Amazon One-Click Patent to be Re-Examined 132
timrichardson writes "A New Zealand actor, frustrated by a poor shopping experience, has successfully requested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review the correctness of Amazon's infamous One-Click patent. An examiner for the agency ruled that the re-examination requested by Peter Calveley had raised a 'substantial new question of patentability' affecting Amazon's patent, according to a document outlining the agency's decision."
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we just need them to quit issuing the crappy ones in the first place.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Interesting)
This can only mean that if Amazon has to give this up, it enable someone else to sue instead.
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
i wonder what amazon's licensing fee is for me to use one-click on my website...
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
We used to call that "free enterprise."
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Informative)
Ahem *cough* [uspto.gov] and *cough* [uspto.gov]. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps you don't know anything about how the patent system works? Re-exam is an old and well-established practice. Try learning for a change. You would be amazed at what you find out.
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be so, but it's also a practice they haven't excercised much lately. I'd say it's an interesting precident that they're actually reexamining a high profile case.
Try learning for a change. You would be amazed at what you find out.
Try not being an ass for a change. You'd be surprised at how nice everybody else suddenly becomes.
EFF's Patent Busters project... (Score:2, Interesting)
Test.com: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_05.php#00468 2 [eff.org]
Clear Channel: http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=clea rchannel [eff.org]
God, I'm glad these guys do what they do.
http://www.eff.org/patent/ [eff.org]
First post (Score:2, Funny)
Re:First post (Score:5, Funny)
disclaimer: this post is in no way associated with the poster(s) responsible for the typical GNAA-related post. It just seemed appropriate to mention them.
Re:First post (Score:2, Informative)
Re:First post (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess any link gets +1 informative.
But this is not prior art, its common sense.
When I buy goods or services on the street, I typically use "one click" stuff when the price is right.
Me: What do you have?
Them: I have X for $YY
Me: Sounds good, here is $YY.
Them: Here you go.
So, what is so unique about doing this on a computer or online?
Oh, I have to keep my CC on file with people I don't know who may sell or lose that info to someone else at any time with no compensation to me for my lost time or money. Oh,
Re:First post (Score:4, Funny)
The computer is a magical box where fairies and elves live (to most people). That is why its so unique. Those of us who know how computers work
Re:First post (Score:2)
I one click the bar tender all the time... works like a charm.
Great, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great, but... (Score:1)
Re:Great, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
So there you have it. Unless the USPTO vacates this
Re:Great, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
All the groupthink, anti-this.or.that that is abundant on slashdot - It has been my own personal experience that in a capitalistic society such as the United States, money is what makes things happen. Everything else pales in comparison...Including benevolent virtues, doing the Right Thing, etc.
Re:Great, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great, but... (Score:2)
one click... (Score:4, Insightful)
Further, this makes me wonder how on earth this actually got made into a patent anyway it is far too general and doesn't have any novelty to it; also, it's not really a "tech" is it, it's a button - and they've existed for ages
Re:one click... (Score:4, Interesting)
From the article: Calveley wrote on his blog that his crusade is revenge for an "annoyingly slow" book delivery from Amazon. He used the blog to raise the $2,520 reexamination fee.
Ok, while I agree the Amazon patent is suspect, I think this guy is in it more for the free publicity. He's an actor! I have things I ordered from all sorts of online places get to me annoyingly slow, which for me is any time interval less than instantaneous, but I haven't gone to court to have a patent re-examined over it!
Does New Zealand have a small claims court, because that's where I would have sued them for the amount I spent on the book, plus some damages to keep them honest. Hell, it probably would have gone unopposed; you think Amazon is goijng to waste a couple thousand bucks on lawyers fees when they might settle it for a couple of hundred? No, this guy's in it to boost his profile, not because he's doing anyone a favor.
Re:one click to sue them all! (Score:1)
err, even that was uncredited
I think he should be known as the Uncreditted Virtual Actor.
So far his publicity exceeds his acting career
Who cares. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand why. Why should I care what his motivation is? The point is that he got the USPTO to re-examine a dumb patent. If it did it for the publicity or to hawk his blog or because he thinks it'll speed up the Second Coming of Jesus, I don't really care. Hooray for him, in any case; the point is that the action he took was good, irrespective of the motive.
I'm not going to fault him because he was doing it for publicity. Maybe if a few more people did what he's doing -- for publicity or whatever reason -- we'd have a few less shitty patents floating around.
In fact, if you want to hurt a company these days, you're better spent going after their patents than trying to take them to court directly, especially small-claims. So if there's a company you don't like, and you can get the dough together to force a re-examination of their patents, by all means please do so. I won't question why you're doing it, the point is that it gets done.
Re:Who cares. (Score:1)
Re:Who cares. (Score:2)
It would seem fair that if you call BS on somebody's patent, and it turns out you're right (and the patent was crap), they ought to foot the bill for the re-examination.
