Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Sues B&N over Software Patent
TuneUp writes "Amazon is suing Barnes and Noble over it's 1-Click "technology" which allows you to enter your credit info only once, then shop to your hearts content. Time to see if these ridiculous patents will hold up. " We reported on
the patent a few weeks ago. By far my favorite bit is how this feature took "Thousands of Hours" to implement. I'm having a really hard time with this patent, since to a computer saving your VISA number and shipping address is no different then saving, say, your Slashdot Nickname and preferred threshold. Well, except one probably ought to be a bit more secure...
..We run a similar technology on our very large and extensive e-commerce solution which might be a viable competitor to Amazon and B&N....uh or something....so is it really one click technology that is copyrighted/patented/trademarked (whatever) is it the cookies. Because that is basically all it is doing anyways right? I think I will patent the one click get your email idea and make millions sueing someone........
Funny and I thought Perl == Paid employment recently located
The good:
Two companies which nearly define "deep pockets" are going to fight it out here. Instead of the little guy being picked on by the big guy, two evenly sized competitors will be going at it- which means that maybe something other than money will determine the outcome of the case.
The bad:
It will still be IP lawyers determining the outcome. What do you think the odds are of B&N's guys saying "all software patents are crap!"? That tack might lead to a useful outcome, but no... they'll be arguing that "this particular patent is crap... of course, all of ours are brilliant and original, so don't touch those." They'd never jeopardize their incomes by pushing for a ruling that would have expansive and much needed impact.
My conclusion:
While this case might be interesting, it won't change anything, because of the vested interests of the lawyers who will end up controlling the case. Patents won't really fall in the courts until a little guy is attacked by a big guy, and defended by a lawyer who does pro bono work and is thus willing to attack the system from within. Until that time, corporate IP lawyers will continue fighting small battles while making very sure they don't win the war.
IAAL,BIANLY
Doubt it will accomplish much, but I sent the following polite letter to feedback@amazon.com - maybe you would like to send a POLITE letter too??
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing to complain about Amazon's use of overreaching software patents.
Patent No. 5960411 for 1-Click, is an example of a patent that has been awarded completely out of place. The concept that lies behind 1-Click is in no way new to Amazon, or unique. Using such a patent simply to harass your business competitors is in my opinion an extremely low way of doing business. Such patents serve simply to supress programmers from finding more effective solutions to problems.
Do you really expect that anyone who wishes to develop such a system must come to you for permission before commencing programming? Especially when there are so many existing versions of this system on the net?
It is a shame that a company who symbolise for many the success of the Web as a business medium feel compelled to resort to such low tactics to stay ahead in the race for market share.
I hope that the use of this patent by Amazon will result in so much negative publicity, that you will not be tempted to use such crass measures in the future. How much more positive it would have been if Amazon could instead have joined in lobbying the US Patent Office against the granting of such broad patents.
Yours sincerely
Steve Cook
A little planning goes a long way...
It is as bad as it seems.
Patent number 5,960,411-- you can read the entire patent document from this link.
Claim 1 (of 26):
1. A method of placing an order for an item comprising: under control of a client system, displaying information identifying the item; 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 identifier 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 a shopping cart ordering model.
Whew! Talk about a run-on sentence. Good thing legalese != English.
It'll be interesting to see how this works out. Normally in these kind of cases, it's a Big Boy going after someone without the resources to defend themselves. Barnes and Noble certainly has the wherewithall to bring this to court if their lawyers think they have a chance. However, I suspect that they'll just roll over and pay royalties to Amazon.
Very sad.
Some thoughtful AC, who really should be moderated up, suggested a class action lawsuit vs. the USPTO.
>I say we get a class action lawsuit put together
>against the US patent office for negligence in >what patents they allow to be registered.
IANAL and don't know how feasible this is, or realistic, but given patenets such as this, who knows? Someone moderate that up....
itachi