Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

E-Commerce To Evolve Next Month As Amazon Loses the 1-Click Patent (thirtybees.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

An anonymous reader shares an article: Next month e-commerce will change forever thanks to Amazon. September 12 marks 20 years since Amazon filed for their 1-Click patent. This means that the patent will expire and the technology behind it will be free to be used by any e-commerce site. Starting next month more and more sites will be offering a one click checkout experience. Most major sites have already started development with plans to launch soon after the patent expires. Amazon applied for the 1-Click patent in September of 1997, the actual patent was granted in 1999. The whole idea behind the patent is when you store a user's credit card and address you only need a single click to order a product. For the last 20 years Amazon has kept a tight hold on this technology, they have only licensed it to one company: Apple. No one knows what Apple paid to license the technology, but the value of the patent has been assessed at 2.4 billion dollars by sources. Over the last 20 years Amazon has defended the validity of the patent in several cases, even having to revise the patent at one point. But, now the wait is almost over and this technology is about to make it into the open market.

141 comments

  1. Never should have been granted by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This patent exemplifies everything that's wrong with software patents.

    1. Re:Never should have been granted by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Just be thankful that Amazon discovered this concept and filed a patent for it, so that the public at large was able to be enlightened by it. Luckily, the incentives provided by the patent system encouraged Amazon to make the investments required to do the hard work to find and realize this innovation.

      Otherwise, the entire world could have missed out on the benefits of one-click shopping forever!

    2. Re:Never should have been granted by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I submitted a patent-inspector-one-slap patent.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Never should have been granted by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      It shouldn't even be legal to deploy, let alone patent.

    4. Re:Never should have been granted by BeerMilkshake · · Score: 1

      Here we sit after a few decades of doubleplusungood IP law.

    5. Re:Never should have been granted by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Well the question is, if Amazon didn't come up with this idea, would it be used today? While today it seems obvious, because we have seen it in action. But would had this idea been successfully implemented without it? There is a risk involved in keeping the billing information accessible to the interface layer, and allow for one click purchase, may have been too easy, and caused problems where too much stuff was purchased by accident or fraudulently.

      A lot of businesses work off the model, what are the other are doing. So the Amazon 1 click may had been a unique and original idea.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Never should have been granted by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, it illustrates nicely that even bad patents are prevented from being permanent problems, unlike the eternal monster copyright has become.

    7. Re: Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one click patent should have been rejected on the basis of being a business process patent which wouldn't warrant protection.

      That being said this concept was invented to remove choice from customers. Previously you'd have to go through the checkout process completely and have more chances to reconsider.

      I think it's a pretty good bet that somebody else would have come up with the idea.

    8. Re:Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our luck so far has been that only two companies have been able to use it. Now overspending will be that much easier at so, so many other places.

    9. Re:Never should have been granted by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Yes it would have been made. Historically, one could open tabs at local stores. Your wife/kid/slave/farmhand/driver would go in, get what they want, and ask that it be added to the family head's tab. At the end of the month, or when the amount reached a threshold, a boy or shopkeeper would come by and collect the dues. Sometimes they would only need an IOU to go ask the local bank for the funds withdrawn.. like a check.

      There are countries that still practice this today. Its not exactly the same because the people have mostly been replaced with machines... but that difference shouldn't warrant a patent.

    10. Re:Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This patent exemplifies everything that's wrong with software patents."

      Bingo.

      If this kind of logic was applied to real world objects we'd have a "patent" on one-flush toilets.

    11. Re:Never should have been granted by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's not what one-click does. One-click lets you buy something by looking at the page and saying "buy!" It's as if the store had the ability to sense that you lifted an item off the shelf and immediately charge your card, but only when you take it to buy and not when you take it to examine and put back.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    12. Re:Never should have been granted by al0ha · · Score: 1

      Yeah they are calling it technology? Hardly...

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    13. Re:Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it took 20 years for that to happen, during which time no one else could use it's idea. Sure, one-click was a terrible idea but what about some very useful feature that should have been denied a patent for being obvious but now everyone has to suffer for 20 years because of the bad patent?

    14. Re:Never should have been granted by thsths · · Score: 1

      You have to judge this from a mindset in 1995, when every e-commerce shop would have a complicated "basket" system, and involve many many clicks to order even a single item. The amazon approach was truly novel and truly revolutionary.

      Was it a significant invention? Maybe not, but then again it was narrow enough to not impede progress. Competitors requiring two clicks - once to buy and once to confirm - has not killed anybody. Even that was a massive improvement over earlier systems.

    15. Re:Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everyone is suffering regardless.

      just kill yourself if you can't handle it.

    16. Re: Never should have been granted by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Back then... you didn't "lift" anything off a shelf. You didn't do the traditional shopping like today. Carts are actually a recent concept (i.e. Macy's still doesn't have them).

      You went up to the counter and told the boy to get you x, y, & z. The boy (or girl) got it for you, sometimes off a shelf reached by ladder. You told them to put it on the tab (depending on who you were, they knew which tab) and walked out.

      Also, stuff too difficult to carry or you were too busy to, could be shipped home by the end of that day. Remember not everyone had phones... it was easier to make the "rounds" to gather the weekly needs.

    17. Re:Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone wanted it. Watch it not evolve. Or watch a bunch of dumb retailers try to implement this and experience a hoard of chargebacks. Confirming with the user that they are ordering what they want is not necessarily a bad thing.

    18. Re: Never should have been granted by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You're talking about leaving without paying. Amazon's 1-click is paying as soon as you decide you want it, without getting out payment methods, without delaying, nothing--the money leaves your possession immediately. No carts, no totaling, no paying for 6 goods at once. "That" *chaching* "and that" *chaching* "and that over there" *chaching* money vanishing out of your bank again and again.

      In a physical store, this is akin to grabbing a good and it's immediately charged; and if you grab another on your way out the door, you now have two credit card transactions before you even get outside. For a vending machine, it's as if the vending machine already knows your credit card number, and you push a button for candy and walk out--you've already been charged by the time the Hershey's bar plinks at the bottom.

      One-click is not "not paying until later". That's the credit card, and the arrangement is with your bank--the merchant gets paid immediately.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    19. Re: Never should have been granted by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't surprise me if there was such a patent back when flushing toilets were new.

    20. Re: Never should have been granted by orlanz · · Score: 1

      No, that's pretty much paying later.

      For credit and debit cards, businesses don't actually get the funds till much later. Even CASH, for large businesses, they don't recognize it as received till 30-90 days later to accommodate returns.

      For tabs, it's not a "pay me later" system. It's an informal IOU & credit system (what credit cards are based on too). It's just a way to have multiple ways (ppl) of paying for stuff without carrying a lot of cash on hand.

    21. Re: Never should have been granted by UrbanMonk · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there was a 2-Click patent.

    22. Re: Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be that pedantic in support of One-click, consider that it takes more than one click to use it as it will only work if you are logged in to Amazon. That is a necessary step and requires additional clicks.

    23. Re:Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 years for a software patent is an extremely long time. Think about the kind of software you were using 20 years ago, and imagine if you were locked out of using many of the simple and obvious short cuts and improvements that have been made in that time.

    24. Re:Never should have been granted by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      It was a feature I never really wanted so I didn't give a care.

    25. Re:Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While today it seems obvious, because we have seen it in action.

      Ah yes, the PTO big lie. With billions of people in the world to claim something like this can't/won't be reinvented multiple times in many different ways is the height of hubris.

      At the core of what is wrong with the PTO and the associated "parasite system" - the opposite of an "ecosystem". Forcing artificial scarcity on billions for the good of a very few.

    26. Re:Never should have been granted by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      are prevented from being permanent problems

      Define permanent problem. That a company rides this patent to become one of the worlds largest companies makes it a permanent problem. Who needs a patent now that Amazon could simply buy out a competitor. I wouldn't suggest that the problem will disappear next month.

    27. Re: Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a business method and it should never have been awarded protection.

      Plus, this is terrible for customers as it makes out easier to impulse buy our mistakenly order something you don't really want.

    28. Re: Never should have been granted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also you have to enter additional keystrokes to add your credit card info to your account.

      Nothing even innovative there.

    29. Re:Never should have been granted by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand about it is why anyone even cares. I'd always assumed it was a vanity patent, I mean, the idea of using one click instead of two is worth 2.4 billion dollars? I wouldn't pay fifty cents for it.

    30. Re: Never should have been granted by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Plus, this is terrible for customers as it makes out easier to impulse buy our mistakenly order something you don't really want.

      You're right - some customers probably need to be protected from themselves.

    31. Re: Never should have been granted by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The business is not getting paid later. The business gets paid by your bank; if you default on your loan, they still get paid. If you never show up to pay your tab and the store owner can't find you, they don't get paid.

      When you pay with a credit card, you're not an A/R; you, personally, have paid, according to the store you're doing business with. If the bank then can't get the money from you, well, Mom & Pop's Pretzel and Sodas Stand doesn't know anything about that, because they got their money. So did Amazon.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  2. CSRF FTW by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    CSRF FTW

  3. Garbage patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patent system is broken, reform now.

    1. Re:Garbage patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late, I've filed a patent for the fixed patent system.

  4. Who cares? by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I always thought it was a bad idea and never enabled it.

    Amazon seems to have really wanted me to enable it, but what's best for Amazon isn't necessarily best for me.

    1. Re:Who cares? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One click is the Amazon version of having candy bars at the checkout stand: quite a few people will make an impulse purchase without thinking about it twice.

