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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Technology

E-Commerce To Evolve Next Month As Amazon Loses the 1-Click Patent (thirtybees.com) 141

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
An anonymous reader shares an article: Next month e-commerce will change forever thanks to Amazon. September 12 marks 20 years since Amazon filed for their 1-Click patent. This means that the patent will expire and the technology behind it will be free to be used by any e-commerce site. Starting next month more and more sites will be offering a one click checkout experience. Most major sites have already started development with plans to launch soon after the patent expires. Amazon applied for the 1-Click patent in September of 1997, the actual patent was granted in 1999. The whole idea behind the patent is when you store a user's credit card and address you only need a single click to order a product. For the last 20 years Amazon has kept a tight hold on this technology, they have only licensed it to one company: Apple. No one knows what Apple paid to license the technology, but the value of the patent has been assessed at 2.4 billion dollars by sources. Over the last 20 years Amazon has defended the validity of the patent in several cases, even having to revise the patent at one point. But, now the wait is almost over and this technology is about to make it into the open market.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

E-Commerce To Evolve Next Month As Amazon Loses the 1-Click Patent More

E-Commerce To Evolve Next Month As Amazon Loses the 1-Click Patent

Comments Filter:

  • Never should have been granted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:05PM (#55041065)
    This patent exemplifies everything that's wrong with software patents.

    • Just be thankful that Amazon discovered this concept and filed a patent for it, so that the public at large was able to be enlightened by it. Luckily, the incentives provided by the patent system encouraged Amazon to make the investments required to do the hard work to find and realize this innovation.

      Otherwise, the entire world could have missed out on the benefits of one-click shopping forever!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by al0ha ( 1262684 )
        Yeah they are calling it technology? Hardly...
      • What I don't understand about it is why anyone even cares. I'd always assumed it was a vanity patent, I mean, the idea of using one click instead of two is worth 2.4 billion dollars? I wouldn't pay fifty cents for it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      I submitted a patent-inspector-one-slap patent.

    • It shouldn't even be legal to deploy, let alone patent.

    • Here we sit after a few decades of doubleplusungood IP law.

    • Well the question is, if Amazon didn't come up with this idea, would it be used today? While today it seems obvious, because we have seen it in action. But would had this idea been successfully implemented without it? There is a risk involved in keeping the billing information accessible to the interface layer, and allow for one click purchase, may have been too easy, and caused problems where too much stuff was purchased by accident or fraudulently.

      A lot of businesses work off the model, what are the oth

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by orlanz ( 882574 )

        Yes it would have been made. Historically, one could open tabs at local stores. Your wife/kid/slave/farmhand/driver would go in, get what they want, and ask that it be added to the family head's tab. At the end of the month, or when the amount reached a threshold, a boy or shopkeeper would come by and collect the dues. Sometimes they would only need an IOU to go ask the local bank for the funds withdrawn.. like a check.

        There are countries that still practice this today. Its not exactly the same because

        • That's not what one-click does. One-click lets you buy something by looking at the page and saying "buy!" It's as if the store had the ability to sense that you lifted an item off the shelf and immediately charge your card, but only when you take it to buy and not when you take it to examine and put back.

          • Back then... you didn't "lift" anything off a shelf. You didn't do the traditional shopping like today. Carts are actually a recent concept (i.e. Macy's still doesn't have them).

            You went up to the counter and told the boy to get you x, y, & z. The boy (or girl) got it for you, sometimes off a shelf reached by ladder. You told them to put it on the tab (depending on who you were, they knew which tab) and walked out.

            Also, stuff too difficult to carry or you were too busy to, could be shipped home by

            • You're talking about leaving without paying. Amazon's 1-click is paying as soon as you decide you want it, without getting out payment methods, without delaying, nothing--the money leaves your possession immediately. No carts, no totaling, no paying for 6 goods at once. "That" *chaching* "and that" *chaching* "and that over there" *chaching* money vanishing out of your bank again and again.

              In a physical store, this is akin to grabbing a good and it's immediately charged; and if you grab another on you

              • No, that's pretty much paying later.