Re:one click... (Score:2)
that actually happened to me, on amazon.com. I was fantasy shopping -- filling the cart to see how much I had to save up and that sort of thing -- and bought a book by mistake! It turns out, that I wanted the book. If I didn't, I could have just cancled it I suppose. But it was a fine excuse to get the book early without waiting for my allowance to recharge.
one click isn't required (Score:2)
You can use regular (checkout) type shopping with Amazon too. I don't have one-click turned on, for the same reasons you mention.
Re:one click... (Score:2)
Exactly - prior art. Soda machines have had one-click purchases for years. The guys who hold the patent on pressing a button on a soda machine should sue amazon.
Oh wait, on Amazon you use a mouse to click, rather than pressing it with your finger... Oh wait, you press the mouse with your finger... I've just gone cross-eyed... =D
Fee, schmee (Score:5, Interesting)
Dang - is that all it took? I'd be willing to throw some ad-click revenue toward getting some of these other ridiculous patents "reexamined"...
(Irritating, but predictable, that someone has to pay, and the USPTO can't take the initiative to reexamine extremely controversial patents otherwise.)
<grrr
Re:Fee, schmee (Score:2)
One-Push Power Button (Score:5, Funny)
If so, noone will be able to even turn their computers ON without my consent. Muahhahahahaaaa!
What other useless patents can we come up with?
Re:One-Push Power Button (Score:1)
(Finally, the dream of the flushless society is realised!)
Re:One-Push Power Button (Score:1)
I will have absoluto control !!!
Re:One-Push Power Button (Score:2)
Just ask the ladies...
Re:One-Push Power Button (Score:2)
Re:One-Push Power Button (Score:1)
Re:One-Push Power Button (Score:1)
Re:One-Push Power Button (Score:1)
Dogbert's solution (Score:5, Funny)
I hope you all remember Dogbert's no-click patent...
Good (Score:1)
Once again, an actor comes to the rescue. (Score:2)
Re:Once again, an actor comes to the rescue. (Score:2)
Bad Acting (Score:1)
Re:Bad Acting (Score:1)
It would seem to me that if you are standing outside a bar, posing as a woman, you had it coming! Of COURSE you were approached by a politician.
Recent events are leading me in one intellectual (Score:2)
Fuck patents
Not saying I like the patent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not saying I like the patent (Score:2)
_x_ total logical disconnect.
Your arguement basically states that corruption is okay as long as it provides some benefit. That demonstrates an astounding level of audacity even the corporations haven't reached yet. Congratulations.
Re:Not saying I like the patent (Score:1)
Re:Not saying I like the patent (Score:2)
Please explain what's ingenious about taking an action based on user input.
No, really. Go ahead.
Re:Not saying I like the patent (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not saying I like the patent (Score:1)
First of all, tricking people into buying things before they're ready to is nothing but sleazy. Sure, lots of businesses do that. But it hardly deserves a patent. In any case, I think that amazon.com actually means it as a convenience feature. I'd never use 1-click myself, but I suppose some people must, or it would just disappear. You have to activate it to use it.
Second, like software patents, business method patents are ridiculous (clue: please observe and memorize the correct spelli
Re:Not saying I like the patent (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not saying I like the patent (Score:2)
Re:Not saying I like the patent (Score:2)
huh (Score:1)
important innovation as long as you are amazon.
Nice to see... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nice to see... (Score:2)
I think I just snarfed some coffee. I had forgotten there had
Blogs can be useful (Score:5, Informative)
As the article points out, Peter raised the money necessary to pay the reexamination fee through donations. I don't know what his chances are of being successful, but it certainly shows that blogs can be useful in allowing more people to participate in processes that were previously mainly used by businesses. Maybe they'll raise the reexamination fee to keep up with technical progress. ;-)
It's a stupid patent, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Amazon spokeswoman Patty Smith issued the following response Thursday: "Amazon.com remains confident in the validity of its 1-Click patent, which enables customers to shop conveniently without having to enter their shipping and billing information each time they purchase. We look forward to working with the examiners in the Patent and Trademark Office, and we welcome the opportunity to revalidate what we believe is an important innovation in e-commerce."
Who couldn't think of this stuff? There i
all clicks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:all clicks (Score:3, Interesting)
(Not that this is a bad patent, but the number of clicks is more of a side effect of the system and not the system itself)
Re:all clicks (Score:2)
Re:all clicks (Score:2)
Hmm, let's see... (Score:1)
Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:2)
-The Simpsons
"The New Kid on the Block"
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F06.html [snpp.com]
Re:Hmm, let's see... (Score:1)
What will be the effects on licensees? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What will be the effects on licensees? (Score:2)
I think this issue came up at one point during the whole RIM/NTP BlackBerry conflict. There was a point at which it looked like NTP's patents were going to get thrown out, and I believe the opinion then by knowledgeable individuals was that it would not affect the previous agreements between RIM and NTP that were reached when the patents had been valid.
