Barnes & Noble Challenges Amazon 1-Click Patent (UPDATED) 195
Smitty825 writes: "Barnes & Noble is challenging the Amazon 1-click patent. Hopefully this will invalidate that lame patent, and hopefully this will clarify what is a valid patent. Full story here." There may be certain business methods worth patenting (or at least keeping secret, if you're so inclined), but "one-click" anything seems too silly for consideration, doesn't it? Update: 10/03 4:26 PM by michael : See also this easy one-click exploit of Amazon's one-click system.
Business Processes (Score:3)
Dammit! (Score:1)
xjosh
What the patent actually entails... (Score:2)
a) maintaining information in your browser cookies determining who you are
b) allowing you to make a purchase based on this information.
neither of these are things amazon did first. people have been using cookies for ages. people have been buying stuff for ages.
their claim is that they are the first to have done the two together, and that that combination is something patentable. what someone would have to do to prove it is not patentable is either:
a) show prior use of an equivalent technology
b) make a case that the combination of those two technologies is not innovative enough to warrant a patent.
barnes and noble is trying to do (a). possibly not the best course of action (ie "it's not yours, it's mine!" rather than "you can't own that"), but you can't expect any business to act ethically where large sums of money are at stake.
we all know they didn't really "invent" it, we just have to convince the patent office of that.
fross
Re:Uh..and you think it's ok to patent human genes (Score:1)
This lawyer does, I personally don't, for much the same reasons as you mention it. The lawyer is merely pointing out that "See, we managed to ignore the (possibly valid and quite important) criticisms in the gene-patent debate, so there's a precedent." (Obviously, I'm characterizing it quite a bit differently than he would have me characterize it.)
--Joe--
Re:$1.5 billion?? (Score:2)
And this is where I think Amazon went wrong (aside from the 1-click stuff). You know (but the poster you replied to obviously doesn't) that Amazon has HUGE warehouses to take the books, stick a little bookmark in them, wrap 'em up in plastic, then stick them in a box emblazoned with Amazon's logo, then ship them out (and when I mean huge, I mean DAMN BIG - some of the largest warehouses on the planet, things that make Costco look like a side store). These are what costs Amazon it's money (heck, it probably would have been cheaper to buy that aircraft carrier they had on a commercial a long while back).
All to get their logo in front of the consumer.
What would have been cheaper would have been to instead drop-ship the books directly from the publisher (ie, work out deals with the publisher to blow the bookmark in at time of manufacture, then add the Amazon logo to the shipping boxes). However, in the long run this would have backfired as soon as the publishers realized they could do this themselves, and set up web sites to directly sell the books to the public, bypassing the middleman. It would be tough for publishers to set up the infrastructure to handle the number of consumers, but they already have most of it in place.
This is why Amazon is fighting Barnes and Noble - the 1-click patent is peanuts. Why? Because Barnes and Noble is a publisher. That's right - they not only sell books in brick and motar stores, and on the net, they also act as a publisher of books as well (which is kinda scary in it's own right, because by owning the press and the means of distribution, they can conceivably control public opinion in subtle ways - or maybe that is me in conspiracy mode). In effect, they do exactly what I outlined above. Eventually, other publishers will as well (and I am sure other publishers are doing it - anyone know which ones?)...
When the middleman is fully cut out, Amazon will die. They may then either decide to fade away - or they may take the other route: Become a publisher as well (and suffer a profit cut anyway, but possibly still remain in business).
I say they should become a publisher now, and solicit for books and short articles (to be collected in a yearly "Annotated Amazon Collection" or something) by unknown authors on the net. These authors would then have a platform from which to publish in a paper form, while still maybe being able to distribute electronically (perhaps all those adult erotica authors could make some money then).
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Microsoft (Score:1)
> consideration, doesn't it
Hrm, I tend to disagree. I would not mind if Microsoft patented "one-click" file/folder/etc. opening. That, being the only new feature Windows 98 offered, annoys me more than any other of Microsoft's "innovations".
