Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Apple Licences Amazon's 1-click Shopping 192

Posted by CmdrTaco from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.
An anonymous reader was the first to note that Apple of all people (corps?) has announced that it is the first sane corporation to actually think Amazon's patent on one click shopping was legitimate enough to license it. I can't fathom why Apple would do this. (Unless Bezos said they can have it for $3.50) but even then, when one company takes something so lame seriously, that's a dangerous precedent.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Licences Amazon's 1-click Shopping More

Apple Licences Amazon's 1-click Shopping

Comments Filter:
  • Again, I recognize that you are overly burdened-- as are many other people. Heck, it's not uncommon for me to work 80 hours or more per week. However, I would never complete a project only half way. I'd either do it right or say, "I don't have time." The latter answer is perfectly acceptable when you literally don't have time.

    unfortunately, we have a system of production. we have to get a certain amount of work done every biweek, or we lose our jobs. simple as that.

    ---

  • First off, my native language ain't English
    so thanks for correcting my spelling.

    So, if I paraphrase your post for real, it
    sounds like: "I don't know my subject, nor
    can you expect it from me, so give me a
    break". Great logic, dimwit. If I go to a
    surgeon, he'd better know everything about the
    upcoming operation.
    And this brings up anoter point.
    If you are not (by your own admission) skilled
    in the art, then how do you make a judgement on
    what would be obvious to those who are so skilled.

    My point was that the way the system is set up,
    people cannot fulfill their duties, so it
    renders every examiner a dolt by default.
  • so let me get this straight... i'm an imbecile because i don't have encyclopdic knowledge of thousands of references, and i'm a dimwit because i can't do quality work because i'm given less than half the time it should take to do said work?
    look, if what you're saying is that the system needs fixing, i agree 100%. we need to provide far more time for examination of applications, and enough cash for examiners to stay at the PTO instead of fleeing towards industry everytime a recruiter waves a handful of money at them. still don't understand why you have to resort to namecalling, but anyway...

    If I go to a surgeon, he'd better know everything about the upcoming operation.

    well, that's fine, but see how good a job he does when his boss tells him he has only 5 minutes to remove your appendix...

    ---

  • Uh, no. I don't mean you guys need more
    time. I mean you can't possibly do what
    is required of you because it requires more
    knowledge than a person can fit in their
    head. The system that pretends that this is
    possible is just plain bad. And people who
    get employed by said system, are cooperating
    in deceiving the public, and so they get to share
    the blame. Hence name calling (although I felt
    like flaming someone at the time anyway).
    In this whole IP food chain, patent lawyers and
    VCs certainly deserve more flaming, but none
    have posted at the time.
  • You'd be seeing a lot more patents like "one-click ordering."
  • i'm surprised jobs didn't wait for a keynote to announce this one

    best slash sites:infantililsm.org [infantilism.org]
  • Now, I don't understand why Apple's customers would want one click shopping.

    Indeed. The whole concept of 1-click ordering only works for repeat orders. How many people are going to be making frequent orders from Apple's online store? It's great for Amazon, because they typically sell low value goods, and so people order more often. I just can't see this being the case for Apple.

  • I don't have to validate moderation performed by my peers, but I wonder why you didn't check the No +1 Bonus box for your post

  • > neither the silicon chip nor the heart transplant were patented.

    That is incorrect. The Integrated Circuit was most definitely patented. And I quote:

    "Robert Noyce took the helm of the new enterprise and it was his invention of the integrated circuit that same year (along with Jack Kilby of TI who shared the patents) that would make Fairchild's fortune"

    Taken from this article [berkeley.edu].

    Here are a few other references:

    http://inv entors.about.com/science/inventors/library/weekly/ aa080498.htm [about.com]

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyb er/tech/ctb218.htm [usatoday.com]

    Poor SOBs. Their patents ran out in 81. But it looks like they got to have a good run of it with the screwed up Japanese patent system!

  • Re:Not so lame (Score:3)

    by EMN13 ( 11493 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @03:42AM (#769545) Homepage
    Though I appreciate your approach I still think your conclusion - that the patent might be valid is not warrented. Then there is the entirely other issue of use of patents, which isn't clear cut at all. But, given that patents are a fact of life, what is wrong with amazons patent?

    Really, why were cookies developed in the first place? They were developed to enable sessions to be persistent (to my knowledge). This enables you to do stuff like automatically log on to a service such as slashdot, your web-email provider, whatever. Depending on what you do on the web, you can use this identity thing in different ways.

    It's simply a combination in utterly trivial manner of existing ideas, moreover, these idea's were made to be used together.

    Hyperlinks came first. Amazon was not involved. Quite a useful idea. dynamic web pages - the CGI idea - came next. CGI was intended for things such as an online store, or a message board, or in general a way to get program output easily to the web. Obviously, programs that need to communicate with a wide population really make use of this most - such as a store. Amazon couldn't get a patent on using CGI to this end, and they were not involved in CGI's developement. They weren't around at the time. Next come cookies. I don't know whether amazon already existed or not, but the ovious purpose by the "inventor" was to make sessions persistent, so that a user doesn't need to identify himself. It also makes intra-session persistence easier, but it is by no means really necessary. Amazon used cookies exactly as intended. Why should they they be rewarded for that.

    After all, it was 3M who got the patent on post-its not the first person to use them.

    And obviously, if patents didn't exist in the first place, certain things would be very different. For many people, it would not make a difference. For those regions in which huge investments are necessary for one advance (medicine, for instance) things would go a lot slower. But realize also that the increased freedom means you'll have a lot more people developing, so who knows whether this is a good or bad thing... and finally, the government should take an active part in funding and supporting research. It already does, but remove patents and increase support... who knows. I certainly think that the duration of patents bu much more so copyrights should be much shorter - and even shorter depending on the region. Things that take longer to develope should be protected more than those that take shorter.
  • I must now complain in the strongest possible terms about the blatant troll-feeding which is occurring in this thread. Now the mini-trolls placed into my troll post announcing that my previous troll was a troll are getting bitten on! I demand that the UN act to import new supplies of irony to Canada. I appear to have lost the +2 bonus now; thank you.

  • patented heart transplants? (Score:4)

    by streetlawyer ( 169828 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @03:42AM (#769547) Homepage
    For God's sake! I can't believe that, despite the number of people who have reacted to this fairly heavy-handed troll, nobody has yet pointed out that neither the silicon chip nor the heart transplant were patented. That was the whole point of the troll! I am utterly disgusted with the standard of kneejerk posters on slashdot today, so in the tradition of mad people everywhere, I am replying to one of my own posts to complain. And abusing the +2 bonus to do so, for God's sake!!
  • You may have hit the nail on the head. It is fairly common practice to threaten to sue a large company for a violation then ask for a super cheap 'liscence' fee so they can use that to gain legitamcy and as leverage against other companies.
    So now I will havt to boycott Apple.
    If this hit the news tomorrow I would have a cube.I gues I got to find something else to spend my 1799 on.
  • So, can I patent the act of driving a car down to Giant Eagle for soem milk and bread?

    - Kevin
  • Well if anyone feels like some healthy spoofing, they can register Quadrupleclick.com/net/org. Tripleclick is taken, oddly enough...

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • 90 minutes? That's not nearly enough time to sober up!

  • I buy one of just about everything Apple makes and I've pretty much given up on supporting local Apple dealers. One-click rules.
  • For a long time there he asked that GNU software not be ported to the Apple because of the look and feel lawsuits. Maybe if Apple tries to validate this silly patent, they'll move forward and start patenting aspects of their interface for the next round of look and feel lawsuits...

  • Apple ventures doomed to grow from this. (Score:3)

    by AFCArchvile ( 221494 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @03:56AM (#769554)

    Apple introduces the one-click crash. Just click once on the Help icon, and your Mac is thrown into a system crash.

    Apple introduces the one-click animé plugin for Adobe Photoshop. Just one click with the animé tool, and watch that special Apple magic come to life! (WARNING: Not for use on photographs of Steve Jobs, Steve Case, or Stephen Wozniak, as they morph into Jay from Mallrats, Jay Leno, and Chewbacca the Wookiee, respectively.)

    Apple introduces the one-click Electronic Funds Transfer. For each click of the new Apple Pro Mouse, $500 is directly transferred to the accounts and estate of Mr. Steven Jobs. For each millisecond of dragging the mouse, 50 cents is transferred. (DISCLAIMERS: Apple is not responsible for bank statement errors on your part. Due to high latency issues dealing with the USB port structure to which the mouse is connected, as well as the Java which is used to power the EFT logger, funds may be withdrawn at a higher rate. The user is required to wear a stylish electronic tracking necklace which comes in five flavors. If insufficient funds are reported, the necklace will automatically detonate. Apple is an Equal Opportunity Swindler. Java is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, LLC, CRAP, ETC.)

    Apple introduces the one-click lobotomy. Just point your browser to any of these company webpages: Microsoft, Dell, HP, Micron, or Intel. You'll instantly have 50% of your brain mass removed by the special lobotomy Javascript plugin installed in Netscape Communicator 4.7 for the Mac. (DISCLAIMERS: Due to Javascript compilation latency, the process will take 5 agonizing days to complete. No anaesthesia is used in the process. Apple is not responsible for the following symptoms of the process: schizophrenia, delerium, homicidal tendencies, incest, and death. Use as directed.)

  • If you're going to go via the /. numbers I believe I actually managed to get the third post.

