aren't reading what they are. You look at the title and say "It's obvious!" even though the title means nothing legally. It's the claims that matter!
Your reliance on one-click is not surprising - people love to bitch and moan that it shouldn't have been granted and ignore the fact that it has been examined twice and still come out. Hundreds of prior art references have been reviewed and none apparently teach or make obvious the claims as allowed. You're doing EXACTLY what I am complaining about. You take a six element claim, ignore it all and distill it down to a five word sentence and then bitch that that is obvious. THAT'S NOT HOW PATENT EXAMINATION WORKS.
And, it wasn't allowed just because it was "running a tab - on a computer." I've listed the elements of claim 1 below. Let's talk about tabs first. With a tab, you leave a credit card at the bar. As you order, the bartender adds the drink to the order. The credit card isn't charged with each drink, it's just there as security. At the end of the night, they ask "put it all on the card" and assuming you say yes, run it all through and you pay. In the system thousands of years ago, it was just you had an in with the place and there was no credit card. They just knew you and kept a list of everything you ordered. At some point, e.g., end of the month, you came in and paid your tab.
None of these are the one-click patent. I've pasted in the claims below for reference, and will go element by element showing how a tab on a computer isn't one click.
Claim 1 reads:
1. A method of placing an order for an item comprising:
under control of a client system, displaying information identifying the item purchasable through a shopping cart model; and
in response to only a single action being performed,
sending a request to order the item along with an
identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system;
under control of a single-action ordering component of
the server system, receiving the request;
retrieving additional information previously stored for
the purchaser identified by the indentifier in the received request; and
generating an order to purchase the requested item for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received
request using the retrieved additional information; and
fulfilling the generated order to complete purchase of the
item whereby the item is ordered without using the shopping cart model.
Analysis
First, there is no "shopping cart model" in a bar with a tab (element 1) and an identitifier isn't sent with the order.
There is no "single action performed" in a bar - there is 1) order and 2) indicate payment. One-click apparently only has one of these.
There is no single-action ordering server system.
Arguably there is "previously stored user information" but it's retrieval isn't based on an identifier.
And the tab order isn't fulfilled using the additional information.
A tab on a computer is not one click, and your - and everyone else's - insistence on ignoring the claims (my original point) and distilling an entire claim down to one idea is why this place never has a good patent discussion. It's more weeping and gnashing of teeth than actual debate. So thanks for your contribution to that.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
A tab on a computer is not one click, and your - and everyone else's - insistence on ignoring the claims (my original point) and distilling an entire claim down to one idea is why this place never has a good patent discussion.
The last time I ran a tab, I provided payment information to the barkeep, then ordered and "paid" for future orders by one-clicking by saying "put it on my tab" at which time the pre-arranged payment method is charged and the product delivered.
Like running a tab, you must pre-negotiate payment. You must be authenticated at the start of the transaction, and you must be authorized for all the one-click transaction (I've had trouble with a tab when there were two barkeepers and the other didn't put my order on my tab because he didn't know which one, similar to what would happen if you cleared cookies in the middle of a one-click). You are comparing one-click to all the computer transactions before. I'm comparing it to running a tab, and despite the fact you assert it's novel, I don't see it,
You take a six element claim, ignore it all and distill it down to a five word sentence and then bitch that that is obvious. THAT'S NOT HOW PATENT EXAMINATION WORKS.
Maybe it should.
It's more weeping and gnashing of teeth than actual debate. So thanks for your contribution to that.
I think the frustration on your part is that there are multiple issues here. One, the system is broken (that you assert litigation is a necessary and vital part of the process is proof of that to any non-lawyer). The other is that the broken system isn't even being followed consistently and logically (again, to those who read the patents (not just the summaries) and look at what was out there when the patent was filed for. One issue is that body of knowledge is prior art. Note that for on-click, there was massive market pressure to "simplify" the checkout process to encourage online shopping. Others have tried simplifying, with limited success. Going to a one-click purchase would have sounded dimple and obvious to a lay person a year before it was filed for. And given the "one click" goal, a person from the industry of average capability would likely have come up with the implementation Amazon used. It was obvious, and not novel.
Learn to love Alaska
I think the frustration on your part is that there are multiple issues here. One, the system is broken (that you assert litigation is a necessary and vital part of the process is proof of that to any non-lawyer).
