USPTO Rejects Amazon's One-Click Patent

igdmlgd writes "A while ago I filed a reexamination request for the Amazon.com one-click patent and recently checked out the USPTO online file wrapper -it seems they have rejected all the claims I requested they look at and more!" And it only took many many years to remove what would have been obvious to the most incompetent web developer.

Re:Register Article

[mr_mischief]

That article makes it pretty clear, I think, that the rejections doesn't mean all these things are ruled obvious enough not to be patentable. Some of the claims were rejected because they were covered by other patents still in force. That some of the claims can't be claims in this patent because they had already were patented by others does not mean they were rejected for lack of novelty nor that they are not patented by the other parties holding those patents.

Eight of them did fall, in fact, from a Steven Levy article in NewsWeek, so that's a good thing. A good way to keep obvious things from being patented is to have an expression of the idea copyrighted first.

Re:Obvious...

[encoderer]

Amazon was the first because they were around when the number of .com's was measured in the thousands, maybe even hundreds. But you put 100 different companies in Amazons shoes in that point in time and I bet that the large majority of them would implement a similar feature. That makes the patent fail the "is it obvious" test.

Re:Obvious...

[JetScootr]

If you read the RFC for HTML buttons, etc, you'll find that purchasing things on the click of a button isn't just obvious, it's one of the often-used examples of what buttons are for. Buttons are there so the user can initiate an action that does something for them.
User thinks "Buy that". GUI and database go kachunk kachunk kachunk.
In the programmer's view, ANY button click will call many functions, almost every time.
Where does the programmer stop calling functions? Why, when the app has done everything needed to accomplish what the user asked for.
What's unobvious is stopping in order to force the user to push buttons unnecessarily.

Re:Counter sue?

[illumin8]

Chances are that anyone who's paid up for a license from Amazon is SOL, since the contract would almost certainly include a provision that they can't sue even if the patent ends up getting spiked. Anyone who hasn't executed a contract with Amazon, but has incurred expenses in defending themselves might be able to recover some damages.

Sucks to be Steve Jobs and Apple and realize that you've been licensing 1-click for iTMS for years now when it wasn't even a valid patent...

Re:Obvious...

[Waffle Iron]

It's easy to say the idea is obvious once someone else has thought of it and presented it to you - but was it "obvious" to people before Amazon did it? If so, then why was Amazon the first?

People trot out this same argument every time a bogus patent gets discussed. The main reason in this case was that Amazon was one of the first businesses that was involved in Internet transactions. Nobody did it before because nobody needed to solve that exact problem. That still doesn't mean that the solution wasn't obvious; it just means that the problem didn't exist. You don't deserve a monopoly just because you're one of the first people in a new market.

IMO, the laws for patentability ought to be changed to fix this problem anyway. I say that if something is obvious, even in hindsight, then it shouldn't be patentable. There are plenty of patent claims that I understand after seeing, but which certainly can't be called obvious, even in hindsight. That should be where the bar is set.

Re:Obvious...

[MartinG]

but was it "obvious" to people before Amazon did it? If so, then why was Amazon the first?

Someone is first to do everything, and that includes obvious things.

Re:Obvious...

[Yvanhoe]

Engineers are trained to solve problems.
Managers submit problems to engineers.
Engineers find a solution to solve the problem.

Only bad engineers solve obvious problems. Give two good engineers the same problem, there is a high probability that they will come up with the same solution.

The idea that only the first one to solve the problem is allowed to use the solution is just nonsense.

Re:Counter sue?

[AmaDaden]

I would guess on the grounds that the Amazon was aware that the patent was obvious and were just out to hurt competition and make a quick buck. Anti-Monopoly stuff. Hard stuff to prove but they might just be able to pull it off. It would be a nice president too. It would make people think twice before trying to enforce a dumb patent.

Re:Patent was for a result, not a process or desig

[Actually, I do RTFA]

That is probably the best summation of what can go wrong with software patents I've heard in a while. I find nothing wrong with a guy who invents a more efficent algorithim getting compensated, but most patent applications are not "a specific method to solve the travelling salesman problem that happens to be O(n)," but instead "the concept of solving the travelling salesman problem in O(n), an example of which is given."

Re:Whine enuf and you win

[delt0r]

It was invalidated on the grounds of prior art, you know, already thought of by others before the filing date. It was obvious enough when others thought of it that they did not run down to the patent office.

In fact if something is obvious why do i need to publish or do anything with the idea, its obvious. The requirement that everything that is obvious should either be in some public archive or already patented is laughable.

Are you a patent lawyer by any chance?

Re:Obvious to the most incompetent web devloper...

[nagora]

The thing you get from the patent office should be an exchange. We give you this funny monopoly right, you tell everybody in plain English how it works.

In that case the explanation would have been:

It uses cookies. DUH!

Using someone else's invention (cookies) to do specifically what that invention was designed to do (recognise returning customers) is not something that even the most retarded patent examiner should have considered for a second.

EVERYONE knew how 1-click worked as soon as they heard of it for the simple reason that lots of people were already doing it and simply had never thought they could patent somthing someone else had invented and left to the public domain.

TWW

Re:well yes and errr, no

[Anonymous Coward]

"first to use" is not a counter-argument to "obvious". In a new field like that it is more likely that even basic stuff wasn't done yet due to simple lack of time and resources.

Re:Whine enuf and you win

[FailedTheTuringTest]

back then, no programmer would ever sell a thing with one click

The way you say no programmer would ever do it suggests to me that every programmer knew and understood the concept (i.e. the idea was obvious and widespread), but that companies judged it unwise to do so. So maybe Amazon had the courage to try it, but that's not what patents are for. You get a patent for inventing a clever new kind of parachute; you don't get a patent for being the first one to jump with it.

Re:well yes and errr, no

[drix]

You were employee #2 at Amazon and you still have to work [equalarea.com]?:

I was intimately involved with many aspects of getting this new company started. I left, despite significant stock and other inducements to remain, because I am a technical person and had little interest in playing a role in the growth of the company. I was intimately involved with many aspects of getting this now-extremely successful company started.

Wow. I know some hardcore nerds, but you, sir, top them all.