  • inside story (secondhand) (Score:5)

    by luge ( 4808 ) <.gro.yugeit. .ta. .todhsals.> on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @02:31AM (#769556) Homepage
    A friend of my worked for store.apple.com over the summer, and he told me that this was coming. He said this came from Jobs himself. Apparently, Jobs was in a meeting with some of the web design team and said "I want one click." Someone pointed out that it was patented by Amazon, so Steve got Bezos on the phone right then and there and said "Jeff, we want to use one click." No one heard what was said on the other end, but Steve said "OK, thanks Jeff" and hung up, and told them to go ahead and do one click.
    I'm not really sure what the point of that story was, except that this kind of licensing and agreement between two mega-companies doesn't have to have rhyme or reason to it: it can happen because Steve Jobs is nuts and knows Jeff Bezos personally. So, if Steve knows the head of BT, maybe he will license links from them too :) Otherwise, I doubt it...
    ~luge
  • You were researching chip patents when you were 6 years old?
    Sorry, I should've been more specific; the memory is approximately six years old. That is, I read the book around 6 years ago, when I was in my teens.

    --

  • That's it! Thanks.

    --

  • No I don't, thank god.
    Any why READ patents when I can just read ABOUT them here on /.? ;)

  • Who is notorious for their cookies, but cannot possibly violate the "1-click" patent?

    These folks [doubleclick.net] of course... :)

    Sreeram.
  • Maybe there was a "one-click shopping" link at the bottom of an Amazon page that charges any Amazon account holder the licensing fee and gives them a license...
  • I think this is a bit more subversive than run-of-the-mill patent abuse.

    Just watch out... next time you visit the apple web site: one wrong click and you've bought yourself a new cube!

  • Re:Good for Apple (Score:3)

    by memfree ( 227515 ) <memfree AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @02:34AM (#769563) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps it isn't that Apple thinks this is fair, but that Apple thinks it is cheaper to buy the license than to argue the legalities of it (though they'd be unlikely to admit that in a press release). Think of it as 'protection' money. Give Amazon cash; Amazon won't beat you up for giving your customers ease of use.
  • While I am not terribly enthused about the seeming explosion of "silly patents," I tend to agree with streetlawyer here. The idea of clicking on an item, item's description, picture of an item, ascii rendition of an item . . . you get the picture. Seems pretty obvious to the relatively savvy folks around /. but there doesn't seem to be any real case for the "prior art" issue when you look at the facts. We may just have to accept that, even though it seems pretty silly, the Amazon patent is valid, and we're just going to have to deal with it (not necessarily like it). IANAL, but my understanding of patent law is that, if I wanted to, I could patent a zepplin built from 40 mm titanium sheeting and filled with mercury as long as someone else hadn't already come up with the idea. hmmmm that would be a pretty cool project. . . Anybody got a few extra thermometers I could have?
  • Apple most likely didn't pay anything. From their press release it says they "licensed Amazon.com's 1-Click patent and trademark for use on its Apple Online Store (www.apple.com), as part of an e-commerce patent cross-licensing agreement." Better ask what would Amazon want of comparable value that Apple has?
  • I worked for a pentent law firm in DC right before I started college in '95 - you shoudl be careful what you say, there are MILLIONS of Joe Normal guys getting fucked up the ass by many a large company b/c they can't afford to defend it in the courts. The patent law firms are told by the government that they should do some percentage of pro bono cases per year, they never reach this quota - but that is relaly the only way a little guy will get it if they will go for that. There is a whole subsection of business built on "submarining" your patent. When I was working there we were right in the midst of a razor company coming up for air on their submarined technology and they were going to get a shitload for it. you file for your new product and you purposely tie it up in the courts, it is a great invention that everyone wants, and for X time it just has "patent applied for" on it and some competitors of yours use it, then after there is enough market saturation to satisfy you, you come up and you allow your companies lawyers to finalize the thing, get it out of the process and patented - you then sue the fuck out of every single company using your idea. there is a whole separate revenue stream coming from just that. if a company wants a patent, they have a full legal staff on full time solely for patent problems and they will just take whatever the hell they want and let their lawyers take so long in court that you can't afford it any longer. the only way you have a chance is if you get a pro bono or if some other companies see a benefit in it and will come and back you up in order to get it. - I can give you a great example of that too with the government and some chips for radar.
    ------------------------------------------------ --
  • When I click my icon for the Slashdot web page, I have a cookie that knows my user name and password, so I'm automatically logged in. Can you really patent something like that, since that is the purpose of cookies?

  • Patents do cover what you describe, but only since very recently: not
    so long ago they were only granted for designs of physical products.
    This is still true in Europe, but legislation is going through to put
    the same, loose definition of patentable design through there.
  • IMATEC was a little different story... as soon as they filed suit and Apple was served, they started going after END USERS of the technology. A few large print houses, graphic design firms, and 3rd pary vendors that use colorsync in their products (Adobe, Quark and, yes, Microsoft as IE on the Mac can read embedded ColorSync profiles) received nasty letters threatening to sue them for contributory damages or something along that lines. It'd be like Amazon threatening to sue any B&N customer who used B&N's 1-click method before Amazon forced them to shut it down.

    Furthermore, IMATEC was/is basically a F*ckedCompany prior to the suits. Hemmoraging cash and employees, no salvation in sight. Most people in the industry (color prepress, that is) viewed the suit as a pr stunt and a last ditch effort to infuse the company with cash.

