Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed 117
Zordak writes "Amazon's infamous '1-click' patent has been in reexamination at the USPTO for almost four years. Patently-O now reports that 'the USPTO confirmed the patentability of original claims 6-10 and amended claims 1-5 and 11-26. The approved-of amendment adds the seeming trivial limitation that the one-click system operates as part of a 'shopping cart model.' Thus, to infringe the new version of the patent, an eCommerce retailer must use a shopping cart model (presumably non-1-click) alongside of the 1-click version. Because most retail eCommerce sites still use the shopping cart model, the added limitation appears to have no practical impact on the patent scope.'" Also covered at TechFlash.
My DEAR god (Score:5, Insightful)
And here I thought I being mangnanimous with the PTO people and giving them the benefit of the doubt was the sound and decent thing to do.
Not any more.
They are stupid idiots.
Now who's gonna patent the wonderful idea that is 2 Click ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
* Click 2: Are You Sure?
There's some pre-existing art so no one tries.
Re:My DEAR god (Score:5, Funny)
Has anyone done the half-click grab, the mouseover purchase, or the "drag-and-drop into the Buy Hole"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes I hear about these patents and upon further reading there's actually some substance to them and the short description turns out to be unfair.
So I ask slashdot- does this patent have any real substance with anything that's genuinely innovative?
Re: (Score:2)
(sarcasm hat off)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My DEAR god (Score:5, Funny)
MITCHELL_PGH LLC PATENTS HALF CLICK
WASHINGTON, DC—mitchell_pgh LLC has filed a 1.8 billion dollar class action lawsuit against Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google. "They are in clear violation of our half click patent. In fact, they violate our patent TWICE with every purchase!" said mitchell_pgh's director of operations Edward Smelt. "We are working closely with the USPTO to announce our 'press click' patent, 'mouse movement' patent, and 'depress click' patent as we speak." Smelt was unwilling to discuss mitchell_pgh LLC's ongoing "no click" patent.
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t care. I just stare the article down, until it sells itself to me!
Chuck Norris
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm actually thinking I should patent no-click. It's the iPod "shuffle" feature applied to an online store. When you visit the site, it chooses a random product, purchases it, and ships it to you. Take that, Amazon! I'd like to see you design a store that requires fewer clicks than that!
Prior art, sorry (Score:4, Funny)
Those CD of the Month clubs are prior art.
Although you did do the clever thing and add "with a computer", so it'll probably fly.
Re: (Score:1)
* Click 1: Buy Now! * Click 2: Are You Sure? There's some pre-existing art so no one tries.
* Click 3: ????
* Click 4: Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
* Click 2: One great kick in the balls for any integrity the PTO had left
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ARRRG! [pirate-party.us]
Re: (Score:1)
No you cant without paying me, the patent owner of the one-man-newsletter.
Re:US copyright... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not software patents, but rather ridiculously simple patents that a 5 year-old could think of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not software patents, but rather ridiculously simple patents that a 5 year-old could think of.
Are you suggesting we employe 5 year-olds in the USPTO to decide if an idea or concept is patentable? If a 5 year-old thinks it's obvious then the application gets declined? Hmmm ... I think that may just work. Anyone know how to skirt the child labor laws in D.C.?
Re:US copyright... (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone know how to skirt the child labor laws in D.C.?
Don't pay them, and call it Work Experience.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not unique to copyright.
It's part and parcel of being able to buy your way through a trial.
Re: (Score:2)
What does copyright have to do with a story on patents?
oh crap! (Score:5, Funny)
I just clicked on this article, now apparently I own it, so: get off my lawn!!
Sheldon
Non-obviousness. (Score:4, Informative)
This is an incredibly obvious patent and not at all novel. Is the bar for non-obviousness now simply that nobody else has patented it yet? Bit of a..."circular" (to put it nicely) definition, no?
Re:Non-obviousness. (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind that if an examiner is going to reject an application on the basis of obviousness, you can't just say "it's obvious". You have to come up with examples of why it is obvious [wikipedia.org]. The Supreme Court ruled [wikipedia.org] this is what needs to be looked at:
the scope and content of the prior art;
the level of ordinary skill in the art;
the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
objective evidence of nonobviousness.