They might as well just assume you want to open the file the mouse is over, and open it for you.
Better yet, they could just keep all folders,
files, etc. open at all times, since people are too stupid to grasp the concept of "clicking", making Windows even more "user-friendly".
austin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is indeed obvious (Score:1)
Once they convince Amazon that they are you, they can give Amazon a new shipping address... Seems pretty obvious to me, but you apparently have a hard time with the obvious.
Ranessin
Re:OK... (Score:1)
I don't have to show prior art. I just have to show that it was obvious.
Ranessin
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is indeed obvious (Score:1)
Besides, half of my exploit is about the fact that it isn't limited to Amazon. It's just a matter of time before someone uses this type of attack in a more high profile manner.
Re:BN doesn't have any case. (Score:3)
Thats where most /. readers and I disagree with you. It is an obvious invention. You run a commercial website, you have customers, you use cookies. The whole purpose of cookies is to prevent your customer from entering the same information every time they use your site. All Amazon has done was to put their cute little name on the process.
Amazon did not invent cookies, and thankfully they are something any website can use. Therefore, I argue that any use of cookies to save your customers from repeating tasks when they visit your site is fair and should be legal.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amusing quote (Score:1)
Conspiracy theories are to be refuted by proving otherwise, or at the very least by providing an alternative explanation. Pointing out that the conspiracy theorist has provided no proof is, well, pointless.
--
Re:OK... (Score:1)
Just because something is obvious does not mean it had to be implemented (or even consciously thought of)
Ranessin
Re:Why is this an invalid patent? (Score:1)
Wrong... We just have to show that it was obvious back when the patent was filed.
Ranessin
Re:OK... (Score:2)
Storing the majority of the actual data on the server side is natural and obvious to anyone doing web development (security, bandwidth and latency issues). You just need a hash to identify the user; this is what is stored in the browser cookie. Ordinary procedure. Even more natural when reducing a HUGE security risk (storing CC data in cookie) to a very large security risk (storing the CC data on server and identifying user based on cookie).
Using databases for processing of ordering information is natural. Using databases for tracking users and saving said cookie information is natural. Combining both of them is also a natural process. Using it to avoid users having to retype info is natural (altho storing CC number is idiotic in either case). This is no invention. This is a completely natural evolution, and comes as natural and obvious for anyone involved in this type of work (now _or_ then), as natural as drawing another breath.
All of this was done before Amazon. I made part implementations of similar things (storing user data and using cookies to identify user) and connecting it to an order system (web frontend for a database) in, IIRC 1994 or early 95, and it was hardly a revolutionary idea for web access to legacy databases.
It _is_ and _was_ obvious to anyone involved in it at that time. Like my earlier quote, it was even suggested when cookies were dreamed up. The original spec even mentions all the keywords to trigger the idea in a few sentances. The implementation details arent of any consequence to the innovativeness; they're just a natural progression of how you can implement the original idea; store data about a user, use cookie, combine with shopping, avoid retyping.
mouseOver Shopping!™©®* (Score:1)
mouseOver Shopping!©®* is an exciting technological innovation that lets you simply move your mouse over a product to own it!
With a single swipe to the general vicinity of our large images, you can purchase hundreds of items and have them sent immediately to your home! It's just that simple! No more tedious clicking, entering your information over and over, or deciding!
mouseOver Shopping!©®*: Let your impulsive buying guide your mouse to a happier home!
*Pat. Pending: US9043989309932125, US923987128974, US9209847309822342
(Someone probably beat me to this...but I have the patents!)
What about.... (Score:1)
Re:OK... (Score:3)
http://home.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spe
"This simple mechanism provides a powerful new tool which enables a host of new types of applications to be written for web-based environments. Shopping applications can now store information about the currently selected items, for fee services can send back registration information and free the client from retyping a user-id on next connection, sites can store per-user preferences on the client, and have the client supply those preferences every time that site is connected to."