On the contrary, I never said it was necessary or vital. I just said that it would be the easiest way to prove fraud. I will also say that any patent attorney that wants to keep his license will not file a patent application based on his client stealing/copying an invention. People say it happens, but there are very very few cases of this.
The other is that the broken system isn't even being followed consistently and logically (again, to those who read the patents (not just the summaries) and look at what was out there when the patent was filed for. One issue is that body of knowledge is prior art. Note that for on-click, there was massive market pressure to "simplify" the checkout process to encourage online shopping. Others have tried simplifying, with limited success. Going to a one-click purchase would have sounded dimple and obvious to a lay person a year before it was filed for. And given the "one click" goal, a person from the industry of average capability would likely have come up with the implementation Amazon used. It was obvious, and not novel.
And yet, no one had done it before. No one. Erego, not obvious. You are looking at it in hindsight, which you can't do. If it was sooooo obvious, how come there aren't a dozen similar filings?
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
And yet, no one had done it before. No one. Erego, not obvious. You are looking at it in hindsight, which you can't do. If it was sooooo obvious, how come there aren't a dozen similar filings?
I assert that if Amazon didn't do it first, it would have been done within a year of when they had done it and would have been done even if Amazon never existed. Yes, I can't prove that. History shows the same thing happening multiple times throughout history. When the world was ready for something, multiple people independently invented the same thing at the same time with no sharing of any information between them. Patents are bad because they crush that type of innovation. Nobody has been able to figure out how to rectify the problem. First to file and first to invent both recognize the problem and assert a "fix" that doesn't address the underlying problem.
Learn to love Alaska
So in other words, you just hate all patents, right? Got it.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
No. I just think that they are unconstitutional. To be constitutional, they must "promote" science and art. And they don't. They have the unconstitutional stated goal of "protecting profits" and such. Congress *may* create patents to promote art and science, and since patents don't do that, Congress should repeal all the laws giving such protections.
I don't "hate" them. A patent deserves my "hate" no more than the wind deserves hate for blowing leaves into my yard I must then rake. I choose to not hate things which hate can't affect (I do hate my mother in law, but that's actually constructive sometimes). But hating inanimate ideas is silly. I just evaluate them logically and find they perform the opposite of the function they are tasked with. I may feel pity for the poor schmucks deluded enough to see value in the system (and yes, I do separate out whether some individual patent was good, vs the entire system, as the system must be judged as a whole).
Learn to love Alaska
I assume you are referring to the App Store and the walled garden approach? Non-computer people place very little value on having an open ecosystem. If you are not a programmer you won't be writing your own apps so having an open system is worth very little.
Actually, you're wrong.
Non-computer people take an open ecosystem for granted.
You think no-one cares because they dont know, in reality no-one cares because they assume it will always be there for them. "Locked down" is one of the biggest reasons I hear for people leaving Iphone, you'll find a lot of people will miss the freedom they have come to expect on their computers when you take it away. This is why Android has outsold Iphone in half the time that Iphone has been released.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
That's OK, the courts do too. When it comes to prior art, it has to be an exact match. When it comes to infringement, a lot of stretching is accepted to let the supposed infringing device match the patent.
are you a patent attorney? have you ever been involved in a patent case? Or are you just saying that out of your ass?
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I disagree. If I have a patent on something, I have disclosed it to the world, thus promoting the sciences by making my work known. Additionally, you have to design around it, thereby making new discoveries or thinking of new ways to solve the problem, also promoting the sciences.
Face it, you're anti patent. It doesn't really matter what I say, you are. Thanks for the "debate." Have a nice day.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Designing around a patent is a broken window fallacy. Doing work just to do work (essentially copying something without looking like you aren't trying to copy something) is not productive. Also, you disclosing it in exchange for a monopoly on it doesn't share it with the world, and instead stifles science because in practice, people will avoid similar things or improving things, as they wouldn't be allowed to productize them. It's happened many times, and the fact that you pretend it's never happened once indicates that you've drunk the cool-aid.
Learn to love Alaska
Alright. Time to put up or shut up: Describe a patent system that promotes the arts and sciences. I'd love to hear your idea.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I believe this is Apple's attempt to submarine Lodsys and has nothing to do with all the flamebait and troll accusations most are posting. Apple is attempting to protect their developers, period.
