LOTR Choreographer Forces 1-Click Patent Reexam

from the more-than-one-click-to-get-the-re-exam dept

Mon, May 15th 2006 1:30am — Mike Masnick

theodp writes "Citing a 'substantial new question of patentability' raised by material submitted by Lord of the Rings weaponry and fight choreographer Peter Calveley, the USPTO on Friday ordered a reexamination of Amazon's 1-Click Patent. As noted earlier, Calveley sought donations to fund the $2,500 reexam request on his blog." This story is an interesting one, and our past coverage of it notes some of the history of this (in)famous patent. However, the process this guy had to go through in order to get the re-exam (combined with the effort of others in the past) show just how much it takes to question the validity of a patent as a third party -- and this is one the patents often held up as an example of just how much is wrong with the patent system. Patent defenders, of course, will claim it's a good thing that it's not easy to question the validity of patents -- but when questionable patents cost the market innovative products and cost companies hundreds of millions of dollars, it would seem that a better system would make sense.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jeff Bezos, 15 May 2006 @ 2:49am

BOOYAH! One Click Patent is Ours!
Don't click when you submit your comments or we will sue you!

HAR HAR HAR!

Kisses,
Jeff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Gates, 15 May 2006 @ 5:48am

WTF!?!?!
What does the LOTR fight dancer have to do with one click technology??? GG what is the world coming to?

Oh, and Linux sucks, vote Quimbey!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
angry dude, 15 May 2006 @ 6:54am

Idiots !

"1-click patent" is actually a GOOD patent, as strange as it sounds.
You need to compare it to thousands of other patents issued to MShit and other big corps whining about patent quality.
If they cancel 1-click patent they might just want to cancel 90 % of all MS, Intel and other BS patents...
I know what I am talking about because I've been reading through this patent junk for years by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben, 15 May 2006 @ 7:00am
  
  Re: then you missed something...
  1-click isn't good dude. and 90% of MS and Intel's stuff Should be overturned. 1-click was obvious to anyone who knows anything about online shopping... so it never should have been patented in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - angry dude, 15 May 2006 @ 7:06am
    
    Re: Re: then you missed something...
    I guess it's you who missed something,
    
    Tim O'Oreily was running a bounty compaign to uncover prior art on "1-click patent" a few years ago.
    
    The compaign produced a lot of junk, but no valid prior art, so Tim even issued a sort of apology to Jeff Bezos.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ben, 15 May 2006 @ 7:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: then you missed something...
      Just because there wasn't any prior art doesn't mean it wasn't obvious.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John W., 15 May 2006 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: Angry Dude
  >"1-click patent" is actually a GOOD patent, as strange as it sounds. You need to compare it to thousands of other patents issued to MShit and other big corps whining about patent quality.
  
  Wow, the depth of your stellar argument has me convinced this is a good patent. The use of "MShit" really helps too.
  
  >"I know what I am talking about because I've been reading through this patent junk for years by now."
  
  Well, your credentials certainly are impeccable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - angry dude, 15 May 2006 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re: Angry Dude
    Hey, John,
    
    just shut up and listen to somebody with a Ph.D. and 2 MS degrees, and one issued (and very valid) US patent.
    
    "1-click" patent is nothing spectacular, but it's a rather clever and useful use of cookies to faciloitate internet ordering.
    If you have enough backgrouind in CS which I doubt, you can call it obvious, by todays view.
    Keep in mind though that it was filed early in the e-commerce days, much like Eolas patents was...
    In any case, "1- click" is a lot better that many of the MShit patents I was reading lately.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ehrichweiss, 15 May 2006 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Angry Dude
      "just shut up and listen to somebody with a Ph.D. and 2 MS degrees, and one issued (and very valid) US patent. "
      
      First sign someone is probably full of shit is when they start talking about how well qualified they are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ben, 16 May 2006 @ 8:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Angry Dude
      No one is saying that 1-click is bad, its just to obvious to be patentable, granted is Amazon never used the patent to try and hinder anyone else i'd be fine with having it as a patent.
      
      oh and if you actualy want people to take you seriously dont tell them to shut up. it's rude angry dude. and stop calling Microsoft MShit cause your jealous of there success.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - angry dude, 16 May 2006 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Angry Dude
        " stop calling Microsoft MShit cause your jealous of there success."
        
        I am not jealous of anybody's success as long as it's THEIR success and it's not based on somthing they stole from me or some otehr small guy.
        