Which part of that doesnt make storing user information like credit cards __**BLINDINGLY**__ obvious? This if from the original _draft_ of the cookie spec. Im sure if you ask netscape they can dig up the original date they submitted it on or something.
Re:Patent (Score:1)
Depends what its a solution to. If one-click shopping is a there to avoid having to go to the nearest bookshop, then it is most certainly not obvious.
If it is a solution to having to click twice then I don't think it is, but (depending on how the patent is written, and the implementation)
Re:OK... (Score:1)
The Mcdonalds thing is more aesthetic than functional. This seems more like someone patented an icon or something (but hey you can click on it!)
It is indeed obvious (Score:5)
- Multiple people may use the same computer.
Frankly, this patent isn't just for an obvious idea, but for an idea that is obviously stupid to anyone who gives more than a passing thought to security. This patent is no different from MSFT patenting automatically executing email attachments (another obvious and stupid idea) .Second Law of Blissful Ignorance
Ignoring patents (Score:1)
It is sad and unfortunate that Amazon has no way to fight this giant. Which retail chain has a greater financial clout? How will Amazon stand up to this bookstore? IMO, I happen to like Amazon's website and sevices. Amazon's online catalogue of books is actually a valuable contribution to the 'net. I do not have any complaints so far while doing business with them - until the boycott at least.
This entire sorry episode comes from Amazon reaching out for patents as a vorpal sword to defend itself against Barnes and Noble, but realizing that they have grabbed a snake instead. I am angry more at Barnes and Noble for driving Amazon nuts.
It conclusion that seems to be drawn is that competition in the online business is very different from bricks and mortar businesses. Think about it - everything Amazon did, Barnes and Noble copied. Being a bricks and mortar operation, Barnes and Noble has obviously a natural advantage that a purely on-line store like Amazon does not have.
In other words: down with ridiculous patents, but up with the underdog!
Chain Reaction (Score:2)
1. B&N gives Amazon the finger
2. BT's hyperlink claim kills Amazons 1 click patent.
3. The 1968 Stanford University film blows BT's claims all to hell.
4. CmdrTaco Super Hero extrordinair finds a method to stop stupid pantents and patents the process.
Background of business model patenting - Wired (Score:1)
Secret?? (Score:1)
I dunno about you, but keeping one-click shopping secret kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
- Steeltoe
Re:We'll never know... (Score:2)
He's right you know. I consider myself the world's leading expert on "X" topics. I did a quick Google search for "X" and
Google results 1-10 of about 70,200,000 for X.
Wow! Now I visit about 10-12 "X" sites per day and I change up quite often to see different "X" style "topics" but this is just amazing. Seventy _million_ pages! I guess I've got some more surfing to do. Even counting each "XXX" site as three "X" sites, I'm still way behind.
Steven
(OT)Details on "cat chasing laser pointer" patent (Score:2)
IANAL, but for the record: "Method of exercising a cat" isn't patented; the particular method described in the claims [ibm.com] is. Now with that out of the way...
The patent is on "a cat chases a dot produced by a laser pointer." How silly of the U$PTO to grant this. Prior art: a cat chases a beam of light from a properly focused MAG-LITE [mag-lite.com]® flashlight. Is it really that non-obvious to go from a spotlight to a laser pointer?
<O
( \
XPlay Tetris On Drugs [8m.com]!
Re:waaaaait.. (Score:2)
OK... (Score:3)
--
Re:1,000,001-Click Shopping!! (Score:2)
Ah, but that's because you don't have my new (and probably patentable) device: RoboClick 2000.
RoboClick 2000 works by automatically detecting the "depth-of-click"-ness for your current shopping experience, and then emitting the appropriate click and keystroke sequence to get you as deeply into web-related credit card debt as you please. Of course, you can't invoke RoboClick 2000 itself via a mouse click, since that would violate Amazon's patent. Instead, you just circle the item with your mouse pointer as you hold down the shift key. This then pops up a window with a bar code in it, which you scan with your CueCat, and, voila! You're throught the check out line.
