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?

Filed Under: ,
Companies: amazon, cordance

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

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

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
19 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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

Anonymous Coward says:

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”)

staff says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...