    ----
  • "1-Click downloading -- an industry first which combines 1-Click shopping with the downloading of software over the Internet."
    I can't believe this ridiculous claim. I've been downloading software with one click since Mosaic...

    How much do you want to bet your Freedom-Loving-Common-Sense-Having-Reasonably-Thin king butt that this isnt the next patent application @ The United States Purchased Tyranny Operation.

    Watch out CNet! (they have a purchase SW/Download scheme)

    News Flash: Available for a limited time Only at Amazon.com: US Democracy! Yes, the rights of the citizens of the United States are for sale - available only via Amazon.com's Innovative(TM) Amazing(TM) 1Click(TM) Purchasing(TM) Method(TM). OR:
  • I thought it was the second post (hey, I read at a threshold at the time) and 2-1 == 1 so there.
    Sunnanvind
  • Actually, the microchip was patented when it first came out. (I would insert a link here, but this happened in the early 60s, and the earliest patent for "silicon chip" in the IBM patent database [ibm.com] is from 1971.)

    A few years ago, I read a book from the library called "The Chip". It has a subtitle but I forget what it was; and I've just spent some time in a fruitless search on various book sites for a link, to no avail. Anyway, the basic story is that in the early 60s, the chip was independently invented almost simultaneously by two inventors, one of whom worked for Texas Instruments, the other was one of the founders of Intel. One of the inventors filed for a patent, and while they were waiting, the other inventor file and received his patent. There was some legal maneuvering, the result of which was that the patent application of the inventor who had the earlier date in his lab notebook was upheld, but both are considered today to be the fathers of the microchip.

    I'm sorry I couldn't provide more information; this is from approximately 6-year-old memory.

    Interesting side note: Today, of course, the standard product cycle is that the new high end is very expensive and generally only purchased by early adopters, who provide the initial capital for the companies to keep going while they start producing the new product in volume, driving down the price. Well, in the early 60s, there was no pre-existing market to drive the price down. The kick-start that got the silicon business going was the United States space race; money was no object to the government as long as it shaved a few ounces off the weight of the vehicle (because we Had To Beat The Russians At All Costs). This provided the initial capital that allowed the chipmakers to learn how to do it more cheaply.

    Today, of course, there is no longer a patent on the idea of integrated circuits, silicon chips.

    --

  • I can't fathom why Apple would do this. (Unless Bezos said they can have it for $3.50)

    Jobs: "I said what do you need, Jeff my boy?"
    Bezos: "I need about tree fiddy."
    Jobs: "Dammit Bezos, get off my lawn, I ain't giving you no tree fiddy!"
  • I just bought an apple cube. Is there a 1 click cancel button?
    M@t :o)

  • Is this the same company which also licensed the work "Classic" from coke for the Mac Classic.

    I should change my name to Mac or Apple and then collect tons of fear money from them. :)

  • Your example isn't valid, because what makes a Post-it note is the glue. The glue, is patentable, as well it should be. Pads of paper on the other hand, are not, nor should they be. Amazon's one-click shopping isn't a Post-it note, it's a pad of paper.
  • They'll probably play with the price of the licencing to experiment with how much to charge different people and 'see how they react'
  • How 'bout enough to start the "soundcard that doesn't suck" project?
  • Blindingly obvious probably isn't a strong enough statement. <choir-preach-rant> This is what cookies are designed to do. It is like if Ford marketed a pickup truck and Barnes and Noble comes along and gets a business process patent to deliver books with the pickup. <\choir-preach-rant>

    Man and does it iritate me.

  • Apple's 1-click page (Score:5)

    by goober ( 120298 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @02:18AM (#769580)

    here... [apple.com]

  • Good for Apple (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @02:18AM (#769581)
    Apple at least have the guts to admit that the US patent system is fair. Buy licensing innovative technology from Amazon, they are playing by the book. Sure, they could have simply stolen the idea, but as a company, the know full well that Amazon would have every right to excerise their rights under the law.

    This is what the patent system is all about: Allowing innovative companies to make money from their inventions. Good for Amazon, and good for Apple.

    P. Hill
  • Well it was about that time that I notice that Bezos was about eight stories tall and was a crustacean from the palezoic era

    http://www.rangerstation.com/s cripts/episode303.html [rangerstation.com]

    --Danny, who thinks that south park transcripts are neat...

  • I personally am opposed to the concept of a patent, period. HOWEVER...

    A Post-It is quite a different matter. There's the whole shebang of devising an adhesive that will adhere strongly to the note itself, but will not leave residue (or lift ink or paper fibers) from what it's stuck to. I'm willing to believe that that adhesive, and probably the particular paper, did require creativity and research. I'm sure it was very nonobvious to someone in the field.

    Just because someone hasn't done something before doesn't make it such an earthshattering invention. Something might not have been done simply because nobody cared enough to actually bother with the trivial amount of work involved.

  • I own that idea. In fact in order to do anything which has been done before, or is something we all know how to do, but failed to leave a good paper trail on, you owe me. So your subject line should have been licensed through me. You owe me money!