    2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed! Don't make it difficult for me to purchase something, but every purchase should have some sort of confirmation. This is the problem with the Apple store as well as Amazon. It takes nothing to purchase something accidentally from them. Meaning if this is enabled on Amazon or your kids are browsing the play store, they purchase stuff without you knowing. Every purchase should be locked behind having a confirmation or entering a password.

      This ability shouldn't even be legal.

    3. Re:Who cares? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I'm a very big user of amazon (>95% of all non food purchases) and have been for over a decade and have never used it. Amazon does seem to have the best designed and least painful ordering systems available, so I don't mind the one extra click - submit order confirm

    4. Re:Who cares? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

      I'm a very big user of amazon (>95% of all non food purchases) and have been for over a decade and have never used it.

      Same here. I like to accumulate a number of items in the cart and think about them a while before committing. I frequently go back and postpone or substitute or ditch certain items. One click would be way too speedy. Likewise the "subscribe" option. I don't want a continuous supply of something showing up. With Prime, I can order it when needed and have it here in two days. If there's a crisis and I need it faster than that, there's always (gasp) going to the store, at least as long as stores still exist.

    5. Re:Who cares? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I always thought it was a bad idea and never enabled it.

      I agree with your opinion... but unfortunately there are some places where Amazon won't allow you to disable it. Like with Kindle books, for instance.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are responsible for you and your kids. We don't need a law against this, you need to control yourself and your kids. Quit trying to legislate common sense. People need to learn how to use things properly or don't use them.

    7. Re:Who cares? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yep, I would've preferred if Amazon were able to keep this particular patent forever, so that no other websites would have dangerous Big Red Buttons to avoid and disable. I wonder if they can make a slight, inconsequential change to it and reapply, like in the pharmaceutical industry?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayyyy he says something useful. Keep it up. We like this Creimer.

    9. Re:Who cares? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I do and some items in the 'save for later' that have been there for years. I actually put everything that I think I could ever want or collect in there and stopped adding to the list a year or two ago and now am slowly buying down the list as I get money. Or deleting things that I think are dumb or I obtain by other means. $5k (mainly big ticket items like a sawstop) more and it will be done. +/- incidentals, I'll have everything a nerd could possibly use in a lifetime. I already need a barn to store the crap I do have.

    10. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it first appeared I ended up with 2 copies of a CD album, disabled it once I realised how it had happened and never even considered it again. It was just a low price item but I wouldn't like to have made the same mistake with something bigger, even if the return and refund is free my time isn't.

    11. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound sweet, bitter tits

    12. Re:Who cares? by tsqr · · Score: 2

      We don't need a law against this, you need to control yourself and your kids.

      Not advocating for this supposed law, but let me guess: you've never had kids. Young children, no matter how well they're raised, have terrible judgement, no common sense, high levels of curiosity, and make a huge number of mistakes. This is how human beings learn. I suppose a parent could "control" a child by draconian means, but then the child would turn into a useless, dangerous adult.

    13. Re:Who cares? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fuck you and your inability to secure your computing devices.

      I like one-click shopping, it's fucking convenient. So I'm very glad this stupid patent is expiring and I can one-click shop on other sites too.

      This ability shouldn't even be legal.

      Just don't fucking enable it. Even if your children are imbeciles that doesn't excuse you.

    14. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One click check out is legally questionable as you have to have actual consent for a sale to take place and no amount of bullshit in the terms can change that.

      Amazon has only gotten away with it because of their generous return policy and people being ignorant of their rights.

      The whole point of a confirmation page is that that's when the consent happens. Without that page you have no proof set all that there was any sort of consent to the transaction.

        It's not that much different from those lawsuits about purchases made by children.

    15. Re:Who cares? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      They require you to enable it to do certain things. I think renting videos was one of them.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
  5. My Nero0e by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  6. 20 Years to use a simple feature? by evolutionary · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is why we need to redo the current US patent laws. They don't encourage innovation, they just protect corporations at the expense of public benefit. In addition, they actually inhibit innovation and intellectual evolution.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    1. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet Disney still have mickey mouse on the hook until January 1, 2024. 20 years seems a lot more reasonable than ~100 years.

    2. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Walt Disney anti semitic and supported fascism? So therefore we shouldn't support Disney or Mickey Mouse at all.

      If we were being consistent here.

    3. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mickey Mouse, stupid as it is, involves an actual creative step. something new was added to humanity when he was drawn. The one click patent is the inevitable effect of standard UX processes trying everything possible to reduce the number of steps in a process. Nothing original was required to produce it.

      More important than that though; Mickey Mouse has never stopped other cartoon mice being created. You are not free to copy Mickey Mouse but you are free to use the idea of a talking mouse in a cartoon in almost any way you like. The one click patent stops anyone living in countries where it is valid from creating a one click shopping process no matter what software they write themselves to do it.

