Amazon One-Click Patent Slides Through Reexamination

PatentLawPic951 After four-years of reexamination, Amazon's much-maligned 1-click patent is emerging from reexamination largely unscathed. In a recent notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate, the USPTO confirmed the patentability of original claims 6-10 and amended claims 1-5 and 11-26. The approved-of amendment adds the seeming trivial limitation that the one-click system operates as part of a "shopping cart model." Thus, to infringe the new version of the patent, an eCommerce retailer must use a shopping cart model (presumably non-1-click) alongside of the 1-click version. Because most retail eCommerce sites still use the shopping cart model, the added limitation appears to have no practical impact on the patent scope.

[Updated] The patent application was filed in 1997 and the patent is expected to expire in September, 2017. Amazon still has continuation applications pending that claim priority to the original 1997 filing.

I’m afraid that this case could become the poster-child for post-grant reform.

See:

90 thoughts on “Amazon One-Click Patent Slides Through Reexamination

  1. However, the combination of two standard shopping models is extremely obvious.

    Because we all know that one shopping model is never enough and we all like to pay for things twice. No wait, that isn’t right is it?

  2. Still *both* obvious *and* invalidated by prior art. I believe the prior art was likely noticed in the “shopping cart” restriction, because the prior art was *not* in shopping-cart applications. (It was a register-in-advance, then click-to-purchase cartless model, close to the hotel minibar model.) However, the combination of two standard shopping models is extremely obvious.

    Wish the courts would actually notice.

    Stuff like the RSA cryptosystem is an entirely different animal — that actually would deserve patent protection, except that it’s not patent-eligible subject matter because it’s pure mathematics.

  3. Dear fatalist,

    I’ve been saying this all along. A typical code slinging application developer can be distinguished from a frontier breaking software engineer who might very well be working on something patentable.

    The typical application developer that might use a third party library that IS patented probably has nothing to worry about, yet these are the types making the most noise against “software patents.”

    Patent envy I guess…

  4. I am sick of “software developers” who do not value the inventions of scientists and researchers which made their work possible

    For example, RSA patent made e-commerce and a TON of other things possible

    DO those anti-swpatent sw-developer folks really think that they couuld accidentally come up with RSA encryption on their own without help from those 3 PhD MIT guys ?

    Just give me a freaking break

    Tnis said, Amazon patent is nothing really exiting

    It’s just a clever use of cookies for e-commerce, not a groundbreaking algorithmic discovery

    However, relatively speaking, it is MUCH better than 90 percent of all IBM or MShit patents

  5. Curtis E. Bear – Reeeeaaallly cheesy. But only because I didn’t think it up – dam.

    Throw that bear into my shark tank please.

  6. That’s not like one-click because the act of selection and the act of payment are not one and the same act. Running a tab is not the same as making payment. To see the difference, order a few drinks on a tab, leave the bar, and see what happens. Credit is the same. You need to give the store money before you have a credit balance.

    What’s great about it? It’s a really simple way to make it twice as easy to separate the customer from his money.

  7. RedMonkey I can’t think of any transaction in which selection and purchase are truly merged into a single act.

    I thought of one. It took about five seconds. How about when you have credit or a running tab at a shop and you tell the shopkeeper “I’ll take that one.” And he hands it to you and you leave.

    One-click is a poster child for the proposition that there still exist great simple inventions

    What in the world is “great” about reducing the number of mouse clicks it takes to “buy” something on the internet from two to one?

    The following is a parody illustrating the speciousness of the above comparison with reference to the laser.

    The difference between a laser and a magnifying class is infinitely vast compared to the difference between clicking a mouse “only” once versus clicking it twice.

    Here’s an interesting question: what sort of fallout would you expect had the PTO invalidated the 1-click patent by analogizing shopping in the virtual world with shopping in the real world?

  8. “Sort of like when you go to the cafe you visit every day and the clerk has your coffee ready for you and rings you up without the typical back-n-forth that you’d get at a previously unvisited cafe.”