                For credit and debit cards, businesses don't actually get the funds till much later. Even CASH, for large businesses, they don't recognize it as received till 30-90 days later to accommodate returns.

                For tabs, it's not a "pay me later" system. It's an informal IOU & credit system (what credit cards are based on too). It's just a way to have multiple ways (ppl) of paying for stuff without carrying a lot of cash on hand.

                • The business is not getting paid later. The business gets paid by your bank; if you default on your loan, they still get paid. If you never show up to pay your tab and the store owner can't find you, they don't get paid.

                  When you pay with a credit card, you're not an A/R; you, personally, have paid, according to the store you're doing business with. If the bank then can't get the money from you, well, Mom & Pop's Pretzel and Sodas Stand doesn't know anything about that, because they got their money

    • Re:Never should have been granted (Score:5, Insightful)

      by magarity ( 164372 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:47PM (#55041367)

      On the other hand, it illustrates nicely that even bad patents are prevented from being permanent problems, unlike the eternal monster copyright has become.

      • are prevented from being permanent problems

        Define permanent problem. That a company rides this patent to become one of the worlds largest companies makes it a permanent problem. Who needs a patent now that Amazon could simply buy out a competitor. I wouldn't suggest that the problem will disappear next month.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thsths ( 31372 )

      You have to judge this from a mindset in 1995, when every e-commerce shop would have a complicated "basket" system, and involve many many clicks to order even a single item. The amazon approach was truly novel and truly revolutionary.

      Was it a significant invention? Maybe not, but then again it was narrow enough to not impede progress. Competitors requiring two clicks - once to buy and once to confirm - has not killed anybody. Even that was a massive improvement over earlier systems.

    • I wonder if there was a 2-Click patent.
    • It was a feature I never really wanted so I didn't give a care.
  • CSRF FTW

  • Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:05PM (#55041075) Homepage

    I always thought it was a bad idea and never enabled it.

    Amazon seems to have really wanted me to enable it, but what's best for Amazon isn't necessarily best for me.

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:28PM (#55041245)
      One click is the Amazon version of having candy bars at the checkout stand: quite a few people will make an impulse purchase without thinking about it twice.
    • I'm a very big user of amazon (>95% of all non food purchases) and have been for over a decade and have never used it. Amazon does seem to have the best designed and least painful ordering systems available, so I don't mind the one extra click - submit order confirm

      • I'm a very big user of amazon (>95% of all non food purchases) and have been for over a decade and have never used it.

        Same here. I like to accumulate a number of items in the cart and think about them a while before committing. I frequently go back and postpone or substitute or ditch certain items. One click would be way too speedy. Likewise the "subscribe" option. I don't want a continuous supply of something showing up. With Prime, I can order it when needed and have it here in two days. If there's a crisis and I need it faster than that, there's always (gasp) going to the store, at least as long as stores still exist.

        • That's exactly what I do and some items in the 'save for later' that have been there for years. I actually put everything that I think I could ever want or collect in there and stopped adding to the list a year or two ago and now am slowly buying down the list as I get money. Or deleting things that I think are dumb or I obtain by other means. $5k (mainly big ticket items like a sawstop) more and it will be done. +/- incidentals, I'll have everything a nerd could possibly use in a lifetime. I already need a

    • I always thought it was a bad idea and never enabled it.

      I agree with your opinion... but unfortunately there are some places where Amazon won't allow you to disable it. Like with Kindle books, for instance.

    • Yep, I would've preferred if Amazon were able to keep this particular patent forever, so that no other websites would have dangerous Big Red Buttons to avoid and disable. I wonder if they can make a slight, inconsequential change to it and reapply, like in the pharmaceutical industry?

  • 20 Years to use a simple feature? (Score:5, Informative)

    by evolutionary ( 933064 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:06PM (#55041083)
    This is why we need to redo the current US patent laws. They don't encourage innovation, they just protect corporations at the expense of public benefit. In addition, they actually inhibit innovation and intellectual evolution.
  • This patent is now obsolete anyway, Amazon have been granted the one-touch patent that covers the entry of information or actuation of software using push-to-operate or touch-to-operate or gesture-to-operate controls.
  • This is an example of how patents are good IP. Like the patent or not, think it's innovative or not, it eventually expires. Copyrights don't expire in your lifetime. Trademarks never expire. If 20 years is plenty for a company to reap value from innovation of an actual product that improves lives, then it's good enough for Hollywood too..