      The patent is much less reasonable than the copyright, even if the latter is illegally and unconstitutionally extended indefinitely (the judges who claim otherwise are fools).

    4. Re: 20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mickey Mouse is just an idea too, dude.

    5. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patents have NEVER encouraged innovation. The argument has always been, if we can't patent our stuff, then someone can steal our hard work and... well the argument ends there because that is where the innovation begins.

      The patent system has never protected or encouraged innovation. Not in one single instance. It's always been in place simply to protect the pockets of a few innovators and lock out the majority of innovators from using prior works and improving upon that work. We would be decades or even centuries more advanced as a culture and society if the patent system wasn't in place at all.

    6. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disney will have Mickey Mouse under copyright forever. The US government just keeps passing new laws that extend copyright every time Mickey gets near the expiry date. While a "forever" copyright would be unconstitutional, the supreme court has ruled that "forever on the installment plan" is legal.

    7. Re: 20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no way in hell they are letting it go in 2024. They haven't done anything in terms of shifting away from the mouse, so obviously they will try the legislative approach to preserve it. Expect them to say some BS about how life expectancies have increased, do it for the children etc.

    8. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mickey Mouse has never stopped other cartoon mice being created.

      No one honestly knows what the world would be like if those copyrights had expired as indented (and required by the constitution). There is likely an entire industry that doesn't exist, because of this, but a non-existent industry can't pay congress for laws protecting it.

    9. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patent system is a trap designed to get inventors to disclose what would otherwise be trade secret information so that it will in time enter the public domain.
      You get a short term monopoly you can enforce legally, and in exchange you spell out how somone can copy your exact device or method.

      It is good in the long run, because the alternative is a cycle of trade secrets lost when their creator dies (or retires) and fails to pass the secret on, and wasted parallel development of the same thing, combined with an incentive for stricter nondisclosure and noncompete contracts.

    10. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by sinij · · Score: 1

      Your are in violation of my patent on shitposting on /. Cease and desist.

    11. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be interesting to see what happens when the copyrights to those early works expire. I am not aware of any pending legislation, and the first works go public on 1/1/2019. But let's also not conflate copyright with trademarks. While it may soon be legal to show Disney's Steamboat Willy royalty free at your local theater, Mickey is still under trademark protection, and rightly so. You will certainly not be able to release a new Steamboat Willy cartoon, or create a theme park based on his image.

    12. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in this particular case, they protected the general public from a stupid 1-click-to-buy feature.

      I mean... really? I don't know of anyone who uses that. Wouldn't you *care* for taxes and/or shipping costs before you commit to purchasing something? e.g. oh, $9.99... click-BUY. Ops.. it's +9% tax and $6.99 for shipping, should've bought it for $12.99 on Newegg with free shipping.

    13. Re: 20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jobs Family Trust is Disneys largest stockholder

    14. Re:20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amazon's patent on 1-click WAS for the public benefit.. limiting how many sites could peddle shit without so much as a confirmation screen before placing orders.

    15. Re: 20 Years to use a simple feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be interesting to have the opposite as a patent system...

      You have an idea, so you register it with the government. You still have to do a search on prior art, reference it, point out what improvement you are making. First to file gets the patent on that innovation.

      But everyone can use it. You don't get any exclusive rights. What you do get is points for every instance where your patent was referenced as prior art that someone improves on (with their own patent) and when your patent is referenced in an actual product, you get points for sales volume of that product. All parents referenced in a product get the points.

      The government is getting sales taxes and income taxes from this. When you get to a certain number of points... you earn a fixed income stream for some period of time. You get more income or more time if you get to some next level. But there would be a maximum, and when you reach that you won't get more money but you continue to accrue points.

      Eventually you might get some awards for high score. You're already set with the money you are just doing more because you're awesome, or to get more recognition (which is cheap for govt to grant... not a title of nobility, just an award like a ribbon or medal).

      With this system you want other people to take your idea because you still get credit for it. Referencing your idea won't cost manufacturers anything.

      If you see a product and you look up its references and don't see your patent listed , you could file a grievance. Let the PTO review it, if it's covered by your patent they just correct the record and assign you the uncredited points, and the company will pay your filing fee since it was their negligence. If you lose, you pay the filing fee. So PTO can afford to do these checks.

  7. Mi Negra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  8. I don't get it. Explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon "patented" the concept of, having previously registered a customer's credit card details, they don't need to input it again? Is that what this means? The worthless summary and headline doesn't explain anything. What the fuck is a "1-click checkout"? How can it be "1 click"? At the very least, you will need to put it in a virtual shopping basket and then "confirm purchase", so a minimum of two clicks assuming you load the product page instantly through some direct URL and also that you are already logged in to that site. And Apple "licensed" this "technology"?! Consisting of WHAT exactly? Nothing about this makes any sense.