Patent applications should cost no more than $500, with a short approval process and should be able to be filled out completely by a person with a 6th grade education and access to a library for prior-art searches and such. If any statement on an application is found to be untrue (i.e. insufficient listing of prior art) then future fees for that applicant will be $10,000 (by applicant, that includes the company listed, not just the inventor). If any are provably negligently or fraudulently untrue, then all patents by that applicant will be rescinded and no further applications will be accepted from that applicant, nor any applicant who acquires any future interest in that company (including stock ownership).
The biggest single problem for patents in today's age is that they are too easy for a megacorp to get, and too hard for a guy in his garage to get. As such, the garage inventors are giving up on actual inventing as a profession (unless they get a Billy Mays success so they can quit their day job), and that reduces total innovation for things like a friend of mine who invented a new type of fishing net for dipnetting. He had other ideas he wanted to develop, but the difficulty in getting and defending a patent make that difficult.
I also had a neighbor who got hundreds of corporate patents, and "invented" a number of things that he could have/should have gotten patents on (timed security lighting with motion sensors and such just because he wanted a light like that on his front door and nothing commercially available could do that in the 1960s when he invented the one he built one of and installed at his house). But he wasn't intending to sell it, and the cost of patents are prohibitive. In today's age, he might blog it, but back then, there was no easy way for him to publish. But a patent should be not just a commercial tool of profit, but a repository for knowledge, and so many people now are purposefully excluding their ideas from that repository because it's inconvenient and expensive, the opposite of what it should be.
And copyright is from the same clause in the Constitution (which names neither patents, nor copyright by name), allowing, but not requiring the protection of "writings" and "discoveries" Note, music performed and movies are both neither writings, nor discoveries. As such, copyright on a picture would appear to be unconstitutional to a constitutional conservative. Note also that Congress may, but not must do so. As such, a better system (and one that would be explicitly constitutional, unlike the current one) and much simpler, would be to simply eliminate all patents and copyrights. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," is the sole purpose of that power. So the system should be designed with that one and only one goal in mind, and the current one is explicitly stated to be to secure profit, and no mention of encouraging progress.
Learn to love Alaska
Patent applications should cost no more than $500,
A patent application right now costs $650 for a guy in his garage (filing fee + search fee + examination fee, all as small entity).
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm
That is half the cost that a "large entity" would incur. Furthermore, the recent patent law, which sparked this whole debate, created a "micro entity" which is entitled to a 75% reduction in fees, i.e., it'd cost $325 for a guy in his garage. You can thank Obama now.
with a short approval process
Define short and where does the money come from to pay for the Examiners now that nobody is paying fees?
and should be able to be filled out completely by a person with a 6th grade education
You complain about patents on obvious things, yet a patent should be able to be filed by a person with a 6th grade education? WTF?! Can you wrap your head around how hypocritical that is?
and access to a library for prior-art searches and such. If any statement on an application is found to be untrue (i.e. insufficient listing of prior art) then future fees for that applicant will be $10,000 (by applicant, that includes the company listed, not just the inventor).
So what if that prior art is not in the "library." Are they penalized because the library is not complete? What if they do a reasonable search, but don't uncover an analogous idea in another technology area? What if, because they only have a 6th grade education, they can't understand the other technology area's teaching. For example, what if the idea is a lock/key type mechanism and there is an analogous technique in gene sequencing. What if I think it's analogous and you don't? Who's right and are they penalized 10,000 from now on? Doesn't that impact their job prospects in the future? What company is going to want to hire someone that automatically incurs a 10k penalty on their applications?
If any are provably negligently or fraudulently untrue, then all patents by that applicant will be rescinded and no further applications will be accepted from that applicant, nor any applicant who acquires any future interest in that company (including stock ownership).
Where to even begin with this. If I caught you shop lifting, does that mean you can never shop again? Especially on the negligently part. Negligence means you didn't mean to do it. And you're going to exact that punishment on them? I refer you again to how that negatively impacts their employment potential.
but back then, there was no easy way for him to publish. But a patent should be not just a commercial tool of profit, but a repository for knowledge, and so many people now are purposefully excluding their ideas from that repository because it's inconvenient and expensive, the opposite of what it should be.
The Patent Office has forum for exactly this called the Statutory Invention Registration. It allows someone to publish and invention (but give up any rights in it). Been around since the 80s.
Since you're going to debate the constitutionality of patents and copyrights, let's quote it, shall we?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Inventors and Authors have the exclusive right - they can block others from doing - their respective writings and discoveries. And you ARE aware that movies and sound recording didn't exist in 1787, right? England had patents and copyrights before we did (patents in general date back to 500BC) and that's what this is talking about, albeit not explicitly called "a patent." And if you are going to be strictly constructionalist, there are literally thousands of things that a
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Where to even begin with this. If I caught you shop lifting, does that mean you can never shop again?
Yes. I've been to many stores with "this person is not allowed in this store - shoplifter" posted. So yes, a shoplifters can be and are banned for life from shopping there again. You shoplift from the patent office, and the punishment would not be unreasonable. You are so dead set on defending your opinion that you aren't even listening to mine. If I say"Patent applications should cost no more than $500," You counter with "it [currently] cost[s] $325 for a guy in his garage" and "where does the money come from to pay for the Examiners now that nobody is paying fees?" You assert that I'm wrong because fees are lower than I say they should be less than, then state that revenue would be reduced. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Instead, try to compare the general idea of what I described against what's out there now. Oh no, you can't consider them equally, the current process is perfect and there's no room for improvement.
Learn to love Alaska
No, you are missing the whole point. You are saying "the system needs to be cheaper for the common man" and I'm saying "it's already that way!"
But your position that -- because I know you didn't know fees were that low -- "patents cost too much to get for the everyday man; we should lower them" does not work with your position of "it should be a quick turnaround." The reason it takes so long is because there are not enough examiners. If you lower fees, as you propose, there is no additional money to hire examiners. Even assuming you DID know that fees were that low, there is still no additional money to hire additional examiners. You cannot lower fees, or keep them at their current rate AND speed up examination. THAT was my point.
Furthermore, I never said the system was perfect. Far from it. And I live it every day, so I know I see issues that you haven't even considered. But a) you come across as blinded by your anti-patent bias and b) your proposed system -- even as a general idea -- is no better than the existing one and in fact has glaring contradictions (none of which you chose to respond to) that would make it WORSE than the existing system. So yeah, I'm going to trash your "general idea" when compared to the existing system.
As for the shoplifter, I simply do not believe that any place bans someone for life after one offense. I'm sure you could find some place somewhere, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime, just as your assertion that if there is one negligently untrue statement in a patent it should auto-ban someone for life. If you think patents are expensive now, how much do you think it will cost to verify every, single, sentence to make sure you didn't accidentally say something untrue?
I'm done. You accuse me of lying, which, is bullshit. I'm not trying to intentionally deceive you - I'm trying to show you that your bias is unreasonable and in your fervent passion to come up with something better, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water and not thinking critically about how your system would actually work. When I shot holes in it, you had no response.
Have a nice day, I'm out.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
By the way, this whole post shows what's wrong with your attitude. Not only do you have it completely backward, but talk like you know what you're talking about, you then acknowledge that you can't be bothered to actually read up on it.
FFS man, you are making slashdot worse. Congrats.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
And yet, it must be correct, as I asked for correction, and you gave none, so you agree, right? It's like taxes. Even professionals argue about points, and the official publications seem contradictory to many (i.e. the IRS encourages tax avoidance, and condemns tax evasion, when without further explanation, most would think them the same).
Learn to love Alaska
If you lower fees, as you propose, there is no additional money to hire examiners.
Are you arguing that you think the fees should be higher, or are you just arguing because you've decided you don't like me and will argue with all I say? Not to mention that there is no requirement anywhere that the patent department work on a profit, use general revenue to speed it up. Or, just lower the examination done by the examiners and rubber stamp everything. If someone can prove falsehood, then review it again. The higher penalties go hand in hand with being able to lower examination time, as fear of the penalties should encourage people to do more appropriate work before hand.
you are throwing the baby out with the bath water and not thinking critically about how your system would actually work. When I shot holes in it, you had no response.
I had a response, it just wasn't what you wanted to hear, so again, you are lying. "you had no response" is a lie. I had a response. I posted it. You didn't like it, so you ignored it. You are a liar. If you don't like me calling you a liar, then stop lying. It's simple and easy.
Learn to love Alaska
If so, Apple will just buy them for their patent so that they can sue for what is, effectively, a process, which is not patentable. And why not, the patent system is that broken