Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Beta, Oct 26th, 2009 @ 8:37am

   
   

   Hard to understand?

   "One click" is convenient for users. Doing without this feature makes a website awkward, which makes for a bad customer experience. This is an impediment which Amazon can, maybe, impose on all of its competitors for the price of some legal motions.
   
   It's hard to commend, but is it really hard to understand?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   The Buzz Saw (profile), Oct 26th, 2009 @ 8:43am

   
   

   Well...?

   Does anyone have the two-click, three-click, and four-click patents yet?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Trinity, Oct 26th, 2009 @ 8:46am

   
   

   Re: Hard to understand?

   The problem is not that the reason for it is hard to understand. It's that the "mechanism" is pretty obvious, to someone skilled in the art of website design. That's one of the tenets of being granted a patent, that the invention is non-obvious.
   
   And then there's the fact that Bezos has been banging the patent reform drum since he got this patent, at the same time that Amazon continues to wield this one as a weapon. You don't get it both ways, Jeff.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 26th, 2009 @ 9:00am

   
   

   Apple, too

   Apple also licensed the 1-click patent. See the WikiP article.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Trails, Oct 26th, 2009 @ 9:06am

   
   

   Re: Apple, too

   That's probably it then. Patent licensing revenue probably outweighs the cost of trying to fight the rejection.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2009 @ 9:18am

   
   

   Re: Well...?

   No, but it won't be long until someone gets a patent on "clicking."

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2009 @ 9:23am

   
   

   "Continuing to fight for this patent in both the US and Canada doesn't seem to add any value whatsoever to Amazon, but just highlights how the company appears to be abusing the patent system with ridiculous patents."
   
   Maybe that's the point. If Amazon wants patent reform then this is a great strategy for them: If they "win" then they can force everybody to license their ridiculous patent and get a huge undeserved windfall, *and* they serve as an example for everyone to point at in lobbying the legislature to enact patent reform. If they "lose" then they set the precedent they wanted to set in court and the precedent prevents anyone else from attempting anything so ridiculous.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   James, Oct 26th, 2009 @ 9:23am

   
   

   Its a stupid patent

   And not only that its literally wrong. Its not a even a "one click" process, you still have to click at least once more. This is something the patent office should have rejected without so much as a blink.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2009 @ 9:36am

   
   

   What do you call 100 books on fire?

   Kindle-ing.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    bigpicture, Oct 26th, 2009 @ 11:31am

    
    

    Re: MAD

    MAD: (Mutually Assured Destruction) for those who remember the "cold" war that was the terminology for that scenario. I have a stockpile of these hugely destructive weapons, and if you use yours I'll use mine back.
    
    That is basically the patent game today. Except for those that don't have a huge portfolio, (stockpile) or the ones hit by the mercenaries (patent trolls) and can't strike back, and so can be held to ransom. The solution of course is the same for both, get rid of all the bombs, and get rid of all the patents. Neither serve the peaceful purpose of progress.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2009 @ 11:40am

    
    

    Re: Re: Hard to understand?

    I had lunch with Jeff Bezos and crew few years ago, the waitress brought out drinks before asking us what we wanted.. I made a pun about patenting the idea. That led to some conversation which led to a sideways suggestion that we can reform the system by asserting ludicrous claims in high profile situations. Otherwise it all takes place in arbitration and no new points will ever be raised.
    
    Yea.. I know

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2009 @ 6:04pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Hard to understand?

    Why doesn't someone just start a website and allow everyone to list a bunch of ideas with timestamps and people can use that website as prior art. It can have a search feature and everything. So if someone uses an idea on that site people have a prior art defense.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Gena777 (profile), Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 5:02am

    
    

    Amazon wins

    Often patent litigation occurs for strategic and/or political reasons. As Anonymous Coward suggested, Amazon stands to gain, whether they win or lose this particular "fight."

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment