USPTO Increases Scope Of Amazon's 1-Click Patent

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...

...on average, what percentage of a patent examiner's net worth is actually wages, and what percent is some form of bribes and hush money.

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

Re:

I am fairly certain that the percentage that comes from bribes is 0%.

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 require

It may be hard to pay them not to grant it...

... but if prior art is there, greasing the right palms might still get a patent granted.

Re:

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 pro

Re:I just wonder...

No, he wasn't. Because 'obviousness' is the other part of what is necessary for an invention to be patentable. And 1-click sales are obvious to all developers, 1-click sales and 1-click anythings are the reason cookies exist, they are a natural and obvious extension of cookies.

Re:

Instead of looking like a fucking moron, you might want to read what the patent office means by obvious:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#novelty [uspto.gov]

"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 "develo

Re:

Seriously.

I mean, Amazon's 1-click patent should have failed on obviousness at the very least.

Patents should be abolished...

... not just because of the problems they cause, but more importantly because of the blatant stupidity of the USPTO staff. Maybe we could sue them as individuals because of the bad effects of their obvious mistakes? Let's start naming names of the PTO officials who do stupid things, embarrass them in public.

Re:Patents should be abolished...

Patents might be useful in some areas - however they seriously damage software development. I would like to see some well needed patent reform.

There.

Re:

Minimally educated government clerks deciding the fate of inventions in the areas where they are not knowledgeable are necessary in many areas? You got to be kidding.

Re:

Woah, obvious troll there. Of course a system run by incompetents is likely to fail, but nothing about the principle of patents says they have to be administered by incompetents. That's just an implementation detail, albeit a rather important one.

What w

nothing to see here

The whole patent rant is an assumed thing here on /. The whole list of possible solutions or fixes to the patent system has also been beaten to death, and requires no addressing. We don't need to name companies which use immoral tactics, we all know the

Re:nothing to see here

The whole patent rant is an assumed thing here on /. The whole list of possible solutions or fixes to the patent system has also been beaten to death, and requires no addressing. We don't need to name companies which use immoral tactics, we all know the names. We don't need to cry about all of the projects which have been destroyed. We all know it's commonplace and might as well get used to it.

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.

Re:

> All I can say in reply is that I hope nobody ever tried to tell that to Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela.

"All I can say..."? Apparently not, since you then go on to say something else.

In any case, are you trying to tell me that you serious

Re:

In any case, are you trying to tell me that you seriously think no body told those guys they were fighting a lost cause. I'll take that bet.

Actually, I meant to suggest that anyone who suggested to Gandhi et alia that they should sit down and shut up wou

Given up, have you?

So this means that you've quit. You are no longer going to try and change the system (whatever that may mean to you).

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.

Re:

Erm, maybe I don't remember correctly, but isn't that patent on using that gene to detect a predisposition to that kind of cancer? I don't think it extends to curing it. It's already diryt enough as it is, no need to go sensational.

Re:

> No sir-ree, there is noting to see here

posting, yes, noting no.

Re:

If you fix it there will be one reason less to outsource work and one reason less to laugh at America.

Re:

Well, I had this idea this morning and can't remember seeing it before.

http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/06/simple-idea-fo r-patent-reform.html [blogspot.com]

Have you seen this before? If so, links would be welcome.

all the best,

drew

Voting is 1-click

...soon we'll pay Amazon for the privilege of choosing between uniformly corrupt leaders with narrowly deviating opinions.

Oh well, Plato warned us about this. We're in the age of oligarchy and timarchy. Next stop: authoritarianism, then third-world insig

only one way

there is only one solution to this madness and that is to use evil plan #236, yes that one- where the entirety of slashdot bands together and does some of our own patent trolling. slaghter this system with its own sword- call it patent slashdotting.

alternatively

Ummm, if filing patent applications was free you might have a case. Alternatively, searching for prior art is free (other than your time) and you have an army of people who might potentially be interested. Granted, someone would still likely have to go

BFD

Somebody claims to own something kinda cool, so somebody invents something cooler.

It's not *fundamental*, so watch it become worthless.

I love that sensual, sand through the fingers, feeling.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

This is ridiculous

I already boycott Amazon because of their stupid patent nonsense; I wish there was a way I could boycott the USPTO, now that would be fun. . . .

:-)

-Scott

Re:

You're not alone in the boycott...Amazon has never seen a dime of mine. Now if only more Americans had a spine.

Re:This is ridiculous

Make innovative inventions and do not patent them. That's how you boycott the USPTO. At least until the "first to patent wins" system comes into play.

Realistically, that's how it works now -- if you come up with a useful new algorithm, say, and Microsoft or Adobe or Oracle or someone else with much deeper pockets than yours patents it, do you think your prior art is going to stand up against their army of lawyers? Non-obviousness as a standard for rejecting a patent is already quite dead; prior art is going away fast.

Re:

Non-obviousness as a standard for rejecting a patent is already quite dead; prior art is going away fast.

The Supreme Court's recent decision should do a lot to bring back the obviousness argument.

I have a solution!

This patent stuff is madness, but I have a solution! I need your help. Come to my website and join the cause. All you have to do is click the link. Just one click, that's all. Just..um..one click..oh shoot, an Amazon lawyer is on the phone. Gotta go.

Why not patent

using a Skilsaw to cut a piece of plywood. One-click is a trivial application of features built into a tool set that envisioned it in it's inception. It is worst of two stupid patent paradigms, the software patent and the business method patent. When will this sort of thing be recognized as the malignant lawyer-driven racket it is?