Re:OK... (Score:2)
IANAL
I like Amazon more, too. But frankly, this is so risky. They're in a deathmatch with B&N, and are giving investors the impression that this is their armor-- when they have such great customer service! They may be talking about their many other advantages, too, but this patent stuff is:
a) Distracting from what really makes Amazon better.
b) Setting a bad precedent for future patents, including those used against Amazon.
Jeff Bezos wrote to Tim O'Reilly about the need for patent reform that is industry-wide, rather than one side unilaterally disarming. Good argument, but I've heard precious little come out of that since. Does anyone have a status on this? Maybe bundle it with Sen. Hatch's work on protecting fair use in the copyright laws? He's had six months-- we shouldn't expect anything for 1-2 years, but we should have heard something by now.
Re:OK... (Score:2)
Web sites have been doing that ever since Netscape invented the cookie. Linux Today and Slashdot have had that functionality for longer than a year prior to Amazon's first public demonstration of its copycat feature. On LT and SD (and countless other dymanically-enabled web sites), that is how your personal information is embedded in the talkback form. It was one of the earliest uses of cookies.
Re:OK... (Score:2)
I spend my entire day taking existing tools, and using them to complete a project (presumably one that has never been done precisely the way I am doing it).
Do I deserve a patent EVERY time I work on my project and come up with a solution to a the task at hand?
Or is the argument that nobody else BUT me is capable of coming up with my solution because they aren't as smart?
Or that I deserve a patent because I _personally_ came up with a solution before anybody else (despite the fact that this particular project was assigned to me and me alone)?
"One-click shopping" is no more complex than any of a million different things engineers come up with every day to solve a problem they are confronted with. If anything, it is something a *first year college student* could come up with if somebody asked him to use cookies to enhance the end-users' order experience.
Big fucking deal.
Re:OK... (Score:2)
Answer carefully. Then revisit the laws concerning what is patentable and what is not.
Re:Why is this an invalid patent? (Score:2)
This is quite possibly one of the most disturbing statements I have EVER had the misfortune of reading.
You are saying that a corporation should be able to do whatever they want to, as long as its legal?
After all, its just trying to "persue their fudiciary responsiblilites."
If they do something DESPICABLY legal, nobody is allowed to complain? They did nothing wrong, since, hey, they need to make a profit?
Somebody needs an ethics lesson.
Re:We'll never know... (Score:2)
Patents aren't about rewarding innovation--the benefit to the inventor is the invention itself. (E.g., if the innovation has no commercial value, the Patent Office doesn't give the inventor a cash grant.) Patents are about rewarding inventors with a limited temporary monopoly for sharing the details of their inventions with the rest of the world, so that science and industry can progress faster.
The fact that someone is first with an idea is not the only consideration when granting a patent. The invention is supposed also to be something that isn't obvious to someone "skilled in the art", which is to say there's supposed to be a real cost to having others reinvent that particular wheel that society is saved by the process of patents and licenses.
Something like one-click is obvious to anyone skilled in the art. There are no details that need to be shared to prevent duplicate effort--the only way that Amazon could prevent a competitor from reimplementing one-click within a few hours of hearing about it would be to not use it (or even mention it) themselves. But that's not the kind of thing that's supposed to be protected by patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OK... (Score:2)
Re:Why is this an invalid patent? (Score:2)
Dumb: secrecy of pending patents (Score:4)
As I was rummaging around the patent database [uspto.gov], I couldn't help but repeatedly soil my pants as I beheld the depths of Amazon's patent depravity [128.109.179.23].
As I continued rummaging, I realized that software patents are taking around 1.4 years to clear during which time only the applicant and the PTO have awareness of the claim. Is it just me or would disclosing the details of patents before they're granted revoluti*nize the discovery process for prior art?
By disclosing pending patents, they could immediately offload the tedium to those organizations most desperate (and knowledgable) to stop ill-bred patents... those same organizations would be beaten into licensing submission [slashdot.org] by legal henchmen weilding ill-gotten patents on loan from the PTO.