    What will I patent next? Human hair? I think so.

  • Then they really owe British Telecom some serious dough for all the hyperlinks they've been using.

    - JoeShmoe

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-
  • Apple itself is known to try to have some screwy patents. Now it is trying to legitimize the whole absurd patent movement by acknowledging Amazon's screwy patent.

    Maybe only companies who file screwy patents will acknowledge the screwy patents of others. They will create a whole little community and live in their altered reality.

  • ...that Apple has gotten over their "Not Invented Here" syndrome... :)

    Jay (=
  • I'll bet the license was on *very* friendly terms. Amazon benefits a whole heck of a lot from this, as it lends legitimacy to the *cough* innovation.

    As for Apple, they should be ashamed. (I type this in my office full of Macs.)

    -Pete

  • Actually, I think that, in the case of Post-its, the patent may be on the specific adhesive, which definitely is original.
    -----------
  • This is just what the U.S. freakin needs. For a company like Apple to legitimize Amazon's patent by licensing it. Is it just me or is the asshole ratio in the world growing?
  • Posted by polar_bear:

    In patent lawsuits having legitimate licensees goes a long way towards making a patent look reasonable. The fact that Apple has done this gives Amazon too much credibility and creates a very scary precedent.

    Isn't there a site that can demonstrate prior use of the one-click technology to get this lousy patent killed?
  • Yes, and i bet that the Adam and Eve have a patent on the concept of "Apple", thus apple owe everybody on earth licensing fees. Just a thought.
  • "you then sue the fuck out of every single company using your idea. there is a whole separate revenue stream coming from just that." Case in point RAMbus and SDRAM..
  • Its simple -- amazon licensces "1-click" (which is unpatentable) ... probably on a handshake or less -- to apple -- because it lends credability to amazon's rediculous pattent. In return for this, apple isn't exposed to liability (via lawsuit), and both amazon and apple recieve media attention (your reading about it right now!). Apple gets their cubes hyped, amazon gets their pattent hyped. No lawsuits, everyone is happy.

    If I wanted to licensce 1-click ? My ass would be bleeding I'm sure

  • If Apple wants to use one-click shopping it makes sense for them to license it from Amazon, whether they believe in the validity of the patent or not. Apple is a big enough target that Amazon's lawyers would be drooling over the chance at suing them in court, especially given the rather precarious financial position they're in. Even if Apple prevailed in the law suit it would take years, in the mean time they're out legal costs as well as potentially making investors scary.

    Now, I don't understand why Apple's customers would want one click shopping. *click* I just ordered a two grand machine without even reviewing the price, or maybe my son did, or his friend, or...


  • Is 1-click really easier? It requires over 400 words of explanation [apple.com]!

    The media loves Jeff Bezos saying that he wants to make Amazon.com the most "customer-centric company in the world". But whenever I've tried to order something from Amazon, I've gotten so annoyed at the interface that I've given up, and bought somewhere else (usually Buy.com [buy.com], which is slightly less annoying).

    In practice, 1-click is nice only if you have been willing to pay a price in your time to get started, and you have been willing to accept involvement in the complicated issues raised in the explanation above. Once you have paid a price in your time, you pay again in money for the convenience: I've found that Amazon.com is usually more expensive.

    The reality, I've found, is that it is necessary to stay flexible and shop around.

    According to an Amazon press release, Amazon tries different prices on different customers to survey how much people will pay. Supposedly they give back money to those who paid more during the survey. Playing complicated adversarial games in which the customer is not a player, but is the ball, is not convenient for the customer, only for Amazon.

    Convenience is meaningful only if the total experience is convenient.
  • I'd imagine that whatever the worthiness of the patent for 1-click may be, the name itself could be better argued as a trademark. By licensing the technology, they get to use the name "1-click" without trouble (or at any rate, that is the name they're using). They might have considered the association with Amazon to be something that could help their own web sales. That doesn't change my disappointment with Apple for lending some credibility to that "patent", but it would be a valid reason for the licensing that wouldn't necessarily require Apple to take the patent seriously themselves.

  • There's a new section on Amazon... (Score:3)

    by lar3ry ( 10905 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @02:45AM (#769617)
    Give them your credit card number, and after pressing the mouse button JUST ONCE, you TOO can have a license for the one-click patent.

    However, if you click twice, the license if voided.
    --

  • But how much did they pay? (Score:3)

    by Zigg ( 64962 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @02:47AM (#769620)

    The real question is whether or not Amazon was running another "pricing test" and Apple actually thought they were going to pay a lot less for the patent than they ended up paying.

    (Or maybe they license lots of patents, and can expect to be overcharged in the future...)

  • Jobs no doubt got the license for peanuts. It's a case of mutual back-scratching. The fact that Apple has licensed the technology not only serves to validate Amazon's patent, but now Apple has an example of another company 'protecting its intellectual property'.

    One thing that seems to have been overlooked: Apple is the first company to secure a license, setting the precedent for other companies.
  • Patents are not granted for products - they are granted for innovative techniques, methods or processes for solving a problem.

    The one-click method is not so different to being billed for premium information on a phone call, e.g. a weather forecast. The phone company has all your billing info, so it only takes one action (making the call) to get the goods (weather forecast, delivered as audio) and be billed at the same time.

  • Prior Art (Score:3)

    by john@iastate.edu ( 113202 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @03:16AM (#769627) Homepage
    I did essentially this for a client in '94 (as I have mentioned here before). Then we thought better of it and decided NOT to store the credit card number.

  • Here's the deal... (Score:3)

    by jamused ( 125583 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @03:16AM (#769628) Homepage

    Patents (at least in the US) are not awarded as a gold star for having come up with an original idea, they are awarded to further the public good.

    The framers of the Constitution recognized that nobody has or ought to have ownership of an idea, but in order to encourage people to share ideas instead of keeping them secret they made the patent system where you were granted a limited temporary monopoly on the use of your idea--in exchange for which you had to publish your idea, with all the detail necessary for someone else to implement it. Alternatively, you are perfectly within your rights to try to keep your idea secret, but if someone else comes up with the same idea, or your secret leaks out, you have no legal recourse.

    So what about the one-click patent? Regardless of whether someone thought of it before, there's no public good in protecting an idea the very description of which gives anyone "skilled in the art" enough to go on to reproduce the idea. It is impossible for Amazon both to use this idea and to keep it a secret, therefor there's no reason to bargain with them to make it public.

  • How can there be a wrong button when there's only one of them on the mouse? ;)
  • YAONAL. (You are obviously not a lawyer.) I'm not either, but I do work with them frequently.

    You have my condolences. Anyway, the principle might still hold water out of court... along the lines of "look, Apple licensed it, so should you".

    One other benefit is that Apple can now pacify jittery shareholders. This means are now the only e-business (except amazon) who are safe from a 'one-click' lawsuit. This might be the reason for them doing this, share analysts can take exposures like this into account.

  • Apple hardware at Amazon (Score:3)

    by GleekOid ( 6959 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @04:54AM (#769633)
    They're doing it so that Amazon will begin carrying Apple hardware in its online stores. Apple got the deal for a song in return for "blessing" Amazon as a place to buy apple products.
  • And if I remember correctly, it is taking with it to the grave all of OUR personal information. And then there will be a big splatter from said grave, out of which thieves, corporations, and politions will gobble up the feeding frenzy.

    Perhaps anything which forestalls this kind of a future, where all your personal information is for sale to anyone who is willing to pay for it, is a good thing.

    Oh, wait... I guess all personal information IS for sale, I meant buying record at Amazon.com. So people can snicker you bought Joy of Sex online. Yeah. That's bad.

    -Ben
  • "1-Click downloading -- an industry first which combines 1-Click shopping with the downloading of software over the Internet."

    I can't believe this ridiculous claim. I've been downloading software with one click since Mosaic...

  • Re:It is lame coz... (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Its lame dude because there is no other way to do it. 1. you have a project you have to achieve something that work sin real life without computers and what do you get? the same as amazon. Ignore that you are shopping, it could be something else, the concept has been done before.All it does it automate something, big deal! Its not something that is impossible to develop. Its not like an NAND gate logic in silicon which is 100% unique. 2. If a patent is only valid because you are first then its lame, the fact that others have developed it at the same time totaly invalidates it. Its like asking someone , how would you catch a fish with a stick and a knife... you cant patent the result because you are first when 50 others can do it, perhaps slower but they still can. 3. I know from first hand that managers often say, "can we patent this" even if its so fucking lame because the managers heads are sooo damn soft even the most simplest concepts are baffeling. First come first granted doesnt mean its deserving. Rather its best just to invalidate the whole patent and others similar. 4. patents are becoming the new gold, will they IPO the patent office? What perhaps should happen is maybe a new Software Patent office be made, while keeping the old one with only 100% physical stuff.

  • Usefullness of "One Click" ordering (Score:3)

    by adjensen ( 58676 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @02:51AM (#769645)
    I can't imagine that this is even the best use of such "technology". I buy stuff from the Apple Store and have to admit that I've never been overly concerned about the speed of the process.

    I would think that "one click ordering" is intended to assist in impulse purchases (like the crap at the supermarket check out) rather than making the buying experience more user friendly. And I would suspect that it becomes less and less viable as the cost of the item goes up.

    I mean, it's one thing to say "oops, I just ordered a copy of 'Dirk Gently'" and quite another to say "oops, I just ordered a G4 cube" :-)

    But I suppose that, somewhere out there, there's someone waiting for one-click ordering here [uraniumonline.com].

  • Re:Not so lame (Score:3)

    by TheReverand ( 95620 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @03:17AM (#769646) Homepage
    That's just completely bogus. The patent process is lengthy this is true. But look at the patent databases, there are MILLIONS of patents by "Joe normal guy". I have a bunch of friends who have patented little inventions. They sure as hell aren't millionaires with legal departments.