Re:Why not patent

I'm not sure it's laywer-driven, really. Lawyers certainly benefit, of course, but corporate lawyers are basically just doing the bidding of their executive masters. At least in theory, law is a profession, and has a certain ethical code. Business has none.

Re:

It is worst of two stupid patent paradigms, the software patent and the business method patent.

Calling clicking a link and contacting a customer by email or phone "software" or a "business method" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Patent reform needed

It is obvious that corporate entities are patenting things that should never be patentable in the first place. It is also obvious that patents can't be eliminated completely. The Patent Reform Act of 2005/2007 is a step in the wrong direction! Sensible patent reform now!

The Real Enemy

If anyone ever tries to patent "Stupidity", the USPTO can itself show plenty of prior art.

Or as one poster suggested, "Corruption". This sham has been going on for years. Why haven't the fatcats in Congress done anything about it? Could corporate donations have anything to do it? Patents work in established big businesses favor. Witness Balmer's recent threats to us MS Patents to go after Linux customers. If big business whined about patents, you can bet their Congressmen on a string would change the law quick smart (as they did for the Mickey Mouse^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCopyright Extension act for Disney).

Do patents work in small businesses favor? In theory they can. "In theory". By the very act of writing software (which has an absurd number of stupid patents) Microsoft daily must infringe hundreds of patents every day. Not just big business with patent exchange agreements, but smaller ones without. When was the last time a small business took Microsoft to the cleaners over such a patent? Eolas came close... kind of. No one else by a long shot.

The problem isn't USPTO incompetence. It's Congressional Sloth and Greed. What can we do other than crying to the converted on Slashdot?

Re:

Try and organize a revolution.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Visa! Visa! The Revolution!

> Try and organize a revolution.

1. I thought that was what Slashdot is for?
2. Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.
3. Ok, but only if I get a T-shirt like Che.

"Sometimes I think the world is going mad. Then I think, 'Ahh, Who Cares?' Then I think, 'He

Well thank God for that!

It wasn't vague, bizarre and obvious enough! Glad the government came in to clear things up.

On a related note, will someone please wake me up, or yell April Fools, or give me the red pill or something to let me know that reality isn't some kind of joke?

This gets so very old...

This is really pretty easy stuff guys. The examiner searches for prior art, and if he finds it, or an obvious combination of it, badda-bing, lovely rejection. If not, he is bound by statute to allow the patent, period. 35 USC s. 102 ("A person shall be entitled to a patent unless" there exists invalidating art). We all know you hate the law and the standards, but give this poor examiner a break, will you? He HAS to allow the patent UNLESS he comes up with a case to reject it. He HAS to do it. He HAS to. Suggesting bad faith or corruption as the cause of the examiner's allowance is obnoxious and naive.

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:

This is the section 102 you refer to: USC 35 s 102 [cornell.edu]. It is followed by section 103 [cornell.edu], "Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter", which states:

(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as

Re:

NOBODY has come up with any art to defeat the new claims or the old ones

Example, ready go:
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

New name for the patent

This continuation adds claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call to obtain additional info.

Henceforth, the Amazon patent shall no longer be known as the "1-click patent", but the "1-click and lots of hassle patent".

Setup store somewhere else.

I know a lot of your guys are Americans, but this will help you.

All I can say is, if you're thinking of setting up an online store, for God's sake, do it outside the US. Their patent laws are fucking ridiculous, and only when massive amount of business ar

Re:

This idea I had this morning might help and is simple enough that it may have a chance of getting through:

http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/06/simple-idea-fo r-patent-reform.html [blogspot.com]

Patents must be sought as "defensive purposes only" or regular...

Regular, gets

Wasn't Me, But Here Are More Details!

Congress didn't buy Amazon's argument [house.gov] that the failure of a defunct Jeff Bezos-funded company [salon.com] to award a $10,000 bounty offered by Tim O'Reilly [infotoday.com] for prior art that could bust Bezos' 1-Click patent was proof of 1-Click's novelty. The Commissioner for Patents, on the other hand, was duly impressed [flickr.com]. As was one of his patent Examiners [herald.co.uk], who broke ranks from a less-impressed fellow Examiner [theregister.co.uk] and re-Examiner [theregister.co.uk], to push through [flickr.com] last week's issuance of U.S. patent no. 7,222,087 [uspto.gov], a 'continuation' of 1-Click which adds innovative claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call [flickr.com] to obtain additional info.

Re:

Wait...they have a patent on contacting somebody via email? WTF?

Re:

"which adds innovative claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call [flickr.com] to obtain additional info."

I for one see those new claims as astounding innovations. I know that we were all thinking that we would have had to

Re:

Yeah, first time I read it I had uge déjà vu, but it wasn't as strait up cut and paste as I thought.

Hey, just give up on the accents. Anyway, we don't need them, we speak English! Seriously, Anglicization of words can legitimately mean dropping

Re:

No way. Disuse of those characters might encourage lazy programmers to become complacent and forget charset and localization issues completely. There's already enough stupid problems as it is.

Re:

Or it could encourage a character accent arms race, as people throw in all manner of whackiness just to force an upgrade.
Or maybe Amazon's patent shall have grown to consume any physical contact that triggers an exchange of information, so we'll all be sa

Re:

I think an idea I had this morning has the potential to to fix this problem...

http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/06/simple-idea-fo r-patent-reform.html [blogspot.com]

I would like your thoughts...

all the best,

drew