    And this invalidates any claim of the patent how?

  9. “sort of like when you go to the cafe you visit every day and the clerk has your coffee ready for you and rings you up without the typical back-n-forth that you’d get at a previously unvisited cafe.

    The difference is that 1-click uses a Powerful Computer Brain which changes everything and has no relationship whatsoever to the everyday experiences of human beings.”

    The following is a parody illustrating the speciousness of the above comparison with reference to the laser.

    “But what is a laser?”

    “Its a really bright focussed light”

    “…sort of like when go to the cafe you visit every day–take out your magnifying glass– and the clerk has your coffee ready for you and rings you up without the typical back-n-forth that you’d get at a previously unvisited cafe–and focus the sun’s light on a leaf and the leaf begins to burn–.

    The difference is that 1-click –the laser– uses a Powerful Computer Brain –high energy pump– which changes everything and has no relationship whatsoever to the everyday experiences of human beings–such as the magnifying glass example–.”

    And THAT is why the claim to the laser was a facially invalid piece of crap according to Mooney.

    LOL – is is too late for an abortion?

  10. But I can’t think of any transaction in which selection and purchase are truly merged into a single act.

    How about when you pull that soda can out of the hotel mini-bar?

  11. Your attachments give a “Page Cannot Be Displayed” error. Meaning than no one commenting here actually read the documents. Love a good uninformed opinions or twenty.

    Right, because patent professionals don’t know how to type “90/007,946″ into Public PAIR.

    Nice analysis.

  12. I used to think one-click might be obvious. But I can’t think of any transaction in which selection and purchase are truly merged into a single act. And I can’t honestly say, if someone asked me to implement an on-line store, that I would have gone beyond implementing what we see around us everyday, a shopping cart model.

    One-click is a poster child for the proposition that there still exist great simple inventions that are obvious only in hindsight.

  13. Your attachments give a “Page Cannot Be Displayed” error. Meaning than no one commenting here actually read the documents. Love a good uninformed opinions or twenty.

  14. “The difference is that 1-click uses a Powerful Computer Brain”

    Not only that, but clicking requires the user to move an appendage which, as AI can explain, thereby reduces anything to practice and gains the inventor a constitutional right to an injunction.

  15. I don’t order the same book over and over again from Amazon.

    Try that with an examiner, and he’ll be more than happy to tell you that your claim is not limited to books.

  16. Sorry, Moonpie. The Starbucks analogy doesn’t work for me. I don’t order the same book over and over again from Amazon. It’s a billing and shipping info thing.

  17. The reason that the “shopping cart model” limitation is “trivial,” is that you can’t really get the user’s billing information unless they have ordered before, or you make them go throught some kind of registration process.

    Sort of like when you go to the cafe you visit every day and the clerk has your coffee ready for you and rings you up without the typical back-n-forth that you’d get at a previously unvisited cafe.

    The difference is that 1-click uses a Powerful Computer Brain which changes everything and has no relationship whatsoever to the everyday experiences of human beings.

  18. Obnoxious, from dictionary.com:

    Usage Note: In traditional usage, disinterested can only mean “having no stake in an outcome,” as in Since the judge stands to profit from the sale of the company, she cannot be considered a disinterested party in the dispute. This usage was acceptable to 97 percent of the Usage Panel in our 2001 survey. But despite critical disapproval, disinterested has come to be widely used by many educated writers to mean “uninterested” or “having lost interest,” as in Since she discovered skiing, she is disinterested in her schoolwork. Oddly enough, “not interested” is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error. In our 2001 survey, 88 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence It is difficult to imagine an approach better designed to prevent disinterested students from developing any intellectual maturity. This is not a significantly different proportion from the 89 percent who disapproved of a similar usage in 1988.

    makomk has no personal stake in patents and knows he never will. He is therefore disinterested per the traditional usage.