    You have NO proof to back up your claims.

  • The patent is on the process of tying together the cookie, button and database to allow a purchase by clicking on the button. The One-Click I believe is under trademark (if it's protected at all). Phrases describing something can't be patented yet (just waiting for a law allowing that to be introduced though :( )

    Here's [slashdot.org] the whole sorted history of the 1-Click patent on /.
  • Maybe they set up something with Amazon that requires them to legitimize Amazon's laughable patent in exchange for Amazon switching to OSX servers.

    Probably not.

  • Please validate your insightful moderation by providing evidence to back up your claim, with appropriate references.
  • I run a site that works on a pay per search basis. (selling access to information.) Currently we bill clients on a monthly basis, but we are working on credit card access.

    Of course, credit card customers will not want to type in all their information each time they do a search. One they check a "stop nagging me" check box, the validation step should be skipped.

    This is in a way, one click shopping. I have not done much research into the amazon patent yet, but I know I will need to.

    There is nothing "inventive" about this. It's more like people were just too paranoid to use it before, so it was never implemented. I can't believe nobody has come up with something that qualifies as prior art. It is just a cgi skipping a screen because a DB already has the info.

    Arrg...anyone else been real pissed off at the US government recently?

    -Pete
  • What's the chances that Apple is doing this now so that later when they patent something even dumber they can show that Amazon's patent is fine....

    Ever since Slashdot, I've been getting more into conspericy theorys.....
    Wiwi
    "I trust in my abilities,
  • How about have a single <input type="text"> field in a form. Press [RETURN] or [ENTER] to purchase? "1-Keypress Shopping"

    Or maybe just a JavaScript onMouseOver image. "1-Rollover Shopping"

    Or maybe a downloadable application that listens to microphone input? "1-Clap Shopping"

  • Not so lame (Score:4)

    by streetlawyer ( 169828 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @02:18AM (#769661) Homepage
    If it's so "obvious" that "anyone" could have invented it, you have to come up with a slick explanation for why there was no undeclared prior art; why nobody did in fact invent it. I've not been impressed by any of the claims made about this patent on Slashdot and indeed, am coming round to the view that it's valid. Think of the example of Post-it notes -- the idea of sticking pieces of paper with messages on them to things is as old as paper, but nobody designed that specific product until 3M. A patent isn't on a general idea, it's on a particular product, and Amazon invented the one-click ordering product. Deal with it. Or at least, come up with some actual, cogent reasons why the product is "lame" instead of just saying it is. Or better still, have the honesty to admit that you hate *all* patents, from the silicon chip to the heart transplant, and that you don't care that we wouldn't have half the "cool stuff" we all crave without 'em.
  • It was 1-click briefly.

    Then we found out (at that time) that people were *way* too skittish about credit cards and the 'net and we quit remembering that bit, so we had to ask for it.

    So at that point, it became 'click-cc#-click'.

  • Totally. This way, Amazon has a chance to recoup some of the enormous costs of developing their one-click technology.

    It's also good to see Apple refusing to compromise on quality and insist on the most advanced available technology. They're really going to make two-click and three-click shopping sites look stupid.

  • Re:inside story (secondhand) (Score:5)

    by frankie ( 91710 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @03:29AM (#769681) Journal
    I can easily see Steve Jobs doing that. He probably got the license for a trivial cost -- my guess is zero dollars and a sweet mention at Steve's next public webcast. Think about what Amazon gets in return -- an air of legitimacy for the patent. Apple is a media darling these days, so when they do something unusual people pay attention.

    I'm sure Jeff Bezos expects that other companies will now come forward asking to buy rights too. A few good contracts could put Amazon within striking distance of not going bankrupt next year.

  • Re:Not so lame (Score:3)

    by beefarino ( 180322 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @03:30AM (#769684)
    Ahh, grasshopper you have so much to learn. Amazon's patent covers the idea of using cookies to remember a customer's billing information so that they do not have to re-enter it every time they return to the site.

    While this may seem novel, anyone with any understanding of web programming will tell you that patenting the use of cookies to save user information is like patenting the use of HTML for marking up text. Cookies were created to allow web site to 'remember' who you are when you return to the site. That's what they do, period!

    So, even though there is no prior art, anyone who is familiar with the technology will tell you that this is a case of patenting the obvious. That's why so many people have their panties is a twist about the whole thing..

  • Apple just hit wrong button (Score:3)

    by marat ( 180984 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @02:23AM (#769687) Homepage
    and purchased this licence in 1-click.
    ---
    Every secretary using MSWord wastes enough resources
  • APple and Amazon are well known parterns, at least last time I checked : default bookmarks and sherlock search engine plugins.

    Apple here is probably protecting that parternship, possibly getting the licensing rights for a song, instead of either implement it awaiting a lawsuit, or taking the patent to court, both which could easily destroy the partnership.

    I'll wait till some other company that has no Amazon ties steps in and does the same (B&N, thinkgeek), then that might help provide the unwanted validity on the 1-click patent.