    1. Re:I don't get it. Explain? by tepples · · Score: 1

      How can it be "1 click"? At the very least, you will need to put it in a virtual shopping basket and then "confirm purchase"

      If you have 1-Click on, the purchase is automatically confirmed once the product is added to the 1-Click basket. I imagine that each user's 1-Click purchases are aggregated into a single shipment at the end of the day.

    2. Re:I don't get it. Explain? by Chatterton · · Score: 1

      The 1-click patent is a "purchase now" button skipping the virtual basket and confirming your purchase directly...

    3. Re:I don't get it. Explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may find this link helpful.

    4. Re:I don't get it. Explain? by thsths · · Score: 1

      Well, that was exactly the innovation. You do not need to clicks, you do not need no shopping basket. Just press the button [Buy] - and next morning you get a parcel.

    5. Re:I don't get it. Explain? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Nearer around once every ninety minutes or so. Which makes sense when waiting until the end of the day would jeopardise next day delivery.

  9. clicks are so yesterday by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    This patent is now obsolete anyway, Amazon have been granted the one-touch patent that covers the entry of information or actuation of software using push-to-operate or touch-to-operate or gesture-to-operate controls.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  10. Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by DalM · · Score: 1

    This is an example of how patents are good IP. Like the patent or not, think it's innovative or not, it eventually expires. Copyrights don't expire in your lifetime. Trademarks never expire. If 20 years is plenty for a company to reap value from innovation of an actual product that improves lives, then it's good enough for Hollywood too..

    1. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by tomhath · · Score: 2

      It wasn't innovative at all.

      When I was a kid there was a small grocery store nearby where everyone in the neighborhood had an account. We could walk in, grab a soft drink out of the cooler, and tell the owner to "put it on our account". All Amazon did was use that same model "on the Internet".

    2. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by craXORjack · · Score: 2

      There was a movie released 40 years ago called Star Wars which is still pulling in decent profits today. There are many other examples of movies and books that can continue to accrue value with longer protection such as Bladerunner, The Hobbit, Beatles and Rolling Stones albums from the 60's.

      Copyright is fundamentally different from patent law in that it is not there to encourage innovation but to allow the creator to profit from his or her own work. I can see the sense in allowing a copyright to endure at least until the death of the creator. But I can also see the sense in allowing it past the death of the creator. Imagine if your mother wrote a fantasy novel that was wildly popular but died in a car crash while on the book signing tour. Shouldn't her estate reap the value of her work?

      However, 70 years past the death of the creator seems quite excessive. I think a 20 year moratorium on copyright makes sense upon transfer of the copyright whether that transfer is to heirs due to the death of the creator or outright sale to a copyright holding corporation.

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    3. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by DalM · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. In this case, it simply doesn't matter anymore that it was or wasn't innovative. It's expiring and the market is going to move along.

    4. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just because something can make a profit 40 years later doesn't mean it should. i could make a profit selling the patented wheel today but should that be allowed? star wars made plenty of money when it came out and the 20 years after, enough is enough.

    5. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright is fundamentally different from patent law in that it is not there to encourage innovation but to allow the creator to profit from his or her own work. I can see the sense in allowing a copyright to endure at least until the death of the creator. But I can also see the sense in allowing it past the death of the creator. Imagine if your mother wrote a fantasy novel that was wildly popular but died in a car crash while on the book signing tour. Shouldn't her estate reap the value of her work?

      No.
      Inherited wealth is a bug not a feature. Your mother doing something should entitle you to nothing.

      It is a difficult bug to eliminate but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged.

    6. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If you didn't come back to pay it later, the owner would never get paid.

      With Amazon, when you grab the item, it's immediately charged to your credit card. If you linger in the store and grab another item, it charges that, too. No tabs, no truing up, no coming back to pay your bill, no waiting for you to walk from the cooler to the cash register. You touched it you bought it--literally, as your bank has just wired us the money directly.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    7. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is such an atomistic viewpoint. Families are a fundamental economic unit, and often the most relevant scope when it comes to finance, especially taxation.

      Personally, I've invested time and money in my children, siblings and also my parents. The idea that anyone's assets upon death belong to the state rather than the family is abhorrent. Asset sharing within families is a beneficial keystone feature of our civilization, not a bug at all.

      I'm assuming you're in the US, which has screwed this file up. The US has estate taxes at a high threshold, nearly the worst option. A better taxation structure is capital gains upon death, which many other countries have. However, the capital gains need to take inflation into account, to tax only the real value appreciation. Another option is to defer the cap gains when the asset is transferred within a family (even outside of a trust), until the time it is eventually sold at arms length.

