1-Click Smacked Down Again, While Reexam Languishes 72
theodp writes "Pressed on Amazon's 1-Click patent, then-USPTO Chief Q. Todd Dickinson got testy: "I make this challenge all the time. If you're aware of prior art out there that invalidates a patent that is existing, file a re-examination. We'll be happy to take a look at it." Really? It's been 3+ years since unemployed actor Peter Calveley submitted prior art that triggered a USPTO reexamination of the 1-Click patent. Still no 'final answer' from the USPTO. To put things in perspective, 1-Click inventor Jeff Bezos once proposed a three-year lifespan for patents (later retracted), let alone patent reexams. In the meantime, other patent examiners have repeatedly smacked down 1-Click — the latest (non-final) rejection was issued on Feb. 10th with Sandra Bullock's help."
Re:Patent This (Score:0, Funny)
I would like patent making the post:
"I patent making stupid patents!"
in the comments section for a story about a stupid patent.
In other words, a meta-meta-patent. Certainly this is a highly nontrivial invention.
smack down??? (Score:4, Funny)
I truly don't know what that sentence is supposed to mean. Is "smack down" a legal term?
Defense: Your Honor, the defense would like to smack down the prosecution's evidence.
Prosecution: Objection, Your Honor. The defense has not demonstrated it possesses the balls to smack us down. We'd also like to put on the record that we've had intercourse with the defense's wife.
Judge: Objection sustained. It has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that the defense has no balls. We also note that the prosecution could not have had intercourse with the defense's wife, for lack of penis.