USPTO Panel Says Amazon's One-Click Patent Isn't Obvious
from the two-clicks-away-from-sanity dept
Due to the diligent work of a few determined individuals, the US Patent Office (once again) began to look into Amazon's infamous "one-click" patent. New prior art was demonstrated, and in an initial re-examination, the examiner rejected some of the claims in the patents, noting that they appeared to be obvious. Of course, patent appeals processes are long and involved, and after Amazon presented their side to a 3-judge panel, that panel has now ruled that the examiner did not do enough to show why the patent claims were obvious, suggesting that what many of us (including those who are skilled practitioners in the space) think of as obvious, won't be considered obvious. It sort of makes you wonder what it takes for the Patent Office to consider something obvious. Obviously, "obvious" has a different meaning to the US Patent Office than to most of us.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Obvious isn't obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well, it really isn't obvious...
seriously, USPTO != FTW.
technology patents == innovation stifling
US version of capitalism == those w/ money grease wheels of gov't, greased wheels make absurd decisions that have anything but consumer interest in mind. think wireless companies and broadband providers...
if this is shocking to you - read your history and you will just have your hopelessness in the greed of man re-inforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The perfect job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heck, you don't even need one click - amazon will bill you without you even interacting with the website, if I recall.
Last time I bought any books I just went right to Barnes and Noble. You know half my buying decision sometimes is the company I'm dealing with.
I'm not a fan of new laws, but I really do think there needs to be a 'patent fraud' law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psht.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
There's some basis for such a view in the economic theory of patents. If nobody else is doing it, and you do it, that has prima facie produced innovation.
From another angle, if everybody knew it but nobody thought it worth patenting OR USING IT, and you did, that is also innovation in the economic/market sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that may be so but..
Just because nobody else applied for a patent at the same time doesn't make it non-obvious. Most other stores probably assumed it was so fucking obvious it would be a waste of time applying for a patent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
im on the hunt..
its a choice of the US which constituionally guarantees freedoms but then ignores them frequently, or some other place that gives greater freedoms but with no guarantee they will continue (ie, dont piss them off). bleh.
wow guess i got off topic ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a fine line between obviousness and hindsight.
I'm definitely no expert in patent law but I know that knowing the codes and the tests that are to be applied definitely make a difference in how you view these things. I'd be interested in seeing the art and rationale originally applied but I'm too lazy to look it up. If anyone has, it might be worth sharing your 2 cents here.
Not saying the Amazon patent is or isn't obvious, just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a test ya know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The statute says very little. The courts are the ones who have defined obviousness. For years, the CAFC used the TSM test for obviousness because it made the courts job simpler. Given the lack of a statutory definition of obviousness, it is perfectly legitimate for people to discuss what the test for obviousness should be and to base that discussion on examples. That after all is how the common law arose in the first place - by focusing on examples and discussing what the outcome should and only later going from the examples to the general principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious and Obvious
That said, I think the notion of software patents is absurd and should be abolished. However, until they are, we all have to play the game with the cards we're dealt -- and that means patents according to the "rules" (such as they are) of the USPTO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]