        Unfortunately, they steal all the time cause they are so fucking big and might y powerful so it takes some little guy over ten years just to start litigation.
        Fucking genious Bill - bought some underused OS for 50 K
        sold vaporware to IBM, killed poor Netscape
        
        Open your eyes, moron, the big guys atre getting bigger by stealing from the small and more innovative.
        You must be liking this so go and sing along weith that fat pig Steve Ballmer, you know "Developers , developers..."
        Bunch of crooks
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John W., 16 May 2006 @ 4:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Angry Dude
        Dude, this isn't proving your point, it's proving mine. You must not be able to see how stupid you sound when you have to resort to calling people moron or fat pig, or telling them to shut up. Now I'm no fan of MS, but you still haven't made a valid point. Rhetoric like "they steal all the time..." and "they're getting bigger by stealing from the small and more innovative" is simply rubbish. Sure they've been monopolistic and tried to bully other companies a bit, but they've also paid financially for that too. If a company does real harm to people or other companies by illegal means, eventually the market or the government will catch up to and they'll lose their shirt.
        
        By the way, Microsoft's giving away of IE to subvert Netscape can hardly be seen as stealing. They provided something for free that Netscape wanted money for. We the consumer haven't had to pay for a decent browser ever since. How dare they!
        
        And you know nothing about my background nor have I hinted to it, so how can you say I probably don't have any "CS" experience? BS in Computer Science, working in IT for 9 years now. But notice I didn't start off with credentials to try to bolster my point. People around here know that any dope with a web browser can type "Oh I gotz 2PhD's and a masta digree" but it doesn't meen they do, so it's kinda pointless to use that yourself don't ya think?
        
        Boo-Yah!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rob, 18 May 2006 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Angry Dude
      No wonder you're angry. All those qualifications and people still don't bow down to your superior intellect.
      
      -Keep in mind though that it was filed early in the e-commerce -days, much like Eolas patents was...
      
      being early on the internet was exactly what allowed Jeff to bag an obvious patent. It doesn't make it non-obvious. What he did was use the existing technology (which was not well understood/explored) to implement an obvious process improvement. Then he gave it a name. Sure he was first. Sure it was a good use of the technology. But imagine he hadn't done it. How many months would have passed before someone did?
      
      Now go and think about why you're so angry. Is it really 'everyone else'?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Howard, 15 May 2006 @ 7:43am

Another patent in the news...
The Ebay "buy-it-now" patent dispute appeal is coming to a head (again).
As for a prior poster's claim that 90% of MS patents being questionable, I spent considerable time reading patents in several areas of my own interested, and I have come to the conclusion that at least 90% of ALL patents are junk.
--
Violins and Accessories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Moogle, 15 May 2006 @ 11:25am
  
  Re: Another patent in the news...
  "I have come to the conclusion that at least 90% of ALL patents are junk."
  
  Sorry, prior art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeons_law
  
  :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kjpweb, 15 May 2006 @ 9:33am

Patent Issue
Reading comments on Tech Dirt - I wonder what has to happen, that people stick to the issues at hand? Instead of discussing the 1-click patent for it's virtues or the lack thereof - MS Opponents have to bring their distaste for the company into play - as they do in almost any computer related issue - might it fit or not. These people are equally as annoying as their the target of their obession, they just don't notice it. For the "1-click" patent I believe that any patent, that does not provide a unique and technology based approach and can't be re-created without the use of that approach has to be re-examined and eventually de-patented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
namellac, 15 May 2006 @ 12:59pm

One Button Theory...
I've been a programmer for 15 years - This one button theory is not an original concept. It's been around since the pre-DOS days. If anything, this is a variation on an old theme.

I need something to total my sales for the day, balance my books, make deposits slips, cut payroll checks, and pay bills -

Can you put that on one button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ehrichweiss, 15 May 2006 @ 5:24pm
  
  Re: One Button Theory...
  Exactly. I too have been programming for quite a while and this didn't even seem remotely non-obvious no matter what year they filed for the patent.
  
  I swear I should have patented "visual programming" back when I had the chance since back then I simply thought it was sooo obvious that it couldn't be patented...it took almost 10 years before someone picked up on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2006 @ 1:43pm

My Patents
You can't patent the single-click because in order to click the mouse button, you must first press and then release the mouse button. I hold patents on both the press and release actions. Where's my money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tijir (profile), 16 May 2006 @ 7:17pm

Patent Re-Exam....
The Supreme Court ruled in the Ebay case that lower courts need to re-exam patents before putting an injunction in place, which means a lot of patent trolls could be out of business, as well as a lot of other patent holders on unpatentable ideas... http://www.forbes.com/home/businessinthebeltway/2006/05/15/ebay-scotus-patent-ruling-cx_jh_0516scotu s.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]