Yeah, it would be much harder to get a patent when your competition is digging up examples of why your idea is non-obvious. But isn't that the whole point?
Re #4: I Got One (Score:2)
invalidate maybe (Score:2)
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:OK... (Score:2)
I forgot about their no-privacy policy. The problem is that you get a good company, and then someone gets a case of the clevers-- they think they can hammer out this zany scheme. And maybe you do see some marginal benefit from being sneaky or doing something which annoys your customers.
But never mind people like you, and like me (I can't shop there while I know they are sharing their profiling of me with who knows what other companies). It just takes your focus away from your core business. That's, at least from their interests, the major problem.
Can Jeff Bezos and his team really focus on staying ahead in what matters: selling music, movies, microcode and books to consumers? Not if they are busy working out legal strategies, speaking publicly on the issue, dealing with The Boycott, etc. This patent stuff costs time. Why turn into the lawfirm of Amazon and Dotcom when you could be focusing on beating out B&N in the one arena that matters: the marketplace.
Re:Innovation? (Score:2)
Many of those involved with the setting up of the US patent system did not support the patenting of every small derivation of some concept; a patent was for some big, new, non-obvious idea. Even in the early 19th century some were worried that patenting of every minor idea would encumber further development and impede progress.
Note that European patents were often similar limited duration monopolies granted by the powers that be; however in some cases a patent had no limit on its duration.
Jefferson was for a limited duration of patent and copywrites, believing that ownership should expire with the originator of the ideas. He felt that each new generation should be free of entanglements of the previous one, that debts and restrictions incurred by one should not be inherited by the next. See0 327.html
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1999-01/
for some of his thoughts on this.
Given that a corporation is effectively immortal, the ownership of ideas (patents and copywrites) by such entities is in conflict with Jefferson's ideals.
Comment removed (Score:5)
Re:It is indeed obvious (Score:2)
And I suppose you like getting random pizzas at 3AM? If someone happens to get a copy of your Amazon 1-click cookie (whether via a browser exploit, email/Word macro trojan, sniffing network traffic, whatever), then they can make life very annoying for you very, very easily.
Imagine if they sent a dozen different books a day to you over a 1 week period. Do you really want to deal with ~100 books arriving and having to send them all back? Much more annoying than prank pizza delivery.
Sure, that's just the pranksters, but its still not something I'd like to have happen to me.
--Joe--
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And when it happens... (Score:2)
"...part of an e-commerce patent cross-licensing agreement..."
so they probably just swapped a similar turkey with Amazon. If Amazon's patent is ruled invalid, Apple come out on top, as Amazon would probably still have to buy whatever junk Apple sold them. If Amazon's silly patent is valid, then Apple would have had to pay for it anyway.
Re:Perhaps if I hurry,... (Score:4)
I hope all this stuff won't cost too much.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Amusing quote (Score:2)
Here's my next patent: "A method for storing a user identification string across a network using transparent network-based hashing protocols." Think it'll make it?
Re:OK... (Score:2)
Of course, Amazon.Com should know a lot about novels.
This is why it is an invalid patent (Score:2)
The reason this doesn't deserve a patent is that it is not innovative, not creative, and did not require any significant capital in order to implement and bring to market.
Before you judge it to be a valid patent, go back and review what the purpose of patents is. Why do we have patents?
We have patents so that inventors will not keep their inventions secret (so that, in the long run, the sum of human knowledge and technique is increased), and so that they will have a temporary monopoly on the invention in order to recoup the development cost while making a good profit too. We want them to have an incentive to invent and publish how their invention works -- an incentive that they otherwise would not have without the patent.
Look at the One Click Patent in this light. If Amazon had not filed the patent, would we all be scratching our heads wondering how they pulled off One Click Shopping? If the "inventor" died, would we all lament that he took his mysterious and wonderous secret to the grave, forever depriving us of the knowledge of how One Click works? If Amazon had not been granted the patent, and then one of their competitors copied the technique, would we all be shouting out about how unfair it was that Amazon spent a massive $1.98 developing this advanced technology, and then never got a sufficiently long monopoly in order to recoup that heavy investment?