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tomhath ( 637240 )

      It wasn't innovative at all.

      When I was a kid there was a small grocery store nearby where everyone in the neighborhood had an account. We could walk in, grab a soft drink out of the cooler, and tell the owner to "put it on our account". All Amazon did was use that same model "on the Internet".

      • You missed the point. In this case, it simply doesn't matter anymore that it was or wasn't innovative. It's expiring and the market is going to move along.

      • If you didn't come back to pay it later, the owner would never get paid.

        With Amazon, when you grab the item, it's immediately charged to your credit card. If you linger in the store and grab another item, it charges that, too. No tabs, no truing up, no coming back to pay your bill, no waiting for you to walk from the cooler to the cash register. You touched it you bought it--literally, as your bank has just wired us the money directly.

    • There was a movie released 40 years ago called Star Wars which is still pulling in decent profits today. There are many other examples of movies and books that can continue to accrue value with longer protection such as Bladerunner, The Hobbit, Beatles and Rolling Stones albums from the 60's.

      Copyright is fundamentally different from patent law in that it is not there to encourage innovation but to allow the creator to profit from his or her own work. I can see the sense in allowing a copyright to endure

      • Copyright is fundamentally different from patent law in that it is not there to encourage innovation but to allow the creator to profit from his or her own work.

        Seriously, are you high? From the US Constitution:

        Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

        I point you to the very first part of that sentence, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts."

        Jesus, come on.

        • I don't see anything in that clause that contradicts what I said. The progress of science obviously is not relevant to a fantasy fiction novel which I used as an example so it only falls under promotion of "useful arts". Writing fiction, singing, playing an instrument, or acting are promoted by copyright. Non-fiction such as a scientific article published in a journal would however fall under promoting the progress of science. But I really can't see that you made a point at all. It seems like you merely pro

      • Congratulations -- you found the edge cases, the few works that continue to bring in substantial profits for a long time.

        For literature as a whole, 99% of profits are made within the first decade of initial release. For music, within a year. Magazines make their profit within a month, and newspaper articles, within a day. Movies probably fall into the "one year" bucket, but Hollywood accounting makes it impossible to tell.

        The single greatest threat to most creators is copyright terms. Most people aren't

  • Technology (Score:4, Informative)

    by fox171171 ( 1425329 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:20PM (#55041195)

    This means that the patent will expire and the technology behind it

    For the last 20 years Amazon has kept a tight hold on this technology,

    I'm struggling to understand how the term "technology" fits in these sentences.

    • Technology is the science of devising new techniques to produce some result, ultimately to reduce the amount of human labor time invested.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by orlanz ( 882574 )

      Glad I wasn't the only one. Maybe in 1995 it was impressive that you could store and retrieve quickly so much customer data... but that was pretty normal by even 2000.

  • Doh! (Score:3)

    by Diss Champ ( 934796 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:35PM (#55041285)

    I've always been annoyed by the non-confirmation principle in 1-click. This is one of those patents I've been glad somebody got because figuring how to turn it off for one vendor is infinitely preferable to figuring out how to turn it off for every vendor.

    • It is pretty easy to go to your orders and cancel.

      • And do you believe that every merchant will implement easy cancellation?

        • Do you believe Amazon's 1-click patent has stopped bad web designers from creating poor UI designs in the past?

          Why even bother with 1-click? Aren't you afraid of all those 0-click merchants?

      • With Amazon. Assuming you noticed that that stray click accidentally placed an order.

        As someone who regularly goes for a day or two without checking my email, it would be quite easy for me to browse on Amazon for product information, and then have an accidental order already be shipped before I ever see the confirmation email. And that's only going to get worse as Amazon is pushing toward same-day delivery, etc.

        • Sounds like a personal problem to me. I've had it turned on for years, and have never accidentally clicked buy now. I have however cancelled orders from Amazon that I did intentionally click and then changed my mind (Found better item, cheaper item, or faster delivery).

