Amazon Refuses To Give In; Appeals One-Click Patent Rejection In Canada

Thu, Aug 27th 2009 12:18pm

Filed Under:
e-commerce, one-click, patents, two-click

Companies:
amazon, cordance

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Amazon Wins Lawsuit Saying It Didn't Infringe On One Click Patent (A Different One)

from the keep-it-straight-now dept

You probably recall that Amazon holds a rather infamous patent, on one-click ordering online, that has been involved in a fair amount of controversy (and ongoing review). However, less well-known was that, back in 2006, another company, Cordance, claimed that it actually held a patent on one-click ordering and sued Amazon for violating its patent. I hadn't heard much else about the case since, but Michael Scott alerts us to the news that Amazon has won the lawsuit, after a jury found that the company didn't infringe on two of the patents in question, and that the third patent was invalid. The key to victory? Apparently, Amazon explained that the patents in question actually described a process that involved two clicks rather than one.

Wed, Jan 30th 2008 11:11am

Filed Under:
one-click, patent

Companies:
amazon

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

USPTO Examiner Digs In Heels, Rejects 1-Click Again

from the and-again-and-again-and-again dept

theodp writes "Most corporations would be delighted to have their patent application assigned to the USPTO's Mark Fadok. After all, this is the Primary Examiner who didn't stop Amazon from patenting Blurbs or block Microsoft from patenting the Wish List. But Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' 1-Click Patent - which Fadok has been rejecting since 2002 - is another matter. Why? Just about everything about it was 'old and well known' at the time of the invention, argued Fadok in a letter sent to Amazon last week explaining why he was once again rejecting the patent claims. This latest action comes after a three-judge USPTO panel convened at 'patent reformer' Amazon's request, overruled Fadok's earlier objections to 1-Click in September."

Fri, Dec 28th 2007 6:21am

Filed Under:
one-click, patents

Companies:
ibm

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IBM Patents 1-And-Only-1-Click Ordering

from the this-is-patentable? dept

theodp writes "Last week, the USPTO granted IBM a patent for Single Submission Buttons, an 'invention' that essentially consists of ignoring the second and subsequent clicks of a button. Like Amazon, IBM seems to be finding it easier to talk-the-patent-reform-talk than walk-the-patent-reform-walk."

Wed, Dec 26th 2007 6:11pm

Filed Under:
one-click, patents, review, uspto

Companies:
amazon, uspto

1 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Amazon's One-Click Patent Fix Rejected Again... for Now

from the back-and-forth dept

The back and forth over Amazon's infamous one-click patent has gone "back" again. Back in October we noted that, after many years and a few false starts, the USPTO had rejected a bunch of the patent's claims. However, as we noted at the time, the process was far from over. Patent reviews are a ridiculously complex process that take a hell of a lot longer than they should, and involve a lot of back-and-forth, often with many "non-final" rulings that go back and forth before anything is finally established. In fact, Amazon word-smithed the patent and tried to get the patent office to reinstate the claims. Luckily, however, the USPTO isn't buying it and is rejecting the rewritten claims... though, it's still not final. And people wonder why the patent office is overworked and why many people are pushing for a more efficient process to review patents.

Wed, Dec 5th 2007 8:01am

Filed Under:
one-click, patents

Companies:
amazon

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Amazon Wordsmith 1-Click Patent Back From The Dead?

from the looking-that-way dept

theodp writes "By merely adding six words suggested to them by the USPTO (and changing the word 'a' to 'the'), attorneys for Amazon.com are claiming to have out-finessed the do-it-yourself lawyering efforts of LOTR actor Peter Calveley and have now instructed the USPTO to reinstate ALL of the 1-Click patent claims that were rejected in October as a result of Calveley's reexam request." And that, ladies and gentleman, is a reminder of just how difficult it really is to invalidate a patent. As we said back when people were celebrating the initial rejection of one-click claims, this story is far from over -- and the advantage always goes to the patent holder.

Tue, Nov 20th 2007 2:01pm

Filed Under:
one-click, patents, software patents

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

BW's Facts-be-Damned Defense Of Software Patents

from the facts?--where-we're-going,-we-don't-need-facts... dept

theodp writes "Citing their 'neurotic reaction to patent law,' BusinessWeek rips Slashdot readers a new one in 'Give Software Patents a Break', which takes techies to task for denying credit to innovations that in hindsight seem to be no-brainers. 'For example,' argues BW, 'Amazon's 1-Click checkout patent for speeding online purchases has been challenged in both the courts and by detractors as being incredibly obvious. No evidence of a similar innovation predating the Amazon patent was found despite a large bounty offered for its discovery and the ensuing widespread search.' That's the same argument Amazon unsuccessfully lobbied Congress with. Except prior art was found, even if the Jeff Bezos-funded BountyQuest couldn't bring itself to declare an 'official' bounty winner. And some of that prior art — a TV remote patent — was cited by a USPTO Examiner as he rejected most of the 1-Click patent claims last month."

It's not surprising, of course, to find out that the piece was penned by a patent attorney -- hardly an unbiased source in the matter. He also makes other mistakes and incorrect assumptions about why people dislike software patents. It's not just because most people find the patents obvious in hindsight (as he suggests), but because people understand that innovation is an ongoing process of building on the ideas of others -- and blocking off simple ideas with patents makes it nearly impossible to continue that process. It's also about the fact that given the same problem, many, many, many programmers are likely to come up with similar solutions independently -- and giving one a complete monopoly on an idea seems ridiculous. He fails to note the inherent problem in the fact that software is already covered by copyright, meaning that patents give it a second layer of unnecessary protection. He also makes the (all too common) mistake of assuming that issued patents really are both non-obvious and new -- when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. He follows that up by mistakenly assuming that a correlation between the number of patents filed and R&D budgets means that patents are somehow responsible, rather than the other way around. The reason more patents than ever before are being filed is because of all of these ridiculous patent suits that mean you need to file patents just to protect yourself from someone else suing you for simply providing the best product in the marketplace. All in all, it's a terrible piece, based on the incorrect premise that patents are a general good thing, and therefore more patents must be better. It shows no understanding of the actual economics of the patent system or any sense of how innovation actually works.

Wed, Oct 17th 2007 10:41am

Filed Under:
obviousness, one-click, patents, prior art

Companies:
amazon

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Click Here To Reject Amazon's One-Click Patent

from the getting-there... dept

Amazon's "one-click patent" has been one of the rallying points for those who feel that software and business model patents are truly problematic. In 2001, the patent was challenged through BountyQuest, but that challenge was rejected by the patent office. In 2005, however, a guy in New Zealand began his own quest to invalidate the patent, successfully convincing the patent office to review the patent based on new prior art he had turned up. While there was a setback last month, when a 3-judge panel questioned an examiner's ruling that many of the claims should have been rejected as obvious, it appears that the prior art has now been found much more convincing. The patent office has now issued an initial rejection of 21 of 26 claims in the patent. Of course, while some are already celebrating this win, the case is far from over. As we've seen many times before, the early rejections from the patent office don't necessarily mean all that much, as the patent holder has a chance to respond and many things can happen before the validity of the patent is finally established. Still, it's certainly better than the patent office sticking by the original patent completely.

Fri, Sep 28th 2007 6:27pm

Filed Under:
one-click

Companies:
amazon, uspto