RSS
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?
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
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Jungle Women
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait, this is a patent on one-click purchases. My bad.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it is. Valuable to the lawyers, that is.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issue
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 ]
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 ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm guessing he has a whole portfolio of patents granted because of that argument.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
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 ]
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 ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A patent cannot infringe a patent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A patent cannot infringe a patent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Concepts Should be Unpatentable
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
"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 ]
none
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment