USPTO Increases Scope Of Amazon's 1-Click Patent 98
An anonymous reader writes "While the patent office had rejected earlier attempts by Amazon to get a continuation patent on its infamous "1-click" patent, it appears that an impatient USPTO examiner has approved the continuation, apparently because of the failure of BountyQuest to come up with prior art. This continuation adds claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call to obtain additional info."
I just wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
It just seems an inherently corruption-friendly system that allows any examiner of proper rank to step in and hand monopolies out to companies at a moment's notice.
Ryan Fenton
nothing to see here (Score:2, Insightful)
No sir-ree, there is noting to see here, just the USPTO doing their jobs just as well as ever.
Re:I just wonder... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I just wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply put, if the art isn't there, even if the examiner doesn't like it, the allowance has to be given to the applicant. It is an unfortunate state of affairs, but it is a legal requirement. Simply put, the examiner was doing his job.
Re:nothing to see here (Score:5, Insightful)
All I can say in reply is that I hope nobody ever tried to tell that to Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela.
The fact that an injustice persists, and that the abuses remain consistent in terms of action and actors is newsworthy. Talking about it until everyone gets sick of it is a valid tactic.
Sometimes the only way to invade the fortress is by chipping away at the walls inch by bloody inch. It's boring, painful and creates no heroes right up until the walls finally do come down.
Given up, have you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead and mod me flamebait or troll, but my point is that this isn't just about the 1 click patent. There's a company that has the patent on the breast cancer gene. Thats right, you can't try to cure a prevalent form of cancer without paying a frickin' royalty for something that wasn't even invented. At best you could say that they discovered it.
We need to keep trying to stop this insanity.
Why not patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not patent (Score:4, Insightful)
confirmation emails (Score:1, Insightful)
This is what the future will look like: you are living in the slums in the worst designed house (all good designs are copyrighted and you cant pay), with the worse job (you cannot afford the licenses for your buinsess practices, such as say, keeping a running total, or an electronic till with anything close to useful interfaces)(although you could become an enforcer of infractions of those laws and make enough for a a daily drink), if you want to send a letter, you will be too poor to afford anything but large sum, poorly handled, lost and stolen mail (i assume that the post office is patented out of exsistance)(ditto for phone calls), so you are alone, poor and working all the time. Rich people will trade eachother money and laugh but they will be very very few.
This is what will happen if you dont elect RON PAUL and fix your fucking country
please type the word in this image: suffer
Re:It may be hard to pay them not to grant it... (Score:2, Insightful)
greasing the right palms might still get a patent granted
Greasing the palms?! C'mon these patent assesors are obviously being paid with child-sex prostitutes!
I mean once you go accusing an entire class of people of corruption without a scintilla of proof, why stop there?
Re:I just wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
This gets so very old... (Score:5, Insightful)
The examiner did his research, and gave it his best shot. By amendment and argument, Amazon shot down his case. Nobody came to the rescue with any new art, and the examiner didn't find any. Indeed, despite the FAMOUSNESS of this battle, NOBODY has come up with any art to defeat the new claims or the old ones.
There are better battles to pitch than this one.
Re:The Real Enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
There's no meat in this sandwich (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's how it works...
Amazon patent A: (1 click)
Amazon patent B: (1 click) + (other stuff)
Anyone infringing B also infringes A. All Amazon has done is prevented someone else from patenting this particular flavor of (1 click)+(other stuff). They don't get anything extra because patent A already covers the stuff patent B covers.
So, the only people who should be upset by this are patent trolls who want to patent the nuances around 1 click and then sue Amazon and other etailors.
Re:I just wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/
"The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention."
These "developers" he spoke of, might they have "ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention."? I'm not sure. I am sure however, that anyone who starts bandying about terms like "fucking moron" better have a very clear argument ready to back himself up, or he might look like an uneducated, arrogant troll.
Re:This gets so very old... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bartender? Scotch please, on my tab.
And for the true regular at the bar: [Raises index finger at bartender]
Oh but I forgot, it's "on the internets" so it's somehow novel and nonobvious.