---
Re:OK... (Score:2)
Uh..and you think it's ok to patent human genes? (Score:2)
Patent enforcement vs. Size of the Business (Score:4)
Face it: My idea of a lame patent can be someone else's life-long dream. I guess I think of 1-Click Shopping as a useless gimmick, as I'd never want to Click-and-automagically-buy something anyway, but Amazon puts it around their core sales strategy. So, they try to patent it.
My point is this: Companies try to patent everything they can due to the fact that they've had to pay for their employees to think up such things. Not everyone has the ideals of the FSF and all of the OSS developers. Businesses need to differentiate themselves, whether it be through functionality, appearance, etc.
That's why businesses need patent protection - ensure that their good idea makes themselves money, not their competitors. I don't see how we can blame Amazon. They're trying to discover their boundaries. Who here hasn't pushed the rules to check how far they could go, with sports, work, overclocking, etc?
<opinion>
Don't blame Amazon. Blame the Patent Office for giving Amazon an overly large protected space in which to operate.
</opinion>
Re:Why is this an invalid patent? (Score:2)
Following Patent Law != MURDERING 6,000,000 PEOPLE.
Got that?
Now stop posting, and go back to your room and think about what you've said today, and I will take it on good faith that you will never compare the slaughter of innocents with Patent law again.
Obvious to those skilled in the art (Score:2)
--
1,000,001-Click Shopping!! (Score:2)
This is ridiculous! How many clicks does it take to get to the checkout page? (The world may never know.)
Obvious (Score:2)
The answer is 'yes'. It was an obvious idea in that sense. 'Fifty two clicks' would not have been obvious, and that would be patentable (if anything of the sort was patentable) but one click to do the whole job was obvious to any ordinary web designer for all the same reasons that ending a sentence with a single period is obvious - while ending one with 52 periods might not be.
Re:OK... (Score:2)
The sad thing is that before this I liked Amazon as a company, they have great customer service, decent prices, and a good selection. They could have beaten Barnes & Noble in the online market just by focusing on their strengths and competeing rather than being hardnosed about a stupid idea which they happened to be able to patent with the current easy going patent office.
For instance B&N doesn't let you return merchandise/get merchandise through their retail stores from their web business. This would have been a serious advantage for B&N they could have over Amazon, simply using their pre-existing distribution channels but they have completely failed to take advantage of it.
I buy most of my books online (except for an occasional novel) and find it depressing anymore to go into even a well stocked bookstore looking for a specific title. I don't think Amazon fully appreciates that they are a service and this is what will keep their customers. Their position on this and their privacy policy doesn't help them win or keep customers and can alienate the customers which they already have.
Frankly I don't understand what makes this 1-click stuff so valuable. The only reason I'm interested in it is that I don't feel that business methods had any business being patentable in general and this is just a prime example of the stupidity of this type of patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$1.5 billion?? (Score:2)
As it struggles to cut costs and earn profits after losing at least $1.5 billion over the last six years...
Um, OK. I knew Amazon didn't go that well, but how do they manage to lose that kind of money? Is every book sold at loss, or what? I don't remember getting the few books I've bought from them (way before this 1-Click parody, so back off
There are, and can be, no new twists on appeal. (Score:2)
This is false. See the District Court Opinion [gwu.edu] granting Plaintiff's motion for an injunction, which focuses substantially on the question of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness as well as unenforceability of the patent.
Further, if what was quoted above were true, B&N would never be permitted to argue invalidity on appeal:
The purpose of an appeal is not to re-try a case. Appeals are permitted only to test whether the Court properly applied the law to the facts as the case was tried below. It is a a cannon of appellate law that you may not (with extraordinary exceptions not relevant here) argue any issue for the first time on appeal. If, as was suggested here, B&N did make a "substantial shift in the substance of the case," the Federal Circuit would be obliged to affirm summarily the preliminary injunction.
