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.

77 of 141 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

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

      I wonder if there was a 2-Click patent.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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. 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 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

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
  4. 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: 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).

    2. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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 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.
    5. 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.)
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  9. 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...

  10. 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?

  11. 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 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 emanuele_fanton · · Score: 1

      same here....

  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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 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.

    2. 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...)

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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
  21. 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.

  22. 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"
  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.