The 'Other' One-Click Patent Holder Sues Apple, Paypal... And Victoria's Secret
from the are-they-hoping-to-get-paid-in-models? dept
A couple years ago, we wrote about how Amazon, holder of the extremely infamous "one-click patent," had been sued by another firm, Cordance, claiming to hold a one-click patent. About a year and a half ago, Amazon apparently won that case. Unfortunately, a judge effectively overruled the jury, saying that some of the claims the jury insisted were invalid were actually valid. Thanks to that, it appears that Cordance is back, and is suing Apple, PayPal and Victoria's Secret, claiming they all violate its one-click patent (6,757,710). The patent seems to be crazy vague. It's still stunning that anyone -- let alone two people -- can hold a patent for letting someone buy something with one click. Separately, the article notes that Victoria's Secret is currently dealing with five separate active patent lawsuits, all based in East Texas (of course). Kind of makes you wonder if someone thinks that the models will actually show up to defend the company...
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
Filed Under: one-click, patent
Companies: acacia, amazon, apple, cordance, paypal, victoria's secret
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Frankly, if I saw something like this come across my desk as a lawyer, I would refuse to take the case. Why? Because the patent is almost CERTAIN to be declared null and void because of PRIOR WORK!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
End Patent Now.
It no longer serves the economic interests of the nation and only serves to line the pockets of lawyers.
As Slavery passed, so must Patent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[And Mike still wonders why he's not ruling the world...]
About a year and a half ago, Amazon apparently won that case.
[Without an incentive to invest, businesses simply will not invest in technology.]
Unfortunately, a judge effectively overruled the jury, saying that some of the claims the jury insisted were invalid were actually valid.
[How can you say that this has no value?]
Thanks to that, it appears that Cordance is back, and is suing Apple, PayPal and Victoria's Secret, claiming they all violate its one-click patent (6,757,710).
[That's pretty much akin to stealing from a store.]
The patent seems to be crazy vague.
[Typical example where without gatekeepers, the internet generates garbage.]
It's still stunning that anyone -- let alone two people -- can hold a patent for letting someone buy something with one click.
[I don't have time to site the case law now, but this clearly is not correct.]
Separately, the article notes that Victoria's Secret is currently dealing with five separate active patent lawsuits, all based in East Texas (of course).
[How many gaffers will starve because of this?!?]
Generated at www.FUDGenerator.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The incentive is not patents as various suscesfull enterprises have shown over the year just to name one that didn't depend on it for growth and it one of the most suscessful business stories of all times you have Microsoft, also you got Google, Red Hat, Makebot, Blender on the other hand of the spectrum limitations in competition create telecom lockdowns, unholy vertical and horizontal integration of corporations and so forth.
Until the 80's the phone inside your home in America wasn't yours, only after the monopoly was broken the market flourish and billions where created, taking hints from a few leaders of the industry is limiting the growth of the market not incentivizing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I tried to read the 129 pages of patent garbage and I disagree that its vague. It does seem, rather, all-encompassing.
I agree that patents are evil. Copyright is evil. Capitalism is evil. But our nation thrives on those three things, and the global economy is doing so as well.
I still say that the judges presiding over cases like these have stock in the companies they side with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Without an incentive to invest, businesses simply will not invest in technology
Patents are good for business and promote innovation...
Therefore:
New innovative business will be attracted to locals where patent protection is strongest...
ipso facto:
East Texas must have the greatest number of new innovative business in the world!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Capitalism...
Babies with bath-water:
Copyright has its VERY LIMITED place, patents too, though I've never understood allowing the patenting of an idea. If you have an idea for a weed-whacker, you should have to build the thing. But don't lump Capitalism in with these. The way our socioeconomic system is working now isn't capitalism, it's a train wreck. The basics of capitalism keep companies honest and provide the best of everything to the consumer (that's you).
Capitalism - Pure and Simple:
I own a small company, and, as does any business, I have competitors and customers. Each company has the option of offering either a better product/service than its competitor or a cheaper one. Sometimes it's both, but rarely. Each customer then has the option of spending more for better or less for cheaper. At the end of the day, a healty, symbiotic relationship is born, choice is provided and the consumer decides who wins.
Investing used to simply mean that you'd lend money to a company that you thought had merit. The company could then use the extra capital to improve its product or service, gain market share and become more profitable. The reward to the investor was a share in the company’s profit. If a company didn't perform well or was irresponsible, investors wouldn't invest and through genuine Darwinian survival of the fittest, it would die off and be replaced by the more adaptive, responsible, smarter company. The good of this is easy to see.
What Went Wrong:
In the post-modern world, greed has gotten out of hand (by “greed” I mean the blinding desire for personal gain at the subversion of all morality). What’s the reason? Simple; we, as a society, have abandoned the principles that made us great.
As a country America once held itself, as a whole (if not the individual), to a fairly clear moral code. The gradual departure from a creator-derived morality to the idea of a self-imposed culturally-relative morality has led us to where we teach and live by the latter yet expect treatment by the former.
If the finance major takes a philosophy class and learns that right and wrong have their origin in society and are therefore self-derived and inherently alterable, how dare you hold him to any morality but his own. If, however, morality has its origins in a creator, we're all bound to it and consequences can then be levied.
Capitalism and the American way of life (I say “American” with a solemn reference to the founding of this nation) could not have developed with a worldview other than the Judea-Christian beliefs in which it was framed. No other religion, no other belief, puts the emphasis on the individual's rights and freedoms. A pantheistic world view could not and has not spawned a society (even with its flaws and closet full of skeletons) as free and respectful of human rights as America.
God save the...
We need, quite simply, to get back to our roots as a nation that believes that morality is NOT something mankind created. The accountability that comes with a creator-derived morality is the only way a society as free as ours can survive. This cannot be done from Washington; morality cannot be legislated. It must be taught. It must be taught at home, in school, at the workplace. When this happens the result is a society where welfare isn’t necessary because divine-inspiration, not legislation, compels the wealthy to generosity and the capable to productivity.
-josh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hmmm
It's not that BLAM! you're out there, but that it make you feel awkward and you have to figure out where or when to fix it. After few at bats like that, I stuck with the old multiple hooks round back.
I imagine both kinds of closure were patented at one time. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Without an incentive to invest, businesses simply will not invest in technology
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Without an incentive to invest, businesses simply will not invest in technology
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: End Patent Now.
The issue with the current system is random, vague garbage keeps getting through the system and is assumed valid.
Nothing software or business process related should be allowable. They're not really inventions, just ways of doing things. In the case of software, it's just mathematical manipulation of "data" (whatever form that "data" is in). They also tend to define the inputs and outputs, not what actually occurs between input and output (so it's rather impossible to do something similar but not identical).
Patents should be short and descriptive using plain language and a clear description of the invention. They should claim the "invention" not every possible conceivable variation of the general idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hmmm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]