Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Amazon & Barnes and Noble Settle One-Click Dispute 98

Posted by michael from the clicking-toward-ecstasy dept.
rtphokie writes: "C|Net is reporting that Amazon.com and Barnes&Noble.com have settled the over 2 year old lawsuit over the expedited ordering process known as '1-Click' ordering on Amazon's site and 'Express Checkout' on Barnes and Noble's. Details of the settlement are (of course) unavailable."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon & Barnes and Noble Settle One-Click Dispute More

Amazon & Barnes and Noble Settle One-Click Dispute

Comments Filter:
  • "..."Express Checkout" on Barnes and Nobel's....

    like dynamite?

  • Will this affect other sites? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _Ash_ ( 126458 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @08:55AM (#3123943) Homepage
    The outcome of the settlement is most certainly very important. If Barnes & Noble licenses Amazons technology or if Barnes & Noble have paid some amount of money, lots and lots of other websites can expect legal action from Amazon. After all, there are tons of sites which use the 1-click technology.
    • Is it too late to patent double-click? Shift Left-Click? How about Control-Fist.
    • Pitching Amazon's 1-click crap as "technology" is about as accurate as calling Slashdot "profitable".
    • absolutely - for instance, every site which uses these things called 'hyperlinks' performs user actions with a single click.
    • Hey...isn't the 'reply' function (and the fact that it remembers your login ID, password, e-mail address, yada yada) of Slashdot essentially the same as the '1-click' function on Amazon? Maybe Amazon oughta go after LNUX next. :)

    • Not really (Score:3, Interesting)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 )
      Well, according to Bezos, the suit against B&N was just in retaliation for B&N suing them for calling themselves "The worlds biggest book store" (Since they wern't a 'real' store. the suit was for false advertizing)

      Bezos has prettymuch said that they would only use patents in a defensive manner, although I'm sure they're happy to license it out to people.
      • that is one amazingly horrible problem with the current state in patents. they just let people use stuff, then sue them later. if patents should exist (i dont think they should, but thats seperate), they should have to be enforced or lost like copyright
      • Well, according to Bezos, the suit against B&N was just in retaliation for B&N suing them for calling themselves "The worlds biggest book store" (Since they wern't a 'real' store. the suit was for false advertizing)
        Bezos used this patent *offensively*, not in retailiation to any patent claim by Barnes and Noble. He's playing word games with you.
        Bezos has prettymuch said that they would only use patents in a defensive manner, although I'm sure they're happy to license it out to people.
        Defensive against what? Any serious competition?

        And you think he's promising *not* to enforce it, and yet he's going to collect cash for not enforcing it also?

        Bezos should run for office.

    • The outcome of the settlement is most certainly very important.

      Not as important as you would think. It doesn't really set a precedent that can be used in court because it was settled out of court.
      • True, but I still think it's quite important. When Amazon confronts another site for using "their" technology, that site can always point out to the Barnes & Noble case, and ask what the conditions where in which they settled. It will continue to have an effect on all sites Amazon will (maybe) confront.
  • now they can start argueing over the 2-click patent.

    • Re:Good, (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jomynow ( 552972 )
      defiantly, being that 1-click is so advanced needing only half of the resources of 2-click. the whole thing is probably a buisness move, if amazon.com can slow down sales on barnes&nobles...they might as well give it a shot. Who knows it might be cheaper to litigate than advertise. Plus then theres all this free press like we're giving here.
      • This is exactly the problem, here:

        Sacrifice consumer convenience for corporate profit. It seems now, more than ever before, companies are no longer run by people, but greed.
        • As long as corporations have existed, they've been run by people trying to make money. Even non-profits are run by greedy people who steal (United Way and Goodwill come to mind of the top of my head). I think it's a fallacy to imagine that somewhere out there, the perfect corporation is run with the idea of making the world a better place, and where making money is secondary. The system just doesn't work that way.
          • Hm,

            There's a kernel of truth in there. But, shouldn't they be putting the consumer (the ones who put money in their pockets) first, rather than concentrating on slitting each-other's throats?

    • Re:Good, (Score:2, Funny)

      by SQLz ( 564901 )
      BTW, I just patented the 2-2,000,000 click ordering processes.
  • On the principle you can never have too much litigation, I wonder who Amazon is going to sue next?