Perhaps there is some way for the USPTO to invalidate a patent retroactively, but I somehow doubt it. I think it only changes things going f
IANAL But (Score:1)
Re:IANAL But (Score:2)
Can this be expanded to *all* "Biz Method" patents (Score:1)
New Zealand (Score:2)
Not that I'm any better. I didn't do anything about it.
Re:New Zealand (Score:2)
Of course, Ebay isn't a beacon of corporate warm-fuzziness, and now that they own half.com I can't feel good about buying books from a giant website anymore.
Re:New Zealand (Score:2)
Re:New Zealand (Score:2)
Re:New Zealand (Score:1)
The Census number does not include every person in the US or any US citizen living outside the US.
Re:New Zealand (Score:2)
Maybe 1 million.
One-click patent and prior art... (Score:4, Informative)
At that time, our design presumed that you'd set up your account with the retailer over the phone (mostly because we didn't want to get bogged down with the form handling, but also because the UI design was a minor part of this one assignment).
So, we did what was obvious (and what several other people came up with) -- have someone login (no cookies back then) and use the HTTP basic authentication link the session to the customer record in the database. Next to each item, there was a button that said "put it on my tab" and did just that, stuck an entry in the database saying you wanted it. There was a script that could run on a periodic basis and rolled up a list of what was on who's tab and built an order from it.
It seems to me that if a biology student taking a database class thought it was obvious then (to be fair, I had a partner who was an engineer), then it was obvious to anyone that did that sort of thing for a living. Do I have a record of the assignment? No. It never occurred to me to hold onto my old homework for more than a decade.
How can this even be subject of a patent? (Score:1, Insightful)
A signle-click purchase is not a matter of intelectual property.
It is just the most logical way to sell any item over the internet, provided the user is logged in.
I mean, why would anyone NOT deploy a single-click system???
In other words... how can THERE BE a patent like that?
Can it even be enforced?
So,m what happens if I register for a patent for 2-clicks, 3-clicks and 4-clicks.
Then, the next guy who deploys an online bookstore is going to have to use 5 clicks?
That just doesn't make any sense.
I hop
There need to be penalties... (Score:4, Insightful)
Likewise, and especially, extortionist who obtain patents on obvious tech solely for the purpose of suing others need to pay fines, even bigger ones. Then they need to pay damages to any of the companies on which they committed this extortion on successfully.
Let's face it, fines and penalties are the only things that *might* scare large companies like this into thinking twice about getting that obvious patent, regardless of prior art or simplicity.
Re:There need to be penalties... (Score:2)
Re:There need to be penalties... (Score:2)
Re:There need to be penalties... (Score:2)
One of the most difficult issues is proving that the submitor knew that what he submitted was obvi
Destroying Innovation (Score:3, Informative)
I work for a small startup company, we've been in existence 1 year and have only 15 people. Inspite of us working overtime everyday, we spend hours with our patent attorneys, filing patents for every small thing we do.
Reason: we might find ourselves suddenly sued by someone over infringement
We need to clean out this whole system, else all people will do is file patents and file lawsuits. Lets hope the Amazon re-examination is a precursor to bigger things.
Re:Destroying Innovation (Score:2)
Fortunatly you can look that up. You think if someone has proof they had an idea first, they wont sue you?
Not only will abolishing patents NOT prevent you from being sued, there will be no expiration on the ideas people do have.
While business methods should be abolished, the patent system is needed.
Time for a career change. (Score:5, Funny)
With the endless lawsuits flying around for patent infringement, challenges to existing patents, breach of contact and other "IP theft", it seems to me I'm in the wrong line of work.
Instead of writing code (the pay and benefits for which I can't complain), maybe I should probably add a law degree, sell my soul and get into the tech litigation biz. I can make tons upon tons of cash - far, far more than I am making now - and don't have to write anything (except the occasional briefs and motions). But I guess I better claim patent on the process of doing this, or I'LL get sued.
A result of (Score:1)
Software and Business Method patents need to go and be banned.
I already made my position clear about these types of bogus patents. If you don't, read my comment over here [slashdot.org].
Considering the nature of innovation... (Score:1)
All in all, I'm all for innovators to benefit f
I'm not sure who really gain for the patent system (Score:1)
News flash: Patents are for novel expressions (Score:1)
In related news, the Vatican announces Earth is not flat.
Re:News flash: Patents are for novel expressions (Score:2)
they did that in the 1980's.
The reason why... (Score:1)
How sad.
Re:The reason why... (Score:2)
Actually, the reason the US gives out so many ridiculous patents is because they get money for each patent.
Re:Patent on Pointer (Score:2)
Re:Recouping extortion/licensing fees (Score:2)
Think about it this way -- do the police and prosecutors get sent to PMITA prison if they put away an innocent man?
Re:Way to go ... (Score:1)
Re:Way to go ... (Score:1)
Re:So all you need to fight patent trolls... (Score:1, Funny)