Though I was not myself present at the initial hearing before the District Court, news reports of the Preliminary Injunction made quite clear that B&N relied heavily on the validity of the patent.
Re:Amusing quote (Score:2)
Makes sense to me, I wouldn't want to carry around a kid for nine months, then babysit it constantly for ten years or so. Ugh.
But it does mean that stupid people breed more than smart people, as a rule.
Re:It is indeed obvious (Score:2)
"Security" is not a valid objection to one-click ordering. It's been used millions of times by now without a single reported unresolved abuse.
Perhaps if I hurry,... (Score:5)
This isn't news . . . (Score:2)
This is not to say there aren't new arguments of invalidity that can still be made at trial. Maybe, maybe not. However, only arguments made during the preliminary injunction hearing can be argued on appeal.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed! (Score:2)
That would be exactly wrong. (Score:2)
"Defendants raised a number of defenses in their pleadings and during the hearing. In support of their position that Amazon.com is not likely to succeed at a trial on the merits, Defendants placed particular emphasis on arguments that the '411 patent is invalid on obviousness and anticipation grounds and that the Express Lane feature does not infringe any claims in the '411 patent. To a lesser extent, Defendants also suggested that the '411 patent is unenforceable. "
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to come by (Score:2)
Basicly BBS style online books stores did this. Exactly the same busness and everything however on a BBS.
Amazon basicly addapted commen BBS practace to the Internet.. fair enough.. They waited so all such prior art was dead and gone.. Fair enough.. they patented it...
The reason nobody did it on the Internet BEFORE now is becouse it's DANGEROUS.
The technology is not anywhere near secure enough to do something like this.
On the other hand it's not that hard to do.. A bit simpler than the way Slashcode or ZenToe.cgi keeps track of your sig file.. Add secure credit card athentication and you have one-click...
It's like a lot of thies patents lately...
And finnaly the artical comments that people are taking huge risks going into e-commerce.. more than anyone ever did before...
Well if there is such a huge risk factor... maybe it's not somthing you should be getting into to start with.
Re:No. (Score:2)
Companies trying to patent items/processes that they own/use is NOT the problem. The problem is the patent office's granting of such patents. View it from the eyes of a company. You have a process that is integral to your business, you need to use it, so try and patent it. If the patent office has their sh!t together, then all is well with the world, the patent will get denied and EVERYONE can use it, free from worrying about some other fewl trying to patent it.
It's only when the patent office doesn't have their sh!t together that things go awry for everyone else.... In which case the company can still use said process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is indeed obvious (Score:3)
Here is one such example [207.244.81.196]
Re:Secret?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make it right... (Score:4)
This way of arguing really slants things. The general form is devious: "Some have criticized [insert reasonable criticism here]. Some of this criticism comes from [insert more radical elements of the larger critiquing community here]. Similar kinds of criticisms were raised in [some other situation in which we ignored the criticisms]". The basic idea is to invalidate the criticisms by saying "yeah, but some of them come from really out-there people, and see, we've ignored this stuff before!" It's kinda like guilt by association. "If you agree with these criticisms, then you must be in this group over here which is at one extreme."
No sir, I don't like it.
--Joe--
Innovation? (Score:2)
While companies like Amazon.com seek to protect their innovations, critics say the patents are too freely granted and threaten to stifle the freewheeling Internet economy.
Interesting...isn't this exactly why patents were put into to place?
Jayson
sigh... (Score:4)
We'll never know... (Score:4)
How do we _really_ know that Amazon was the first to come up with 1-click checkout? How do we know that it wasn't first conceived or implemented on some obscure site selling hubcaps for '55 Buicks?
_If_ Amazon (or some other company) was the first one to the patent office with an idea, you can't really blame the patent office for granting an "obvious" patent. Would reactions be different if this patent was held by some 15 year old kid that wanted to license it out? The world is about making money, and patents have value. Personally, I think this is mostly a PR thing for Amazon to continue to grab headlines. This is the sort of thing that they can milk continual mention out of.