    Maybe it can bring an action against that long river in South America that stole its name. The online store did come first, didn't it? Just think of the damages all of those native people would have to pay out. Maybe they'll have to pulp all the rainforest for even more books for Amazon to sell :)

    • Re:Who next? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by grondin ( 241140 )
      A venerable feminist bookstore in Minneapolis, Amazon Bookstore [amazonfembks.com], has been around since 1970 and sued the the giant name-stealer in the late 90's. They were the party damaged but they still had to change thier name (to the Amazon Bookstore Cooperative.
      • Important to note that this case was settled out of court, and therefore the Amazon Bookstore Coop did not "have" to do anything. The details of the settlement are not (AFIAK) public, but could well have included a tidy sum being transferred from amazon.com to the ABC. And we should also note that Amazon Bookstore Cooperative is, in fact, the previous legal name of the business in Minneapolis. What they did was start using the full name for a change. Because the case was settled I have a hard time at this point dredging up any sympathy for Amazon in Minneapolis. If they had pursued the case a little more rigorously (which they probably couldn't afford to do), they may well have won. As it is, I have to reiterate my guess that a good chunk of money changed hands to change some attitudes.
  • what the future holds for this would-be technology. I was a little disappointed to see a year or so ago when Apple [apple.com] bought a license for that stupid one-click thing...perhaps more telling, now, will be if others license or use 'One-Click.'

    that may say a lot about how the settlement actually went...

  • .. what a fscking waste of time/money. does this now mean that all online shops will require more than one click to order things?
  • I still cant come to terms with this 1-Click crap.
    I sure am glad I don't live in the US (not that we donb't have our own problems here, and I am pretty sure the EU is going in the US direction even as we speak...).

    patenting a method, not an implementation is just wrong!
    If I patent a crappy solution to a problem, and someone finds a better solution they have to pay me!!!
    Talk about killing innovation!
    Remind me again why we had patents in the first place...

  • BountyQuest? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JayAndSilentBob ( 517888 )
    Does anyone know what this means for BountyQuest? Has it been a cruel joke all along? Just curious....
  • I am SubscriptionTroll and you just paid $5 to view 1000 pages of me!!
  • I know the first instint is to say the patent is bogus, but you have to remember, Amazon came out with it first. It's obvious now sure... but they were the first ones to innovate and come up with this neat idea.

    It's like if someone invented the wheel and patented it. Sure it looks so damn obvious today, but was it so obvious before it was invented?
    • Considering the patent is based on cookie 'technology', there is not much of an inventive step. I mean - that is the most obvious use of cookies.

      The wheel OTOH was innovative.

      • The wheel OTOH was innovative.

        But what good would a wheel be without an axle? And what good would wheels and axles be without a cart of some sort to roll around?

        Oh sure it all seems "obvious" now, but imagine what it was like before some creative genius (i.e. Amazon) said, hey, rolling these wheels (cookies) around is cool and stuff, but, damn, dragging these carts is a bitch. What if...

        -Kevin

        • Sadly what Amazon did was take that old round cart roller thing, that people have used since before any can remember and which everybody takes for granted, and given us "with our new patented 'Wheel(tm)' technology you shall never have to drag your cart again".
          "Watch out next week for the launch of 'Fire(pat pending)'"
    • But the wheel was patented, in Australia, by a Lawyer who wanted to point out the ridiculous new Australian patent legislation...

      He won an IgNoble Pirze for it too...
      http://www.improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinner s.html

  • Details of the settlement are unavailable (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Semi_War ( 163701 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @09:09AM (#3123981) Homepage
    The suit set off a firestorm of protest on the Net, with many charging that the 1-Click technology was not innovative enough to warrant a patent. The suit also touched off a larger debate over Internet-related patents.
    I would be interested in discovering exactly how they settled this. A pattent on the 1-click technology should never been issued in the first place. In my opinion a lot of Internet technologies were pattented, look at an earlier /. article and have a good laugh:
    Slashdot infringing on Microsoft patent #US5819032 [slashdot.org]
    quote: a computer having a communications port coupled to a back channel to the publisher, a processor, and a display; like a browser connecting to a web server
  • Who cares what they call it? All i want is no popups, no popunders, no trackerware, no spyware, no adware, why dont people use valid links anymore? Its always more then one click nowdays to get a file that the link says its pointing to. Basically bad web design as far as im concerned.

  • stock holders, etc. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @09:13AM (#3123995) Journal
    The Barnes and Noble corporate site [barnesandnobleinc.com] doesn't have a press release yet. For that matter, neither does Amazon [iredge.com], although I would expect someone to say something, if for no other reason than they are both publicly traded, and it will be difficult to keep things completely under wraps.

    After all, this is something that involves huge amounts of money. and investors/owners will want to know some details.

  • And now, somewhere on the bill will be hidden a few cents aimed at amortizing the "settlement and advocates fee"...
    Of course, everybody have now heard about B&N and Amazon so, their accountants will hide these fees as advertising fees but as a results, the books prices will be imperceptibly higher.
  • If it wasn't setteled, the patent might (IMHO would) have be ruled uninovative. This way it still stands. Maybe that's why amazon setteled.

  • Patent regime (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ma_sivakumar ( 325903 ) <siva@leatherlink.net> on Thursday March 07, 2002 @09:35AM (#3124051) Homepage Journal
    Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos responded to the criticism by calling for patent reform and by sponsoring an organization that investigated dubious patent claims.

    Does this mean that Amazon really does not want to patent this process? They had to do it only because, if they don't someone else will do and Amazon have to battle them in court?

    It is sad indeed that the system has to encourage such wasteful actions
    • Does this mean that Amazon really does not want to patent this process? They had to do it only because, if they don't someone else will do and Amazon have to battle them in court?

      Doesn't look like that to me. They didn't just get the patent and hold on to it so they could go about their business. They licensed it at least to Apple, and they filed a lawsuit against B&N for making something similar. This sounds like more of the same corporate stuff to me.

      mark
  • I never used B&N online store, so I am not sure how similar the Express Checkout system is to the 1-Click system. However, would not this stream of uninnovative pattents just convince people to improve on the theme rather than copy, thus improving customer experience? If B&N had to create a checkout system that was slightly or even extremely different than that of Amazon, although i am not sure what it would look like, wouldn't that provide the competiton that keeps things improving for the customer? I am not one to support frivolus lawsuits, but I can see a silver lining. Stig.

  • Air turns blue (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Arsewiper ( 535175 )
    Why the feck should the rest of the world give a shit about what a US court decides. Bollocks to Amazon's patent. The rest of the world should be in a position to sue the US patent office for being such a bunch idiots in the first place and legitimizing this crap.

    And I'm still buying their damn books...

  • The order of dismissal for the case states only that the parties have reached an agreement, the trial date is therefore stricken from the record, and the Court's final judgement is filed under seal, which is pretty standard for corporate settlements like this. You can probably find the order itself at the Western District of Washington web records. It's a public record, so you could also call up the clerk for a copy.

    It's too bad that we don't know what happened in the settlement, from a public access standpoint, but it will be very, very clear soon enough. If bn.com has a 1-click style checkout without a.com licensing/suing other companies for the technology, then bn.com came out on top. If bn.com either doesn't have 1-click or does, but a.com continues to license the technology to other companies, then it's a pretty safe bet that amazon came out on top.

  • the old water trick? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lewis Mettler, Esq. ( 553022 ) <lmettler_personal@@@lamlaw...com> on Thursday March 07, 2002 @10:01AM (#3124147) Homepage
    It is not that software patents are bad or good. It is not even required that they be fully litigated.

    But, few software patents truly deserve that kind of protection.

    Years ago someone filed a patent for a new novel idea he had for cleaning the manure from the cow barns. He unleashed a torrent of water and away the filth went.

    The patent was denied. Why? Because many years before Spartacus or Hercules did the same thing by diverting the flow of a local stream. It was not a novel or unique idea. It worked back then. It worked now.

    The same is true with the one-click patent.

    How many years ago do you think the farmer came into town, dropped by the general store, grabbed a bag of rice and gave the shopkeeper a high sign as he left? Is that not "one click"? Sounds like it to me. And, that was a long time ago.

    Reducing the number of steps required to complete a task is not a novel or unique idea. Should we grant a patent to the 5-step guy? And, then the 4-step guy? And, then the 3-step guy?

    It is really too bad that more patents are not fully litigated. It might remove most of them from the books.

    Hey. I am all for protections of intellectual property. But, they should be ligitimate patents. And, despite the claims, very few new or novel ideas actually are developed in software. Almost all are simply variations on a theme. And, the problem with most software patent applications is that they fail to fully disclose the pre-existing work that has been around for years. And, yes, the failure to so disclose is one reason for disqualification of a patent.
    • The patent was denied. Why? Because many years before Spartacus or Hercules did the same thing by diverting the flow of a local stream. It was not a novel or unique idea. It worked back then. It worked now.

      Hercules wasn't real. Holy shit, I better not expect any cash when I invent my matter transporter, since Captain Kirk did that back in the 60s.

      • It may not matter.

        If the idea is not novel or unique it may still be disqualified for a patent.

        I am not aware of any patent being disqualified because of a sci-fi show. But, it could happen.

        Patents can be denied because the idea was just obvious. So, your matter transporter could be classified as such. Although in today's science that would not be the case because we do not know how to do that yet. Now, most likely the first fellow to build one will have done so because of some science that was not at all obvious (even though the need was all over the Trek shows).

        But, the technique for a simple one step check out is not unique at all.

        The point here is that being first in the patent line with the paperwork is not enough. It has to be patentable. And, in part that means "non obvious".
      • No, the show was from the 60's, but Kirk is from the future.

        So, if you can invent a matter transporter soon enough, you may still be able to sue Starfleet when the time comes.

        • Yea. Not a bad idea.

          But, patents only last 17 years or so. So, you best hope to hold off until year 21xx? ...or was that 23xx?

          No. Wait a minute. These temporal problem are tricky. A patent runs off into the future as far as suing someone. But, if the invention was obvious, that could relate back to the past (or present, whenever you saw the show) ....

          I think you could be block from suing Capt Kirk. By the time his time arrives, your 17 years is gone. Plus, he could argue that you saw his show prior to your inventing the matter transport device. So, to you, it was obvious, you loose. Or, for him, your time ran out.

          Geez. Patents do get tricky.
    • You have a point buy my God you dumbed it down WAY to much, I would not compare a 1 click setting on ecomerce site connectected by a grid of computers to a high five.

      And like other people have stated, no Amazon won't be going after everyone, and I for one believe it. Shit If I had a reason I'd sue Barns and Noble too.
      • ..yea perhaps....

        Thing is that patents are much like two 6 year olds talking in private .... "I show you mine if you show me yours".

        Lawyers sort of like treat patents like they would a n old deck of cards.....playing poker of course.... if you do not come with a few of your own... you have to pay up front to fund the kittie ...or is it you fund the kiddie anyway but do not admit to bringing some of your own cards....

        I think in the end, you have to bring some of your own cards or the game does not even out.

  • Amazon Sued by Half-Click Patent Owner (Score:5, Funny)

    by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @10:02AM (#3124151) Journal
    I keep waiting to see Amazon get sued by the owner of the Half-Click patent, because every "One Click" is really two half-clicks. Once that story breaks, I'm sure they'll have a real field day with DoubleClick.

    I guess the half-click people are somewhat slow. It's hard to get things done when you're busy holding the mouse button down with one hand.

  • BountyQuest 1-click contest results revisited (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @10:18AM (#3124209) Homepage Journal
    In light of this result, it's interesting to go back and review an old interview about the BountyQuest 1-click patent contest [archive.org], back in April 2001 :

    On March 14, 2001, BountyQuest announced that while no one had uncovered the prior art that would invalidate Amazon's 1-click patent , a few were able to surface information that could make the patent more difficult to enforce A pyhrric victory? Perhaps, but one that has called attention to the exponential growth in overly-broad and often questionable patents.
    It isn't obvious to me whether the contest helped (by turning up near-prior-art), or hurt (by letting Amazon claim a PR victory). Just food for thought in view of the settlement.

    What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • I imagine it happening like this... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mystery_bowler ( 472698 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @10:29AM (#3124256) Homepage
    <Scene: around a large conference table>

    Amazon's Top Lawyer: Look, we know you guys want to do the whole 'One-Click' thing. But we got a patent on it. We have to protect it. How would we look to other companies if we didn't? Like big wussies, that's how we'd look.

    B&N's Top Lawyer: But your patent is too broad and ill-defined. You knew you were taking advantage of the patent office's ignorance toward technology. And we're pissed off enough about it to get it over-turned. And if you think inactivity would make you look like wussies, over-turning your patents is going to make you look like money-grubbing vampires.

    ATL: We don't have to go through this, you know. You could just pay a nominal license fee...

    BNTL: Yeah, and you could lick my #expletive#.