And in a secondary fashion:
commercial success;
long felt but unsolved needs; and
failure of others.
Re:Non-obviousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant "promoted".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
In 1905, he published papers that founded Special Relativity, explained the photoelectric effect on the basis of a hypothesis of Max Planck's (which significantly helped the development of quantum physics), and explained Brownian Motion as direct observational evidence of the existence of molecules. The Swiss promoted him from Patent Technician, Third Class to Patent Technician, Second Class. Must be tough graders.
Re: (Score:2)
1-Click fails on every point, but most of all on prior art. A single click to "perform action X now" has been around at least since Douglas Englebart gave the Mother Of All Demos in 1968.
Yeah, I've sorta wondered about this since the "one click patent" thing became an issue. Amazon's patent is basically for using a single "click" to say "send me that thing". An obvious prior art for this is any web browser, since from the start they have all used a single click to mean "send me the thing this link points
Re: (Score:2)
The claim does not merely read "perform action X now". Read the claims before you pass your own judgment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After that single click on the "Buy It Now!" icon, I don't care how many HTTP cookie name/value pairs are sent, I don't care how much database processing goes on, I don't care how many forms are printed out in how many warehouses. Carrying out any set of actions, from popping up a message box to ordering an ICBM launch, as a result of a single click from a user, is as old as the mouse itself
Re: (Score:2)
But now that you've read the claim, you have to evaluate it for obviousness in terms of the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, i.e., the criteria mentioned in the ancestor post:
the scope and content of the prior art;
the level of ordinary skill in the art;
the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
objective evidence of nonobviousness.
In other words, you have to find the recited limitations in the prior art, indicate what's different between the prior art
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not "whatever". This is how patent law works. You have to show evidence of obviousness, or it doesn't count.
Re:Non-obviousness. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Should have added this line to my original post:
I'm not saying Amazon should have been awarded this patent, I'm just saying that stating something is obvious isn't enough to deny a patent...you have to cite specific examples in prior art, cases, and law.
Re: (Score:2)
One click is a means of using "security" (i.e. recognition of the person) to bill someone in the prearranged manner. That's been done for thousands of years. I could cite some examples, but I'll state that is obvious.
And the implementation is obvious. Earlier, there wasn't the level of volume, nor the appropriate security such that it was practical. Once practical, it was
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Non-obviousness. (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, this patent has been fully exposed to the light of day, prior art has been submitted, and it's clearly unpatentable on the face of it.
Yet the patent has been upheld.
What this proves is that the USPTO doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be scrapped. There's little legitimate point in having it at all anymore. The people it supposedly should protect (the small inventors) are the very people crushed by it. They and the rest of us would be better off if it no longer existed at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it goes with pretty much any software patent...
Re: (Score:1)
What this proves is that the USPTO doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be scrapped. There's little legitimate point in having it at all anymore. The people it supposedly should protect (the small inventors) are the very people crushed by it. They and the rest of us would be better off if it no longer existed at all.
^^ this
Re:Non-obviousness. (Score:5, Funny)
Well you've got to remember it's an old patent by now -- of course it's obvious at this point! But back then, we were all like "woah" and "how did they DO that?!!!" They deserve a lot of credit.
Re: (Score:1)
Easy workaround (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, there's a workaround for the workaround! They can CTRL+Click.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then I shall trump them with a CTRL-right-click! :)
Re: (Score:2)
No need, we're already screwed when we need left+right clicks. Especially on trackpads. Luckily, plug in a reasonable mouse, everything works fine. It's only with an Apple cripple-mouse or a trackpad you get into trouble. First thing I do with a new Mac is throw the apple mouse in a drawer, second thing is ditch the chiclet keyboard for a scissor design... then they work the way they should have in the first place, great machines. Except for the laptops... can't conveniently replace those keyboards, and oh
Re: (Score:2)
There's a workaround for that, too. Option+CTRL+click
the Supreme Court may have something to say (Score:5, Insightful)
"Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed." Respect for the USPTO, not so much.