          Of course, you could also have amazon notifications in chrome, or on your phone if premature accidental clickulation is rampant for you (or get a pill).

          As for other stores, well, then don't shop there, but the rest of the world shouldn't ha

  • Is this even a big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WilliamGeorge ( 816305 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:42PM (#55041327)

    I shop at Amazon quite a lot, but I don't think I've ever used the 1-click checkout. I always want to double-check the payment method I am using (I have several, depending on what I am getting and what it is for) and where it is shipping (home, work, a gift to someone, etc).

    For other Amazon customers, do you find this feature to actually be something you use? And have you ever not shopped at another online store (or chosen to shop at Amazon instead) specifically because of this? I am genuinely curious.

    • Amazon at least gives you the option to turn the 1-click feature on and off.

      We're going to see lots of other sites who make 1-click the only way to do business and are going to be far less tolerant of accidental orders than Amazon has been. I'm going to take the first site that tries to rip me off like this to court, even if only small claims court.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 )

      I admit to being a huge consumer on Amazon. It's simply far easier, faster, and cheaper to buy online (with free shipping) than to spend time going to B&M stores (factor in gas and pollution in addition to my time), or to order online elsewhere (which I do when I find it's a worthwhile amount cheaper). I even have my pet food on subscription. Out of probably over 500 orders since signing up with Amazon over 10 years ago, I've probably used 1-click maybe 3 times using my mobile phone. While I also ha

    • I almost always use it unless I'm entering a coupon. It always goes to the same address and always uses the same credit card. So why bother going through the hassle. I just click "Buy Now" and I'm done.

  • There is an other e-Commerce site other than Amazon?

    Honestly I think the only people who really cared about 1 click are the people who have strong views on software patients. (Or had implemented it and got a call from Amazons lawyers)

    • I doubt customers care, but I bet there's tons of online stores that would love to be getting all those 1-click impulse and accidental purchases, but aren't willing to give Amazon a piece of the pie to do it. Probably most of them in fact.

      You don't have to actually get a call from Amazon to know that you *will* get a call if you implement it - you just have to be aware that one of the most infamously bad patents exists, and is actively enforced. Given how infamous it is you'd probably have a hard time eve

  • What?! (Score:5, Informative)

    by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:52PM (#55041437)

    September 12 marks 20 years since Amazon filed for their 1-Click patent.

    Shit, I'm old.

  • With Amazon storing all of those credit card numbers, if they're ever hacked it'll be a disaster.

  • I average more than one Amazon order a week and I have never used 1-click shopping. It seems like a really bad idea to me, I don't need a mis-click on a product page to initiate an order.

    Who uses it and why? Going through the checkout process only takes a few seconds; my payment and shipping details are saved so it's not like I have to enter them every time. Plus those 1-click purchases aren't earning any money for your selected charity like they would if you checked out on the smiles site.

  • 1-Click Not Technology (Score:3)

    by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @01:48PM (#55042025)

    The 1-Click patent isn't technology. It's more like seeing people use a bow knot somewhere, seeing that most people tie their shoes with a permanent knot, then starting to tie your shoes with a bow knot, then patenting all uses of the bow knot.

    The 1-Click patent should never have been granted, as it violated every single requirement for a patentable invention.

  • I can't seem to recall any cases where Amazon actively sued over this specific patent.

  • Unless I'm wrong all software is simply a binary representation of words put together using an IDE or compiler. Hence patents do not belong. Amazing how the software industry has blinded us.

    Also, I see little difference between "One Click" and other sites. It is jus simply allowing me to bypass the usual confirmation

  • Some of the best and funniest Slashdot threads came from this patent, so it wasn't all a loss. And I bet many Slashdotters kept on doing business with Amazon despite what has to be one of the crappiest patents ever,

  • Just like Mickey's patent time frame keeps changing,
    https://artlawjournal.com/mick... [artlawjournal.com]
    I wouldn't be surprised if some magical last minute patent extension happened.

  • It is not, and never has been, a "Technology". It has always been a simple, obvious idea. A patent for it should have never been granted. It is a clear demonstration that "valuing" it at +$2 Billions that the patent system is broken beyond repair.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close