    ATL: Oh come on, is that really necessary? It wouldn't hurt your bottom line in the least.

    BNTL: It's the principal of the thing.

    ATL: Ok, then. What's your idea of a compromise?

    BNTL: Ideally, all of you out of a job. But since it's not an ideal world, how about this: We don't pay a license fee and do the 'One-Click' thing anyway.

    ATL: Alright, alright. But only if you sign an agreement to never co-operate with, testify for or help any other company we come down on to protect this patent.

    BNTL: Only if Bezos goes public and says he's in favor of patent reform.

    Bezos: What?!?

    ATL: You've GOT to be kidding.

    BNTL: Nope. And say it like you mean it.

    <Some general grumbling on the Amazon side of the table>

    ATL: Deal. But don't ever have the same book of the month as we do!

    BNTL: We've got no problem with that.

    <End scene>

    • Re:I imagine it happening like this... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      B&N sounds all noble, until you realize that it was B&N that sued Amazon first, over Amazon calling themselves "the world's largest bookstore". How's that for a trivial lawsuit?

      All along, Amazon was just getting some payback for that. It was certainly never about principles.
  • So I guess every etailer will have move down the list for clicks. I know this has been beat to death but this whole "One Click" thing is really odd. Using the previous as a precedent, this could keep going, 2 clicks, 3 clicks, and so on down to 1.6x10^6 clicks. If your starting your business this week you are down around 648,000. Unless you could buy one of the .bombs rights that had something under 100 clicks.

  • Obligatory Reference (Score:3, Funny)

    by pangur ( 95072 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @10:43AM (#3124310)
    Amazon (deep breathing): This is your destiny, search your feelings, you know it to be true.

    B&N: No, I'll never join you.

    Amazon: Join me, and with one-click purchasing and patent enforcement, together we can rule online book sales as Father and Son.

    B&N: Well.........OK. But we have to keep our settlement secret, all right? I'd hate to have my friends know about our little meeting.

    Amazon: I'll have my stormtrooper-lawyers work on our non-disclosure agreement.

    B&N: Oh, and could you help me find my hand?
    • Funny.

      If Amazon would've just asked, "What would Mark Hamill do?" (a question that has guided me thru many a life decision) this lawsuit never would have happened.

      Or perhaps if they'd seen Hamill in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, they would've asked, "What would Cockknocker do?" and we'd have a whole different kind of lawsuit to talk about.
  • I know there was online shopping before Amazon was around. Can anyone show prior use of "One Click" shopping carts? It's really not all that innovative. I'd be willing to bet the first geek said "Hey Check out my Online Ordering System" and the second geek said "I can improve that" and 1-click was born.
  • You may think this case is important, but wait 'til you hear about my patent on the "if" statement. Every time you put "if" in your program, I get a nickel. Too bad you didn't patent it first, huh?

    Time for me to sit back and watch the money roll in.
  • Isn't a hyperlink or any button on a web page by definition 1-click? Exactly how can this patent be upheld. IMHO Amazon's "1-click technology" amounts to nothing more than a marketing concept. There is no "technology" behind it that isn't already provided by existing HTML standards.

    Certainly this lawsuit amounts to nothing more than a lot of posturing between to powerful rivals.
    • >> Isn't a hyperlink or any button on a web page by definition 1-click?


      Please don't get started on the who owns the patent on hyperlinks.

      Given British Telecom's current mass lawsuits, click here [bbc.co.uk] to establish that "we thought of it first", are irritating the rest of the known universe.

  • Imagine a world... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iPaul ( 559200 )

    Dave Smith gets up one morning and decides he's going to write an automated widget layout program to minimize waste when manufacturing widgets. More widgets will be stamped out of raw material with less waste, reducing the manufacturing costs of widgets. Dave gets together $5 million in venture capital funding and writes a nifty widget layout program.

    However, when Dave goes to market with his widget layout software - he's bombarded by patent suits. Oscar, the grouchy patent attourney from a large corporation, says "Stop - Our company has a patent on software to layout woogies. You violate our patent." To which Dave replies "But I'm laying out widgets and your software does nothing to optimize the placement of the woogies. In addition the use of software to layout parts on raw material prior to manufacture is virtually ancient." To which the patent attourney replies "That matters not. I have been granted an injunction, feel free to take me to court. To take me, my company and our 4 billion attourneys to court for the next 75 years."

