USPTO Examiner Rejected 1-Click Claims As "Obvious" 195
theodp writes "Faced with a duly unimpressed USPTO examiner who rejected its new 1-Click patent claims as 'obvious' and 'old and well known,' Amazon has taken the unusual step of requesting an Oral Appeal to plead its case. And in what might be interpreted by some as an old-fashioned stalling tactic, the e-tailer has also canceled and refiled its 1-Click claims in a continuation application. As it touted the novelty of 1-Click to Congress last spring, Amazon kept the examiner's rejection under its hat, insisting that 'still no [1-Click] prior art has surfaced.' The Judiciary Committee hearing this testimony included Rick Boucher (VA) and Howard Berman (CA), both recipients of campaign contributions from a PAC funded by 1-Click inventor Jeff Bezos, other Amazon execs, and their families."
Same trick? (Score:2, Interesting)
There is prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Computers automate work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Put it on my tab" (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, if Obvious was somehow forgotten in the world of telephony, I don't know what is in the rest of the world. But they had the patent based on "business process". How is using the * key different for a person calling 411 vs calling the local Energy company, or their own PBX? I don't know.
But, they actually won a lawsuit after a competitor in the "411" business allowed their own customers to use the * and # keys on the DTMF phones (and DTMF tones were designed to allow for systems to interpret them for custom needs, with no specified control... so.. yea...) And they won!
This is another case of very very very very very bad Patent law.
Re:Computers automate work (Score:4, Interesting)
No, all software patents should be shot down. Patents should only be given to inventions which operate in the physical world.
Software can operate in the physical world. That's why the USPTO started allowing software patents in 1981. Anyways, I like the europeean take on software patents, which says that "any invention which makes a non-obvious "technical contribution" or solves a "technical problem" in a non-obvious way is patentable even if a computer program is used in the invention." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#In_Eu rope [wikipedia.org]
I just don't see anyone can be against that.
Re:The rejection will be overturned. (Score:1, Interesting)
The reason is simple - judges are easy to fool. All you need are a few "experts" to toss around some technical-sounding jargon, bring up some reason why the "invention" is highly complex and amazingly ingenious (again based on some obscure jargon), and human nature takes over. The judge doesn't want to admit to being clueless when confronted by such esteemed "experts", so he nods wisely and
So did the Jetsons (Score:3, Interesting)
them buy stuff on a 200inch plasma screen using voice recognition to the virtual shopping channel.
A TV show can be prior art as it showcases the concept and idea perfectly so that even a 5 year old can understand it let alone a CEO earning $6m dollars.
Re:Computers automate work (Score:2, Interesting)
In theory, at least.
Re:Computers automate work (Score:4, Interesting)
Level of abstraction? Okay, explain how you're a walrus.
Software patents make as much sense as mechanical patents because both cover how to change something in one state to something that might be more useful in a different state. The usefulness of the patent is up for debate as it would be in any new industry, as is the innovation. The debatable questions are whether the innovation that goes into creating something that is novel in software deserves a patent, and whether allowing patents in software is good for society. Once those questions are sufficiently answered there will always be the secondary questions of a particular patent's worthiness, but it will be far easier to answer.
Re: There is prior art (Score:2, Interesting)
1. its under control of a client
2. provides information about the item (you can see what you want to buy including a descriptive name)
3. only one action, that's the 1-click, by simply clicking on that item (also known in many many newer games like Command&Conquer where you buy&build by one click on a item)
4. organising further informations about the user -> that's keeping track of you current score/stats in the game
5. creating a 'order'
6. Not using a shopping-cart
so, now please compare this to the patent itself: http://www.google.com/patents?id=O2YXAAAAEBAJ&dq=
-- cut --
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.
-- end cut --
How about refunding license payments if this falls (Score:3, Interesting)