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."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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hard cash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No-Click
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*leaves PC on and runs to patent office*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't quite agree...
As Paul Graham says, there's nothing evil about filing for patents. It's a game.... you get all the patents you can, more than anything just so no one else can use it against you.
That is, our system will grant a patent for anything. ANYTHING. But from an individual business perspective, it's still better to file for patents than not file for patents, and I agree with IBM and its decision to get patents.
The only part I could conceive as "evil" for IBM here is if they try to USE the patent to stifle competitors, much like Amazon's pathetic attack on Barnes & Noble.
Currently, getting patents, particularly software patents, is a game, and every company in its own interest should be playing the game and getting all the patents they can. However, this definitely does not mean that they can't be or aren't against the system in the first place. I see this more as a statement from IBM "well the system sucks but we're going to make the most of it until you change it". Or more bluntly, "We don't deserve any of these patents but as long as you're going to hand them out, we'll take 'em".
The only example of failing to "walk the walk" would be if a company were to be voting for new patents but using them as a crutch to stifle competition; and IBM is currently not doing that. In my opinion, they're using the best approach until the USPTO stops giving away patents like candy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't quite agree...
Dude
Have you tried to get your very own patent lately ?
I guess not
Try it before talking garbage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't quite agree...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't quite agree...
If you intend to use the technology, patenting it makes sense. It is hard to get a granted patent invalidated. Similarly, if you have a portfolio of these patents, you can use them when you are sued by a smaller concern ... point out that they are in violation of your patents and cut a better deal. Not so good against trolls who produce nothing, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to do with shopping cart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Golly geez Batman!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I second that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior art all over the place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent everything and everyone...
Just trying to make a point here. I wonder what Albert's comments would be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent everything and everyone...
Probably "Go get you GED, punk !!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really ONE click?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really ONE click?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's great
This is simply a way around the potential Amazon 1-click patent and nothing more. The better coders have done this for years and I've never accidentally bought two of an item at Amazon while 1-click shopping so they probably do it too. They just never thought to patent something so obvious. Someone at IBM did though, they had a revelation on how to beat Amazon at its own game.
Hoorah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have written this 10 times already!!!
There must be more to it than that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actual Claim
"1. A computer readable medium encoded with a computer program for enforcing a one-click-only policy for a graphical button object that is displayable on a computer screen, the one-click-only policy preventing a user from inadvertently activating a pre-determined action associated with the graphical button object more than one time, the computer program comprising computer executable code for: displaying the graphical button object on a computer screen, the graphical button object having been previously instantiated from a button class, the button class embedding the one-click-only policy within the graphical button object so that a JavaScript external to the graphical button object is not required to enforce the one-click-only policy for the graphical object; responsive to receiving user input clicking on the graphical button object displayed on the computer screen for a first time, activating the pre-determined action associated with the graphical button object; and responsive to receiving user input clicking on the graphical button object displayed on the computer screen for a second time subsequent to the first time, not activating the pre-defined action associated with the graphical button object in accordance the one-click only policy embedded in the graphical button object."
This seems to be a pretty narrow patent, which does not seem to cover any button that provides this behavior through external scripting, as is typically done everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the physical switch, button world...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patents
absurd, it likes claiming, a turn of phrase, or some common
combination of letters as property! Stops creativity in the long run. Rewards big money and not the creative people that
usually develop these things. In the end it is anti-sharing
of knowledge! Now for complex projects that are demonstrably
unique, that's a different matter! Recall Apple inc. suing
every in the 80's for the windowing concept, that S.J. had
stolen from Zerox, and later after leaving Apple thought that Apple was wrong for it's effort to suppress other windowing systems. At a software publisher meeting he
compared trying to own these concepts, as an effort to
own the idea of a door way or air itself.
And I agree.
David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]