    8. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by dbarclay10 · · Score: 1

      Copyright is fundamentally different from patent law in that it is not there to encourage innovation but to allow the creator to profit from his or her own work.

      Seriously, are you high? From the US Constitution:

      Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “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.”

      I point you to the very first part of that sentence, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts."

      Jesus, come on.

      --

      Barclay family motto:
      Aut agere aut mori.
      (Either action or death.)
    9. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if we wanted a wealthy aristocracy we'd totally do that. But we don't because fuck you. You didn't create that wealth, you don't get to take it with you. If you are wealthy, it's not because you found a gold mine and ate it for your entire life, it's because you are part of a functioning economy like all the rest of us schlubs. If asset sharing is a benefit then why is your generosity in sharing it limited to your tribe?

      You people have this idea of "Fuck you, I've got mine" despite that they would not have survived til adulthood without society. You are not a special snowflake. Pay your share and shut up.

    10. Re: Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... ok, so who gets to take that wealth? Random strangers? F U 2.

    11. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what the threshold is on estate taxes in the US (i.e., the level above which they kick in)? According to the IRS: "A filing is required for estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding $1,500,000 in 2004 - 2005; $2,000,000 in 2006 - 2008; $3,500,000 for decedents dying in 2009; and $5,000,000 or more for decedent's dying in 2010 and 2011 (note: there are special rules for decedents dying in 2010); $5,120,000 in 2012, $5,250,000 in 2013, $5,340,000 in 2014, $5,430,000 in 2015, $5,450,000 in 2016, and $5,490,000 in 2017."

      That's right, over five million dollars this year. I'm not crying for anyone with an estate that large. Even with five benefactors, that's a million dollars each. If you haven't been able to make a good life for yourself with that kind of start, give the money to someone else so that can have a chance.

    12. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by craXORjack · · Score: 1

      I don't see anything in that clause that contradicts what I said. The progress of science obviously is not relevant to a fantasy fiction novel which I used as an example so it only falls under promotion of "useful arts". Writing fiction, singing, playing an instrument, or acting are promoted by copyright. Non-fiction such as a scientific article published in a journal would however fall under promoting the progress of science. But I really can't see that you made a point at all. It seems like you merely provided documentation that affirms my understanding of the purpose of copyright law, yet for some reason you wrote the affirmation in an argumentative manner as if you were refuting me. Please explain.

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    13. Re:Patents are Good IP. Copyrights are bad. by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Congratulations -- you found the edge cases, the few works that continue to bring in substantial profits for a long time.

      For literature as a whole, 99% of profits are made within the first decade of initial release. For music, within a year. Magazines make their profit within a month, and newspaper articles, within a day. Movies probably fall into the "one year" bucket, but Hollywood accounting makes it impossible to tell.

      The single greatest threat to most creators is copyright terms. Most people aren't the next Shakespeare, or even the next Douglas Adams. Their best bet for keeping their works in circulation isn't a company raking in the millions, but communities of dedicated fans, and copyright terms -- even if they were a simple "author's lifespan" duration -- prevent that.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  11. Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most ecom sites do not roll their own implementation; they use some third-party; meaning 1-click for these sites is useless.

    1. Re:Unlikely by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Hardly - unless that 3rd party is Amazon, they couldn't offer that functionality to the ecom site. Next month they'll be able to, and all those other ecom sites will get the benefit of their customers making impulse and accidental purchases.

      Next will you telling me that because most people don't build their own cars, that they get no benefit from airbags, seatbelts, steering wheels, rubber tires, et. all being available from multiple manufacturers instead of a single monopolist?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  12. Technology by fox171171 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This means that the patent will expire and the technology behind it

    For the last 20 years Amazon has kept a tight hold on this technology,

    I'm struggling to understand how the term "technology" fits in these sentences.

    1. Re:Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This means that the patent will expire and the technology behind it

      For the last 20 years Amazon has kept a tight hold on this technology,

      I'm struggling to understand how the term "technology" fits in these sentences.

      It doesn't. This is a method, which is not actually patentable, thanks to the Bilski decision.

    2. Re:Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Method and apparatus for writing down credit card numbers...on a computer.

    3. Re:Technology by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Technology is the science of devising new techniques to produce some result, ultimately to reduce the amount of human labor time invested.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. Re:Technology by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Glad I wasn't the only one. Maybe in 1995 it was impressive that you could store and retrieve quickly so much customer data... but that was pretty normal by even 2000.

    5. Re:Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just the typical use of the embiggenest word around to make s.th. sound more important.

      One-click is just an idea for an interface. It can be implemented in a million different ways, which IMHO disqualifies it as a technique, let alone a technology.

  13. Never should have been posted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Business patent, not software, not that this forum has ever been good at distinctions.

