Once Again, Amazon's One-Click Patent Is Found Not To Infringe On Cordance's One-Click Patents

from the there-can-be-only-one-one-click-patent dept

A few years ago, we wrote about a case in which a company called Cordance claimed that Amazon's (infamous) patented one-click "technology" infringed on its own one-click patent (6,757,710). Cordance's patent was actually granted many years after Amazon's technology was on the market (and its patent granted), but Cordance tried to show an earlier priority date through a convoluted set of previous patents and continuations. Thankfully, a jury disagreed with Cordance and said that Amazon didn't infringe, and in the few areas where it might have infringed, Cordance's patent claims were invalid. The judge then changed the ruling to reject the invalidity part -- allowing Cordance to sue a bunch of other companies, including Apple, Paypal and Victoria's Secret.

However, the original case was appealed and, amazingly, CAFC actually ruled against Cordance and sided with the original jury, noting non-infringement for some parts, and the parts where Amazon might infringe... those claims were declared invalid, and predicted by Amazon's own technology. That should be good news for those sued by Cordance in that other case. However, this really highlights the craziness of the patent system. Is it really valuable to have two companies spending years in court arguing over who can do something in one click?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 3:53pm

    Jungle Women

    That is one-slick patent

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 4:21pm

    Your patent infringes on my patent!!! Expect to hear from my lawyers soon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    6, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 4:29pm

    Mike you know good and well "patents" never infringe on "patents". Only products, methods, compositions or apparatus may infringe a patent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    freak (profile), Sep 27th, 2011 @ 4:42pm

    Hey baby, wanna see what I can do with one click?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 27th, 2011 @ 4:47pm

    Doesn't the patent office already feature a One-Click Patent button? That makes patenting anything and everything as easy as clicking a single button.

    Oh wait, this is a patent on one-click purchases. My bad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 4:50pm

    Is it really valuable to have two companies spending years in court arguing over who can do something in one click?

    Of course it is. Valuable to the lawyers, that is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 7:03pm

    The real issue

    The real issue is why the Patent Office can grant patent to 2 companies that the content are so similar or even overlapping. This suggest these examiners aren't doing their job.

    And the lobbyist are trying to claim it's okay to assume the patents are valid once it's been granted...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    6, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 7:27pm

    "This suggest these examiners aren't doing their job."

    It does perhaps suggest that but definitely suggests you don't know your arse from your elbow in patent matters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 7:32pm

      Re:

      Wow, your argument is so convincing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Atkray (profile), Sep 27th, 2011 @ 8:19pm

        Re: Re:

        Hey you have no clue how convincing that is.

        I'm guessing he has a whole portfolio of patents granted because of that argument.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 8:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If memory serves me correctly, 6 is intimately familiar with the inner workings of the USPTO, and patent law generally. In fact, he is one of the strongest critics about the current system associated with patent application prosecution.

          His manner of comment missed the mark in this instance, but the underlying message is correct. Somewhat similar inventions can quite peaceably co-exist under patent law. For the very same invention? No. For something close but different? Yes, as long as non-obviousness is present.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 9:05pm

    This is an odd week Apple trademark just got denied by the USPTO.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/66447722/Multi-Touch-Trademark

    Righthaven got its case in Colorado dismissed with the judge saying they abused copyright and punished them by forcing them to pay attorney's fees.
    http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/sep/27/judge-righthaven-lacked-standing-abused-copyright-/

    Congress people are complaining about supercookies to the FTC, maybe trying to hit some points on the privacy front.
    http://markey.house.gov/docs/2011_0926.letter_to_ftc.pdf

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2011 @ 10:43pm

    Can I point out that 1 click is just an abstraction layer of a huge number of tasks, the single action is just the item that puts all those other actions into motion. Everything in computers is about abstraction layers, from buttons that start programs to electronic gas peddles.

    Sigh, can I be woken up in 20 years when all the patents are expired and I can actully do something? (crap that wont work cuz then people will write, "On an Apple")

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Niall (profile), Oct 3rd, 2011 @ 9:13am

      Re:

      Yes, I click the power button on my PC and voila, it's on and ready to go. Isn't that an obvious one-click 'abstraction'? Even if it takes 20 minutes :(

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Stephan Kinsella (profile), Sep 28th, 2011 @ 2:27am

    A patent cannot infringe a patent

    Mike, re your headline: patents cannot infringe patents. It's the making or using or selling of a given device or service that can infringe someone else's patent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Niall (profile), Oct 3rd, 2011 @ 9:13am

      Re: A patent cannot infringe a patent

      I think it's a useful verbal shorthand that those of us who aren't patent lawyers can understand easily enough.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Sep 28th, 2011 @ 5:15am

    Concepts Should be Unpatentable

    The ability to patent One-Click and the subsequent hissey-fight exposes the issue that patent holders seem to believe that when they receive a patent that it excludes others from having alternative implementation strategies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    staff, Oct 9th, 2011 @ 12:04pm

    another biased article

    "Thankfully, a jury disagreed with Cordance and said that Amazon didn't infringe.."

    "Thankfully"? What does it matter to you? Is Amazon the one paying you to write these poison pen propaganda pieces??

    Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
    https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1

    They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Moncler, Nov 30th, 2011 @ 5:55pm

    none

    His manner of comment missed the mark in this instance, but the underlying message is correct. Somewhat similar inventions can quite peaceably co-exist under patent law. For the very same invention? No. For something close but different? Yes, as long as non-obviousness is present.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This