Re: (Score:1)
Any reason "SCOTUS" has SCO in the acronym? ;)
Jobs saw it coming? (Score:1)
This is probably just a complete coincidence, but a few months ago Apple removed the shopping cart system from iTunes, switching it to a "wish list" system with 1-click purchasing. Did they see this coming?
Re:Jobs saw it coming? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple has been a 1-click licensee [cnet.com] for quite a while now.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice catch. You've definitely earned your internet research merit badge.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
who uses it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:who uses it? (Score:5, Informative)
My wife signed up for "Amazon Prime" and unbeknownst to her they turned it on as part of that process. She was looking at netbooks and wanted to add a few favorites to her shopping cart so she could compare them, and damn if the "Buy Now" button doesn't look a whole lot like the "Add To Cart" button.
Thankfully, when she called me in a panic after trying to cancel the order NOT ONE MINUTE AFTER PLACING IT and getting the "order is in process and cannot be canceled" message, we determined that the one she picked was pretty much the ideal netbook for her anyway. But we turned it off almost immediately thereafter (fortunately they allow you to turn it off, or I would literally stop shopping at Amazon's site for fear of accidentally buying things).
I cannot imagine for the life of me why anyone would want a single, large, shiny button (actually, no, two of them) on the information page that commit you to buying something the instant you click it. I'm sure there's a good reason (other than Amazon wanting to sell more stuff via accidental clicks), but I can't think of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how long ago you did that, but right now when I use 1-Click it says "You have 30 minutes to cancel or change your order."
Personally, I like having 1-Click while I have Prime, but definitely not if it's off (mostly because I want $25 to make it free shipping). I certainly agree it should NOT be on by default, though.
Re: (Score:2)
From the Amazon.site:
Changing an Amazon Fulfilled Order Before It Ships
Most orders you place on Amazon.com enter the shipping process very quickly so we can get your items to you as soon as possible. Orders already in the shipping process cannot be modified.
You can update your unshipped orders by visiting the Order section in Your Account and then clicking the Change button next to each item you wish to modify (billing address, shipping address, payment method, gift options, etc.).
To edit an order from the
Re:Appearance of one-click (Score:1)
To most people, it appears to be one-click, but you're basically patenting the idea of fooling people into thinking you have one-click ordering.
I have always wondered about this "feature". I'm used to having all of my items in one shipment, one box. Then Amazon's fulfillment centers became - not sure how to describe it, but more of a "just in time" inventory system. So your orders can come from different warehouses. They asked if you wanted it all in one box, or ship as things become available, or cheap
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My wife signed up for "Amazon Prime" and unbeknownst to her they turned it on as part of that process. ... I cannot imagine for the life of me why anyone would want a single, large, shiny button (actually, no, two of them) on the information page that commit you to buying something the instant you click it. I'm sure there's a good reason (other than Amazon wanting to sell more stuff via accidental clicks), but I can't think of it.
I have the same problem on my Kindle, which essentially uses the one-click model as well (all you have to do is accidentally move the joystick to the right button--or, better yet, do it without realizing it because the screen is relatively slow at refreshing--and click down). It seems like a terrible idea to me, too, without even so much as an "Are you sure?" confirmation.
Luckily, the one time I accidentally bought a book, I e-mailed customer service, deleted the book (per their request, although we all kno
Re: (Score:2)
No. The Kindle does this exactly right (from a UI point of view –not talking about patent nonsense).
It's "one click" to purchase. When you've clicked, you're at the confirmation screen. From that screen, all standard navigation (back, home) works; but there's a single button on that screen. That button reads, and I paraphrase, "oops, I didn't mean to click that, un-buy."
This is awesome UI. Do NOT present a confirmation dialog for undoable actions; instead, make them easy to undo.
Re: (Score:2)
A big shiny button is good for the shop. It increases the likelihood that people will buy more things. Not by buying things by mistake, but because they don't have the opportunity to reconsider purchases after seeing the intimidating total cost of all the items in their cart at checkout. Instead of confirming that you really want to buy something, you buy it right away and have the opportunity to cancel later. I imagine it has the same psychological effect as opt-out vs opt-in checkboxes.