  14. Doh! by Diss+Champ · · Score: 2

    I've always been annoyed by the non-confirmation principle in 1-click. This is one of those patents I've been glad somebody got because figuring how to turn it off for one vendor is infinitely preferable to figuring out how to turn it off for every vendor.

    1. Re:Doh! by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      It is pretty easy to go to your orders and cancel.

    2. Re:Doh! by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1

      And do you believe that every merchant will implement easy cancellation?

    3. Re:Doh! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      With Amazon. Assuming you noticed that that stray click accidentally placed an order.

      As someone who regularly goes for a day or two without checking my email, it would be quite easy for me to browse on Amazon for product information, and then have an accidental order already be shipped before I ever see the confirmation email. And that's only going to get worse as Amazon is pushing toward same-day delivery, etc.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Doh! by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a personal problem to me. I've had it turned on for years, and have never accidentally clicked buy now. I have however cancelled orders from Amazon that I did intentionally click and then changed my mind (Found better item, cheaper item, or faster delivery).

      Of course, you could also have amazon notifications in chrome, or on your phone if premature accidental clickulation is rampant for you (or get a pill).

      As for other stores, well, then don't shop there, but the rest of the world shouldn't have to stand still just because you can't control yourself, or pay attention to what you do, or what you've done.

    5. Re:Doh! by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Do you believe Amazon's 1-click patent has stopped bad web designers from creating poor UI designs in the past?

      Why even bother with 1-click? Aren't you afraid of all those 0-click merchants?

  15. It's not technology! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'But, now the wait is almost over and this technology is about to make it into the open market.'

    This isn't 'technology' It's called nonsense.

  16. Is this even a big deal? by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I shop at Amazon quite a lot, but I don't think I've ever used the 1-click checkout. I always want to double-check the payment method I am using (I have several, depending on what I am getting and what it is for) and where it is shipping (home, work, a gift to someone, etc).

    For other Amazon customers, do you find this feature to actually be something you use? And have you ever not shopped at another online store (or chosen to shop at Amazon instead) specifically because of this? I am genuinely curious.

    --
    William George
    1. Re:Is this even a big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use it. Like you, I feel like it would be too easy to make simple mistakes, and I want to double-check everything. It isn't like confirming my purchase is some near insurmountable barrier that only the hardened few can manage. It takes literally seconds.

      But then, I have almost stopped using Amazon entirely anymore. They ship slower than ebay merchants unless you pay amazon for the privileged of being their customer (often 3-5 days of delay), they have a smaller selection, and they're edging way too close to being a monopoly and are now beginning to abuse their market power. When companies become too big and start to throw their weight around, I would rather support smaller competitors.

    2. Re:Is this even a big deal? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I admit to being a huge consumer on Amazon. It's simply far easier, faster, and cheaper to buy online (with free shipping) than to spend time going to B&M stores (factor in gas and pollution in addition to my time), or to order online elsewhere (which I do when I find it's a worthwhile amount cheaper). I even have my pet food on subscription. Out of probably over 500 orders since signing up with Amazon over 10 years ago, I've probably used 1-click maybe 3 times using my mobile phone. While I also have multiple cards and shipping addresses, the vast majority of the time I use the default card/address.

      However, I don't get how they determine that the value of the patent can be so much unless people have actually paid that for licensing, because I seriously doubt many 1-click purchases wouldn't have been made if 1-click wasn't available.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  17. Hold the Phone! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    There is an other e-Commerce site other than Amazon?

    Honestly I think the only people who really cared about 1 click are the people who have strong views on software patients. (Or had implemented it and got a call from Amazons lawyers)

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Hold the Phone! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I doubt customers care, but I bet there's tons of online stores that would love to be getting all those 1-click impulse and accidental purchases, but aren't willing to give Amazon a piece of the pie to do it. Probably most of them in fact.

      You don't have to actually get a call from Amazon to know that you *will* get a call if you implement it - you just have to be aware that one of the most infamously bad patents exists, and is actively enforced. Given how infamous it is you'd probably have a hard time even arguing that you didn't know about it, and hence be automatically guilty of willful infringement and the associated enhanced damages.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  18. 20 Years to seperate you from your money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And exactly what "innovation" will come about from this patent being available?

  19. Patent laws aren't bad compared to copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just Google "perpetual Mickey Mouse copyright"

  20. What?! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Informative

    September 12 marks 20 years since Amazon filed for their 1-Click patent.

    Shit, I'm old.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same here....

    2. Re:What?! by emanuele_fanton · · Score: 1

      same here....

    3. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're not kidding.

    4. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      September 12 marks 20 years since Amazon filed for their 1-Click patent.

      Shit, I'm old.

      At least I'm not the only one whose first thought was this.

    5. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1. Some day my own patents will expire, and I will feel older still. heh.