  • There is prior art. This patent was granted for a process that ties together a cookie, a button, and a database in such a way that has been done countless times before!!!!

  • If you look at it from a sane (as opposed to a mouth-frothing) point of view, Apple did not so much license a technology, but rather the **NAME** of "1-click(TM)" shopping.

    This is similar to Apple's FireWire license - anyone can build IEEE.1394 stuff, but you need to license the name 'FIREWIRE' from Apple in order to use it (the license is free, BTW).

    Since none of the busybodies on here actually know how much, if anything, Apple has paid for this license, the whole issue, except on a philosophical level, is moot.

    On a business-level it makes sense, as "1-Click" is a catchy expression, and by licensing an existing 'concept', it renders legitimacy to the experience, and saves Apple from having to come up with a spiffy work-around name.

    Licensing isn't all about 'inventions' - you can license the right to the use of a cartoon character, a book, a special term - that's what this is about, not about technology. I'm surprised none of the 'smart' people on here who spout their opposition have understood something as simple.

    Harry
  • Just because there is no prior art dosen't mean you can patent something. The argument against the Amazon patent is not about prior art, but rather that the invention is an obvious use of technology.

    And while you think it is obvious only to 'saavy' slashdotters, perhaps that's because most of them have programming experience and understand the technology.I would hope that the people at the patent obvious were a little more 'savvy' when it comes to the fundamentals of web programming. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

  • ..limited time only and prices may vary (going for funny here ;-))

    I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
    Flame away, I have a hose!

  • I believe a patent can be a combination of other known ideas. (see here [akingump.com]). The combination of the two has to be novel though. So you'd have to show that 1 click shopping specifically has been done before to be able to invalidate it.
    --
  • That's kind of dangerous, isn't it. Accidentally click, and whoops, just bought a G4-multi processor with 21" Cinema flat display. $7,500 downthe tubes.

    Near the end of that page lies the text:

    Change your mind about an item you've ordered? When you purchase products with 1-Click, you have 90 minutes to edit your order before it's processed for shipping.

    Eric

  • This patent was granted for a process that ties together a cookie, a button, and a database in such a way that has been done countless times before!!!!

    My understanding was that the patent was granted for the business method, not for the actual implementation. It's not even, AFAIK, a software patent. It just happens to be trivially implemented using a cookie and a database, an implementation that's blindingly obvious to anyone in the industry. But, until Amazon, no one had thought of doing one click ordering. Amazon did, and so patented that. As it happens, I'd say that business method patents are just as bogus (if not more so) than software patents, and this one should have been thrown out by the patent examiner on its first reading. But then, I'm not a patent lawyer that gets paid for eah approved patent...

  • Re:Not so lame (Score:5)

    by hamburger lady ( 218108 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2000 @03:38AM (#769716)
    problem is, at the PTO, we're getting less and less time to do a thorough search. the amount of time I get to send out a first action (i.e. rejection, allowance) hasn't changed in like 25 years, even though the number of references to search has gone up 6 or 7 times at least. plus, the "search tools", if you can call them that, well, suck. I know examiners who still do paper file searches because, well, at least the paper files don't crash on you.

    now, this isn't an excuse for a bad examination. (note, I am *not* talking about the one-click patent here, technically I am not allowed to comment on the validity of a patent) however, I still believe in the patent system (trademarks and copyrights, that's another matter).

    the big problem is, we really don't have the time to do a really good examination of an application. that, plus the fact that we are highly underpaid, and examiners are leaving the PTO in droves for industry, means its really hard to be surprised when a bad patent makes it through.

    ---

  • ... this may be obvious to everyone else, maybe I missed reading /. the day it was first discussed: What's the deal with the one-click patent? Does it just mean you can say 'one click' on your site or does it include the simple act of only clicking once to buy something? If the latter is the case, I'll get up in arms with the rest of you...if the former, then, uh, why all the fuss?
    Thanks...

    The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
  • OK, let me try this again.

    Part of the quid-pro-quo of the patent system (temporary monopoly in exchange for juicy details of invention) is that there has to be details of the invention that are non-trivial to implement/discover. If there aren't, then the public is giving up something naturally theirs (the right to use any idea) in exchange for nothing.

    This is why according to law, the invention has to not only be original, but also must not be obvious to someone "skilled in the art"--i.e. who knows the technology in the area the patent covers. If it can be trivially reproduced (e.g. from a one-sentence description of what it does), then it was obvious.

    The Amazon "one-click" patent ought not to have been awarded, even if it turns out that it was original, because once it is described, any web developer worth her salt can produce the equivalent in a few minutes work.

    Because of the "obvious" nature of the idea, there's no public policy reason to grant Amazon a monopoly.

  • It doesn't matter whether Apple thinks the Amazon patent is reasonable or not. Apple wants to sell computers with one click, and (for some unfathomable reason) the US government has made it so that Apple has to pay Amazon for it.

    Besides, what's a few million between companies like that?

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics means never having to say you're certain.

Close