Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Patents Your Rights Online

Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed 117

Posted by timothy
from the can-this-just-be-a-bad-dream? dept.
Zordak writes "Amazon's infamous '1-click' patent has been in reexamination at the USPTO for almost four years. Patently-O now reports that 'the USPTO confirmed the patentability of original claims 6-10 and amended claims 1-5 and 11-26. The approved-of amendment adds the seeming trivial limitation that the one-click system operates as part of a 'shopping cart model.' Thus, to infringe the new version of the patent, an eCommerce retailer must use a shopping cart model (presumably non-1-click) alongside of the 1-click version. Because most retail eCommerce sites still use the shopping cart model, the added limitation appears to have no practical impact on the patent scope.'" Also covered at TechFlash.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed

Comments Filter:
  • Non-obviousness. (Score:4, Informative)

    by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @03:28PM (#31430486)

    This is an incredibly obvious patent and not at all novel. Is the bar for non-obviousness now simply that nobody else has patented it yet? Bit of a..."circular" (to put it nicely) definition, no?

  • Re:US copyright... (Score:4, Informative)

    by greensoap (566467) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @03:35PM (#31430564)
    The 1-click patent has nothing to do with U.S. Copyright Laws. Although I am sure that you can find any number of people that hate both equally, especially on /.
  • Re:Non-obviousness. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @03:38PM (#31430608) Homepage

    Keep in mind that if an examiner is going to reject an application on the basis of obviousness, you can't just say "it's obvious". You have to come up with examples of why it is obvious [wikipedia.org]. The Supreme Court ruled [wikipedia.org] this is what needs to be looked at:

    the scope and content of the prior art;
    the level of ordinary skill in the art;
    the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
    objective evidence of nonobviousness.

    And in a secondary fashion:

    commercial success;
    long felt but unsolved needs; and
    failure of others.

  • Re:US copyright... (Score:2, Informative)

    by gront (594175) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @03:42PM (#31430648)
    Uh... The USPTO isn't the US Copyright Office, don't use the same rules, laws, or concepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTO [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Copyright_Office [wikipedia.org] So yeah, FUD is all well and good, but at least attack the correct legal concept.
  • by Reverberant (303566) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @03:53PM (#31430784) Homepage

    Apple has been a 1-click licensee [cnet.com] for quite a while now.

  • Re:who uses it? (Score:5, Informative)

    by natehoy (1608657) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @03:58PM (#31430836) Journal

    My wife signed up for "Amazon Prime" and unbeknownst to her they turned it on as part of that process. She was looking at netbooks and wanted to add a few favorites to her shopping cart so she could compare them, and damn if the "Buy Now" button doesn't look a whole lot like the "Add To Cart" button.

    Thankfully, when she called me in a panic after trying to cancel the order NOT ONE MINUTE AFTER PLACING IT and getting the "order is in process and cannot be canceled" message, we determined that the one she picked was pretty much the ideal netbook for her anyway. But we turned it off almost immediately thereafter (fortunately they allow you to turn it off, or I would literally stop shopping at Amazon's site for fear of accidentally buying things).

    I cannot imagine for the life of me why anyone would want a single, large, shiny button (actually, no, two of them) on the information page that commit you to buying something the instant you click it. I'm sure there's a good reason (other than Amazon wanting to sell more stuff via accidental clicks), but I can't think of it.

  • Re:who uses it? (Score:3, Informative)

    by R.Mo_Robert (737913) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @06:24PM (#31432542)

    My wife signed up for "Amazon Prime" and unbeknownst to her they turned it on as part of that process. ... I cannot imagine for the life of me why anyone would want a single, large, shiny button (actually, no, two of them) on the information page that commit you to buying something the instant you click it. I'm sure there's a good reason (other than Amazon wanting to sell more stuff via accidental clicks), but I can't think of it.

    I have the same problem on my Kindle, which essentially uses the one-click model as well (all you have to do is accidentally move the joystick to the right button--or, better yet, do it without realizing it because the screen is relatively slow at refreshing--and click down). It seems like a terrible idea to me, too, without even so much as an "Are you sure?" confirmation.

    Luckily, the one time I accidentally bought a book, I e-mailed customer service, deleted the book (per their request, although we all know now they can do it themselves), and they refunded my money. (Then they charged me again, I called again, and they refunded me again. Don't know what that happened, but, if we ignore this second mixup, it was easy to get fixed.)

"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Working...