    6. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This really threw me for a loop. I didn't create an Amazon account until 2001, and by my (apparently flawed) memory, they didn't roll out 1-Click ordering until a few years later. Maybe they'd had it for years, but they just didn't have a big button on every product page encouraging people to sign up? Or maybe my memory is just plain wrong.

      Hell, if you'd asked me five minutes ago when Amazon started shipping orders, I'd have guessed 1998. I didn't realize they'd been live since 1995, or that they'd refined their checkout process so much by 1997. Looking back to what e-commerce was like back then, that's pretty impressive.

  21. 1-click is a terrible feature by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Amazon at least gives you the option to turn the 1-click feature on and off.

    We're going to see lots of other sites who make 1-click the only way to do business and are going to be far less tolerant of accidental orders than Amazon has been. I'm going to take the first site that tries to rip me off like this to court, even if only small claims court.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  22. Seems Dangerous by Jerrry · · Score: 1

    With Amazon storing all of those credit card numbers, if they're ever hacked it'll be a disaster.

    1. Re:Seems Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you didn't use one click if you bought anything from them they have your CC number. Blaming one click for that is incorrect.

    2. Re:Seems Dangerous by Jerrry · · Score: 1

      Lots of sites have an option to not save your credit card info, which is something I always use. I'd rather have to retype my CC info every time I buy something than have the vendor store it. That won't work with one click.

    3. Re:Seems Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lots of sites have an option to not save your credit card info, which is something I always use. I'd rather have to retype my CC info every time I buy something than have the vendor store it. That won't work with one click.

      Which is fine, don't have to use it.

      Among regular users probably 95% of them store their credit cards within amazon, even though probably only 5% or less use 1-click regularly. 1-click isn't the problem here.

      Luckily amazon hasn't been hacked. If amazon gets hacked everyone has a lot more to worry about then some stolen credit card transactions that can be easily reversed...(think amazon web services...)

  23. Who Uses 1-Click? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    I average more than one Amazon order a week and I have never used 1-click shopping. It seems like a really bad idea to me, I don't need a mis-click on a product page to initiate an order.

    Who uses it and why? Going through the checkout process only takes a few seconds; my payment and shipping details are saved so it's not like I have to enter them every time. Plus those 1-click purchases aren't earning any money for your selected charity like they would if you checked out on the smiles site.

    1. Re:Who Uses 1-Click? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, 1-click is the only mechanism for purchasing Kindle ebooks, which has always irritated.

  24. 1-Click Not Technology by StormReaver · · Score: 2

    The 1-Click patent isn't technology. It's more like seeing people use a bow knot somewhere, seeing that most people tie their shoes with a permanent knot, then starting to tie your shoes with a bow knot, then patenting all uses of the bow knot.

    The 1-Click patent should never have been granted, as it violated every single requirement for a patentable invention.

    1. Re:1-Click Not Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it violated every single one of your uneducated interpretations for a patentable invention doesn't mean it's invalid. The US patent office seems to have 20 years of disagreeing with you.

  25. Finally can dethrone apple and amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because it's that 2nd click to confirm an order that's been holding everyone else back!

  26. Have they ever enforced it? by Kergan · · Score: 1

    I can't seem to recall any cases where Amazon actively sued over this specific patent.

    1. Re:Have they ever enforced it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they sued Barnes & Noble back in the day and earned a boycott from a number of concerned corners.

  27. Still Can't believe this is happening by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    Unless I'm wrong all software is simply a binary representation of words put together using an IDE or compiler. Hence patents do not belong. Amazing how the software industry has blinded us.

    Also, I see little difference between "One Click" and other sites. It is jus simply allowing me to bypass the usual confirmation

    --
    The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
  28. Best. Slashdot. Threads. Ever. by eclectro · · Score: 1

    Some of the best and funniest Slashdot threads came from this patent, so it wasn't all a loss. And I bet many Slashdotters kept on doing business with Amazon despite what has to be one of the crappiest patents ever,

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Best. Slashdot. Threads. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please provide some links to them?

  29. I love it by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

    I almost always use it unless I'm entering a coupon. It always goes to the same address and always uses the same credit card. So why bother going through the hassle. I just click "Buy Now" and I'm done.

  30. Sounds Mickey Mouse by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    Just like Mickey's patent time frame keeps changing,
    https://artlawjournal.com/mick...
    I wouldn't be surprised if some magical last minute patent extension happened.

    1. Re:Sounds Mickey Mouse by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      While similar in some ways, patents and copyright are not the same thing.

  31. No! by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    It is not, and never has been, a "Technology". It has always been a simple, obvious idea. A patent for it should have never been granted. It is a clear demonstration that "valuing" it at +$2 Billions that the patent system is broken beyond repair.

  32. technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'The technology behind it will be free to use.'

    Wow. Complex stuff. Well done America for screwing the world with patents!