It's become evident that the Internet has changed the way that we do almost EVERYTHING. The problem is that the bulk of our lawmakers and governmental bodies are folks who have been for the most part "passed by" by most of this new technology. Do you think that these people _really_ give a shit? I doubt it, they grant the patent, and let the courts sort it out, while the rest of us sit on the edge of our seats, taking bets in office pools on the day that society at large meltsdown on itself from not understanding the technology it created.
Amusing quote (Score:5)
"In the fiscal year that ended Saturday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said Friday it will have granted about 1,000 patents out of 5,000 applications for computer-related business methods."
Man, if 4,000 applications failed while something like 1-click made it, makes you wonder how stupid those 4,000 were!
'Application for patent: Method -- Slamming forehead on keyboard'...
________________
BT to sue (Score:2)
BT claims that their patent covers any text displayed on a surface which when pressed has an action. Light switch manufacturs are alledged to be one of the next targets for BT's lawyers.
Why is this an invalid patent? (Score:4)
It may not be a particularly "insightful" patent, but that doesn't by itself disqualify it from being invalid. The patent office does have guidelines about these sorts of things, and I think it's clear that Amazon were the first people to actually use this kind of system in a real-world situation.
To me this means it is a valid patent.
If you don't like this patent then attack the rules that made it possible, not Amazon. Amazon are a company persuing their fudiciary responsibilities to their shareholders, and of course they're going to take every avenue possible to increase their revenue streams.
Nothing is too sily (Score:3)
You won't blame your computer when it does something stupid - you don't blame legal system for it. You blame the law (or lack of it) which made it to work this way. Your americans should call (or write) your government representative and make the law change, not blame some poor guy at the patent office because he doesn't know is the "one click" obvious or not - most probably for him it's just half of "two click", whatever that be.
Help! Help! I Just Am! (Score:2)
Information wants to not be anthropomorphised [yourdictionary.com].
Re:It is indeed obvious (Score:2)
It's not insecure because Amazon has a return policy? Amazon has a "guaranteed safe shopping" policy, too. If Amazon accidentally publishes your credit card number, I order $2,000 worth of stuff with it, and Amazon eventually pays you back, does that mean your credit card number was secure?
-
Anyone else see a pattern here? (Score:2)
Hell yeah. There's already talk of Sun Microsystems and Netscape battling to be the first to create the "one-click crash" (Sun with Java 2, Netscape with Navigator 6). IMHO, we should take every possible step to supporess the "instant gratification now, damnit!" movement, of which Apple, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.com are a part of. Apple already created the one-button mouse, and now with this one-click patent, they want to finalize their monopoly of choices. Pretty soon, every dialog box in Mac OS will have ony one button to click! It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!
Against software patents (Score:2)
I'd still like everybody to take the time to sign this petition against online petitions. I'm not making a cent. At the moment there are no sponsors.
http://freepetitions.com/cgi- bin
Please sign against software patents if you believe they halt innovation.
thenerd.
Here's what is happening . . . (Score:5)
Now, when a preliminary injunction is granted, the losing party is entitled to seek appeal directly to the Federal Circuit, rather than waiting until a final judgment is rendered in the case. This article is just that appeal. There is no new evidence or prior art that has been or can be raised, just a review of the decision below in view of the record that was then before the Court.
Maybe B&N will prevail, maybe not. If Amazon does prevail, however, do you suppose that we can expect to see a headline stating that the Amazon 1-click patent has been cleared as valid? Of course not. It would not be true, nor would it be appropriate -- that's not what will have happened -- this is just a case resolving an appeal of a temporary injunction. For the same reason, the present headline and story is likewise inappropriate.
I would, however, be interested in the specific issues being appealed -- does anyone know if a copy of the briefs may be found on-line?
Re:OK... (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:2)