I wouldn't mind
Re: (Score:2)
bullshit legalese to save face (Score:2)
so, they cant come up and say 'we shouldnt have awarded such a blatantly absurd and obvious patent for such a basic action' outright, but are resorting to legalese to save face to invalidate the patent without admitting absurdity of whole u.s. patent system.
Re: (Score:2)
so, they cant come up and say 'we shouldnt have awarded such a blatantly absurd and obvious patent for such a basic action' outright, but are resorting to legalese to save face to invalidate the patent without admitting absurdity of whole u.s. patent system.
No. They re-examined the patent. Some of the claims were allowed to stand. Others had to be amended. The new claims are no more "legalese" than the old claims. There is no "saving face" going on here. The claims have been upheld in court and on appeal at least twice. The PTO doesn't care what you think of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to challenge a patent in court, you basically have to either have already been sued, or been threatened to be sued. On the other hand, anybody can challenge a patent in the USPTO, if you can find prior art that raises a "substantial new question of patentability."
As for the courts, all patent cases are heard in federal (i.e., not state) district (i.e., local) courts, which are not specialized. All patent appeals are heard by the CAFC, which is specialized. The judges don't have to be patent a
Re: (Score:2)
Here, you can appeal decisions of the patent office before that court, and in my experience, the rulings are generally very sensible.
Sensible and the US legal system parted ways a while ago. I am totally bewildered by this ruling. @Zordak: Yes, duh, the court ruled that the patent is upheld. Only a lawyer would in effect claim "QED" based on that. How can we have respect for the rule of law when completely idiotic rulings like this pop out? Obviously something is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, duh, the court ruled that the patent is upheld. Only a lawyer would in effect claim "QED" based on that.
Then you weren't paying attention. I was responding to a ridiculous charge that the USPTO was trying to "save face" by issuing a ruling in "legalese." The reexamination mentioned in the article is strictly an administrative proceeding within the USPTO, so passing reexamination does not imply that any court has upheld the patent. The court proceedings were completely separate. But favorable court rulings --> no need to "save face." (QED). The USPTO doesn't care what Slashdot user unity100 thinks o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
U are asking for sensibility in US courts?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
Let me first compose myself.
ha ha ha
Well that's easy then (Score:2)
now we have the shopping cloud! win all around!
They simply cannot invalidate a patent (Score:1)
Barrier to Entry (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
in that case, i'm going to patent the number '7' (Score:1)
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
... the USPTO saves millions of dollars with their newly introduced 1-click patent approval process.
Re: (Score:2)
... the USPTO saves millions of dollars with their newly introduced 1-click patent approval process.
... but spent all of the saved millions on patent licensing fees.
The next step (Score:1)
This idea is patented.
new patent (Score:2)
It's all a confidence trick anyway (Score:1)
Thankfully never approved in Canada.... (Score:1)
It's nice to know that not all ridiculous patents are accepted everywhere.
http://www.techvibes.com/blog/amazon-one-click-patent-application-refused-in-canada [techvibes.com]
So all we need do is to change to shopping lists. (Score:2)
If you allow the user to have multiple shopping lists, and then take each list to the checkout rather than a basket... then one-click doesn't apply, right?
In the UK there is a chain of brick and mortar stores called Argos. You don't have a shopping trolley, cart or basket... you have a bit of paper on which you write the codes of the items you want and you take that to the checkout and then once paid someone gets them from the warehouse and brings them to the counter near the exit.
You can have multiple list
Re:Patent (Score:4, Funny)
With this PTO, you probably can.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Okay, conspiracy theorists. If we are in the "Brave New World", where the fuck is my free drugs and obligatory orgies?
College ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense! Drugs are NOT free in college and orgies are SELDOM obligatory.
I want my money back.
Re: (Score:1)
Now THATS what im talking about!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This patent should be defeated by demonstrating prior art of an upsell - porn sites did this in 1998.
Please can you provide a reference to this — something that we can check with the wayback machine and then point the USPTO at it.