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."
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: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: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.
Not saying I like the patent (Score:5, Interesting)
all clicks (Score:5, Interesting)
What will be the effects on licensees? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Great, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
So there you have it. Unless the USPTO vacates this patent, according to the logic in the injunction Amazon obtained, we'd have to let Barnes & Noble register ownership of "two click ordering" if they so desired. Then online bookstores & other retailers could logically follow suit, until Newegg was 84th in line & I had to write client-side auto-follow scripts to speed through the checkout process.
I have a virtual donut for anyone with a screenshot of what when Barnes & Noble's second click looked like when they first implemented it to comply with the injunction. I'd have done something like "Your order is almost complete. Please click here [bn.com] for no reason whatsoever except that a pissy competitor of ours fought in court to create this hassle for you. (More info [freesoftwaremagazine.com])"
Well duh. For all the ink that's been spilt on this issue, I'm amazed that all it took was a dude from New Zealand willing to throw a few grand at the problem to get it reviewed. Krikey!
Uhhh... wait a minute. Was Amazon saying they own the idea of not having to re-enter one's shipping & billing information with each purchase? Really?
EFF's Patent Busters project... (Score:2, Interesting)
Test.com: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_05.php#0046
Clear Channel: http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=cle
God, I'm glad these guys do what they do.
http://www.eff.org/patent/ [eff.org]
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:Not saying I like the patent (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not saying I like the patent (Score:2, Interesting)