  19. The zero click patent would be rejected over Columbia House’s Mail Order Music Club from the 1980s.

    The reason that the “shopping cart model” limitation is “trivial,” is that you can’t really get the user’s billing information unless they have ordered before, or you make them go throught some kind of registration process. So, it’s not so much the case, in my view, that other companies just happen to continue to use the “shopping cart model” along side the “one click model.” Rather, the shopping cart model is a much more desirable choice, and obtains the user’s registration from the initial ordering occurrence. I don’t see it as something that can easily be done without, while still providing the one-click capability.

  20. I wonder why Sony isn’t just copying Nintendos motion sensitive controllers. I wonder if IP has any role in this decision.

    If so, it would make a very good case to study, since we have Sony with light, Nintendo with tiny gyroscopes, and Microsoft wanting to do video interpretation.

    You academics that troll these boards. This would be a good paper.

  21. makomk:
    “In the current scenario, you still can’t start up with the exact same model as Amazon, or even an improved version, because Amazon has patents on important parts of the model that it can use to sue you into the ground. Then it can buy up any “innovative” patents on the cheap and you won’t see a penny. This is even more true in the software and electronics industries.”

    So you’re either completely disinterested in the patent system, or you’re an engineer with no business experience, right? In the hypothetical scenario that I set up (and you completely ignored), YOU have the one click patent or something similar and Amazon has no claims against you. That’s how start ups work in the real world.

    And why would you give your patent away on the cheap? Personally, I’d either start an Amazon competitor or market a license to Amazon, buy.com, newegg.com, etc., for a fair price. Giving it away on the cheap just seems dumb.

  22. Guess what patent expert is quoted in the article,

    I read what the patent expert in that article had to say, and I’m not surprised Dennis found his remarks convincing.

    And BTW, why would a patent expert suggest to the tech press that any amendment to the independent claims of GRANTED patents are “trivial”?

    1. It’s not all that unusual for issued claims to undergo amendment during reexam.

    2. Any amendment that doesn’t significantly change who or what in the real world infringes the patent and doesn’t address the part of the claim that gets everyone’s knickers in a twist is, for all intents and purposes, trivial.

  23. “I’m afraid that this case could become the poster-child for post-grant reform.”

    Why is that, did the tech press actually find a patent expert to quote in support of their hysterical headlines?

    Everyone, please read the techflash.com article Mr. Crouch gives a “hat tip” too.

    Guess what patent expert is quoted in the article, incorrectly and unbelievably stating the claims are “broad” because electronic commerce “still use shopping carts”? What? It is called the “one-click” patent for a reason, get it?

    Guess what expert overlooks how this patent survived two chances the federal circuit had to invalidate it, in the last case affirming a lower court summary judgment that the patent was still valid?

    And BTW, why would a patent expert suggest to the tech press that any amendment to the independent claims of GRANTED patents are “trivial”?

  24. The reason that this is an abomination is that the patent application admits as prior art the traditional multi-click shopping cart based ordering system, and such a system teaches all of:

    6. A client system for ordering an item comprising:
    an identifier that identifies a customer (it must somehow identify the customer; otherwise the system could not work);
    a display component for displaying information identifying the item (traditional shopping carts show you what is in the cart when you view the cart);
    a single-action ordering component that in response to performance of only a single action (the “send order” click of the multi-click shopping cart system), sends a request to a server system to order the identified item, the request including the identifier so that the server system can fulfill the generated order to complete purchase of the item (again, the traditional system must identify the user in order to be able to function); and
    a shopping cart ordering component that in response to performance of an add-to-shopping-cart action, sends a request to the server system to add the item to a shopping cart (this is a feature of traditional web shopping carts).

    The only part a traditional shopping cart does not teach is that the server system locates additional information needed to complete the order based on the identifier. It doesn’t specify what this additional information is. It could be anything. This claim should have at the very least been KSR’ed.

  25. “”I have heard rumors of a claim pending on N-click technology, however, where N is an “all natural number”.”

    I just invented i-click technology, where i is the imaginary number (-1)^1/2.

    P.S. you know I just 102b’ed someone a few years from now.”

    LOLOLOL.

  26. “I just invented i-click technology, where i is the imaginary number (-1)^1/2.”

    I would love to see the enablement on that one.

  27. After all, how do you start up with the exact same model as Amazon unless you have some difference that is going to be marketably better? And if you have that and no patent, why wouldn’t Amazon just copy you? Then what’s your advantage over Amazon?

    In the current scenario, you still can’t start up with the exact same model as Amazon, or even an improved version, because Amazon has patents on important parts of the model that it can use to sue you into the ground. Then it can buy up any “innovative” patents on the cheap and you won’t see a penny. This is even more true in the software and electronics industries.

  28. “I have heard rumors of a claim pending on N-click technology, however, where N is an “all natural number”.”

    I just invented i-click technology, where i is the imaginary number (-1)^1/2.

    P.S. you know I just 102b’ed someone a few years from now.

  29. Business investment in Europe is worse than in the US because Europe did not grant a patent on the 1-click method.

    I have heard rumors of a claim pending on N-click technology, however, where N is an “all natural number”.

  30. So in your world absent of patents, you’re going to start up a new internet retailer with one click purchasing? What’s your plan for getting the startup capital when you tell investors that you have no protection for this business model? Do you think they’re just going to ignore the fact that the household name with a huge market share is not going to just copy your idea?

    Is it so hard to believe that at one point, business models were not patented? Gosh, how did anyone make any money back then?

  31. Hobbes, you’re completely correct. Also, it’s not like the inventors weren’t getting a salary to work on exactly this kind of thing. Still, it does stink that you don’t really own your intellectual product when you join up with a company even if just from a sentimental point of view.

    IANAE, I too have found that most things are obvious 10-15 years after they’ve been brought to market and I’ve read the patent application. Which is why, as you point out, we have rules against hindsight analysis.

  32. “my money is that this will become the poster-child for subject-matter reform in the courts.”

    TJ!!

    I said, tall skinny latte, pronto!

  33. The best user interfaces are designed by a very small team of users and software developers, led by one ringmaster at least somewhat conversant in both fields.

    They should use whiteboards and yellow stickies (or similar) to prototype what the users want to do so they can see how it will work. The engineers learn what the users really want. Meanwhile, the engineers get to explain to the users why XYZ can’t be done, so the users learn what is computable in their domain.

    They should converge on a pretty good design before a single line of code is written.

  34. Probably a more interesting question is why it took four people to invent one click.

    Maybe simple inventions are like simple designs: the simpler the design, the bigger the team of professional designers it takes to create it. Or so some professor once claimed.

  35. “That’s why ‘gosh, that seems pretty obvious to me’ is rarely sufficient evidence to invalidate a patent, no matter how many times you repeat it on the internet.”

    If you say it in baboonese, even one time, on the internet, then it is sufficient.

  36. Sad thing is, the real “inventor” (not amazon the corporation) is probably some underpaid developer who got let go in one of the economic downturns of the past decade and didn’t get much compensation for his idea…

    Maybe that’s a little sad, but the real inventor likely pocketed an award of two or three thousand dollars, and then didn’t have to put up any of the hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute, litigate, and re-prosecute this patent. You don’t usually get rich by letting someone else assume all of the risk. That’s the downside of the employer-employee deal. The upside is that you don’t have to take those risks.

  37. Think of what it would mean to Writers (of books, not Software) if trivial things as “I”, “You” and such were patented and that’s the level this patent is on par with.

    A lot of trivial things aren’t trivial till someone invents them. That’s why “gosh, that seems pretty obvious to me” is rarely sufficient evidence to invalidate a patent, no matter how many times you repeat it on the internet.

    But don’t take my word for it. I’m apparently anti-patent.

    Sad thing is, the real “inventor” (not amazon the corporation) is probably some underpaid developer who got let go in one of the economic downturns of the past decade and didn’t get much compensation for his idea…

    One of the inventors is a Mr. Jeffrey P. Bezos. I wonder what he’s been doing with his life since the layoff.

    Probably a more interesting question is why it took four people to invent one click.