    Dave consults with his VC (the second round VCs all split when they got hold of the patent infringement suit). The VC is able to negotiate a settlement (sealed of course) wherein Dave promises not to challenge the patent (which he didn't have the resources to do - anyway) and pays the Oscar and the large company a tidy percentage of software sales. Dave is now in the clear? Wrong - Cruella, a patent attourney from another company, now indicates that Dave's interface to the CAM system violates their patent. But wait! The interface to the CAM system is a published API! That matters not, Cruella has an injunction. Oh, here we go again, Dave. And this time without Dave's VC, who bolted because of the second infringement case.

    What happens to poor Dave? Maybe Dave should have figured in a budget line item in his business plan to pay off patent holders. That way he can ask for $6 million next time. $5 million to actually build the product and $1 million to pay each and every patent holder that makes a claim worthy of an injunction.

    Mary, Dave's friend and fellow widget afficianado, decides to write open-source widget design software. If she puts the software out there people can use it and design better, more efficient widgets and make everyone better off. Unfortunately she finds herself in the same boat with Dave but without the deep pockets to pay off her patent infringement claims. No, Mary just winds up with a tonn of legal bills and possible personal bankruptcy for her effort.

    Alas, what is the moral of the story? Is it "be careful and research all the patent information regarding your product"? No, it's "Patents are poised to become the next big racket - get in on it while you can". If you want to make money off software development without writing a line of code, simply accumulate patents (even crap patents). Look for people creating new software. Sue them until they pay you enough money to go away. For fun, you can sue open source efforts just to make the lives of hard-working, good-humored people miserable. (Actually, I've patented this 'process', so you can't do it without paying me my royalty.)

    By the way, Dave dropped his whole idea. He patented one part of his program and sued the next 5 developers who tried something even remotely similar. Thanks to two of those developers, Dave is now sipping mai-tai's on a beach in Hawaii.

  • and still wonders... Amazon's CFO [thestreet.com]
  • I live in Canada, so I don't know american book stores. A while ago, I wanted to send a book to someone in the US. Had Amazon not sued B&N I would have bought the book from them as they were the only store I knew. With that suit, they drew my attention to the fact that B&N was also selling books online. So I just bought the book from B&N...

    I wonder how many times this happens when the big bad company sues a little one (though I know in this case B&N is not really a small company...) and gets them some publicity as well as an incentive for people to buy from them.

  • Sorry, I Ain't Going Back (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VegeBrain ( 135543 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @01:15PM (#3125185)
    Here's what I have to say to Amazon.

    I used to buy a lot of books from you. If you check your records, you'll find just how much money I used to spend at your site and it was not an insignifigant amount. I liked the idea of an online bookstore and considered it a privilige to buy from you because you represented the new and innovative idea of buying off the web.

    Your 1 click lawsuit exposed you as just another greedy business. I quit buying from your website and started telling all my friends not to buy from you because of your idiotic lawsuit. I also started telling all my friends not to buy from Amazon because of this lawsuit. Your settlement isn't going to settle my own beef against you. And I'll still give nasty replies every time you send me an e-mail trying to get me back.

    And besides, there's no reason to go back. After all is said and done, I realized you did me a favor. I now buy all my books from your competitor. Now I have a Reader's Advantage card that not only gives me a discount at all B&N stores and website. Even better, this card gives me discounts at all B&N's affiliated bookstores such as B. Dalton and Scribners. To add icing to the cake I have a B&N credit card that gives me credits for B&N books every time use it. Why go back to Amazon?

    I am glad you haven't gone out of business though. I like your website's organization better than B&N's. And I use it regularly to look up book information. Then I go over to the B&N website and make my purchases there.

    • Ever hear of alldirect.com? I've found their prices to be around 30% or so less than both bn and amazon.

      Still, I'm into the instant gratification thing, so I still buy most of my leisure books in the local bn bookstore.
  • Screw Barnes @ Noble. And Amazon. There are other large, online book retailers you could buy from and get most things cheaper. I do all my book shopping at booksamillion [bamm.com]. It's cheaper and it's not one of "those" two. :)

    Triv
  • "...Details of the settlement are (of course) unavailable."

    Amazon is keeping the one-click patent, but they are allowing B&N to file and accept the two-click patent.

    B&N can then go after the infringers. And cut similar deals, introducing the three-click patent.

    No, I'm not sick of it yet.

Slashdot Top Deals

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.

Close