  38. Sad thing is, the real “inventor” (not amazon the corporation) is probably some underpaid developer who got let go in one of the economic downturns of the past decade and didn’t get much compensation for his idea…

  39. Peter Pan, in China, for years there have been no copyright or patent rights. Everything belongs to the collective. This is the anti-patent approach you advocate. Why is all of the development done outside of China?

    Our founding fathers are smarter than you.

  40. “Think of what it would mean to Writers (of books, not Software) if trivial things as “I”, “You” and such were patented and that’s the level this patent is on par with.”

    WOW!!! REALLY????!!!!! One click ordering is as essential to software development as “I” and “You” are to writers???!!!!

    I didn’t know that. You’ve convinced me.

    Can you give us some more examples of all of the wonderful innovation software developers would have provided us, all free of charge of course, if those evil b#stards at Amazon didn’t have their vile one click patent? I’m sure the list is LONG.

  41. @Pan

    Nothing is stopping you from approaching those software companies that prevent your use of their “trivial methods” and paying fair value for the rights to use those “trivial methods.”

    Oh wait, yes there is. You don’t want to pay for it. I guess one man’s trivial method, is another’s treasure.

  42. All the man-hours spent on this by a USPTO that was highly motivated to blow this thing away.

    Maybe it was nonobvious on the filing date….

  43. In a Machiavellian way, if the PTO really wanted the Supreme Court to make Bilski stronger and Patent Reform to pass, it would have allowed this patent without modification. Not only will this become the poster child for patent reform in Congress, my money is that this will become the poster-child for subject-matter reform in the courts.

  44. As a Software Developer I can just tell you how sad it makes me to read these comments.

    Is it really true that some people are so entrenched in this patent system, that they don’t see how much it hurts innovation?
    Just google for Bill Gates famous quotes about Software Patents. Imagine yourself being a lawyer and not being allowed to use trivial methods to do your job, because they are patented. You will never be able to have your own business, because you are unable to do your job. That’s what happens in the Software Industry.
    Think of what it would mean to Writers (of books, not Software) if trivial things as “I”, “You” and such were patented and that’s the level this patent is on par with.

    Gosh, this makes me so sick.

  45. “Actually at trial it was established that at least one other person had previously ‘invented’ it.”

    Gotta love that 35 USC 102(g).

  46. “Phillip Greenspun… He’s a huge name in the software field, teaches at MIT and wrote several books as well as having started a few businesses.”

    It’s too bad he didn’t testify as an expert for BN. The expert who did testify for BN stated that one click ordering was an obvious use of cookies. When he was asked by Amazon’s attorney whether he personally had ever thought of using cookies for one click ordering his answer was: no.

  47. I don’t see why this patent would be a poster child for post grant reform. Indeed, it is the poster child that reexamination works (although this one was much slower than usual). Prior art was submitted, claims were amended and intervening rights resulted.

    If the new limitations are so trivial, simply file a new request proving your case.

  48. “Why is it an abomination? Because it’s a software patent? It’s a clever idea, nobody else thought of it first, so why shouldn’t Amazon be allowed to protect it?”

    Actually at trial it was established that at least one other person had previously “invented” it. I posted his site on some of the other threads where he talked about being called into the trial and explaining the software he wrote before the case was filed by several years. The company he was working for at the time went bankrupt or something happened and the code was never released.

    Phillip Greenspun I believe is how he spells his name. He’s a huge name in the software field, teaches at MIT and wrote several books as well as having started a few businesses.

    link to philip.greenspun.com

  49. Anyone upset with the one-click shopping model has never tried to order articles using a well-known online auction website and a well-known secure payment system! (Names withheld to avoid allegations of defamation).

  50. The approved-of amendment adds the seeming trivial limitation that the one-click system operates as part of a “shopping cart model.”

    In other words, the broadest issued claims were invalid.

    I agree with Dennis that the added limitation does “seem trivial.” But since we all know that shopping cart models did not exist until the invention of the Internet in 1997 and nobody ever bought anything without being asked to confirm the purchase, it’s clear why this amendment works.

    I’m afraid that this case could become the poster-child for post-grant reform.

    That would be a shame because there are so many cases that are worse than this.

  51. IANAE, you either have serious reading comprehension issues, or you’re being intentionally dishonest. I hope it’s just a reading deficiency and I wish you luck in overcoming it. Eliminating patent rights is not Marxist because I disagree with it, it’s Marxist because Marx said it was.

    So in your world absent of patents, you’re going to start up a new internet retailer with one click purchasing? What’s your plan for getting the startup capital when you tell investors that you have no protection for this business model? Do you think they’re just going to ignore the fact that the household name with a huge market share is not going to just copy your idea?

  52. You guys should really think this Marxist stuff through.

    You dismiss competing on price as Marxist? Do you think everything you disagree with is Marxist?

    How are you going to keep your internet retail site cleaner or have more cashiers?

    You keep your site “cleaner” and have more “cashiers” by creating an unobstructed path between where the buyer finds his product and the exit. Like, say, fewer clicks in between.

    That’s never been done before, right? Seems like a nifty business idea.

  53. Disco, if you buy an Acme Model 1 for 100 dollars direct from Acme, and Amazon buys an Acme Model 1 for 100 dollars direct from Acme, how do you plan on selling it for less than $100.01 dollars and remaining in business?

    You realize that when you go to Target, that their prices might be slightly higher than Walmart right? Why do you go to Target? Because of the OTHER things they do like have enough cashiers on hand and keep the stores clean. How are you going to keep your internet retail site cleaner or have more cashiers? The differences and innovations are in locating products and buying them. If you can’t protect that model, then there’s no point in trying because a smart competitor like Amazon is just going to copy you (assuming that there’s no rule, like say a patent, against it).

    You don’t patent your sentence phrasing because it’s not patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101.

    You guys should really think this Marxist stuff through. These ideas fail because they fly in the face of human nature, the market, and common sense.

  54. “Why don’t I just patent the particular way that I phrase sentences and start launching legal bombs at anyone who attempts to copy me?”

    Why don’t you?

  55. “Um, your advantage over Amazon should come through price competition, shouldn’t it?”

    And when Amazon undercuts your price just long enough to drive you out of business, what’s your advantage then?

  56. Um, your advantage over Amazon should come through price competition, shouldn’t it? Why don’t I just patent the particular way that I phrase sentences and start launching legal bombs at anyone who attempts to copy me?

  57. While I also find Dennis’s comment out of place, he’s right. Truth doesn’t matter anymore. Everyone is out to wield the government against their competitors, and striking down the patent system is a great way to ensure that only the entrenched entities can ever compete in any business. After all, how do you start up with the exact same model as Amazon unless you have some difference that is going to be marketably better? And if you have that and no patent, why wouldn’t Amazon just copy you? Then what’s your advantage over Amazon?

    Making patents useless to sole inventors and small entities is very dangerous territory for American enginuity and the economy.

  58. “I’m afraid of one-click. It’s only one click away from zero-click, and I just don’t have room for that much stuff.

    Posted by: A plurality of thresholding units

    Are you married too? I agree, one click is plenty aweful.

  59. “A re-exam cannot be initiated by citing a 101 patentable subject matter issue…”

    But, but, but, this is clearly not patentable subject matter because it’s so obvious!!!!

  60. A re-exam cannot be initiated by citing a 101 patentable subject matter issue, but can such issues be addressed by the PTO during reexam even if the patentee amends the claims?

    I believe the answer to be no. The PTO is essentially stuck with 102/103 rejections and making sure no 112 problems are introduced.

  61. I’m afraid of one-click. It’s only one click away from zero-click, and I just don’t have room for that much stuff.

  62. I think one reason this is a surprise is that, as I recall, the CAFC had reversed the grant of a widely reported preliminary injunction based on this patent years ago because the court below had not considered some alleged prior art raised by the enjoined party. What happend in that litigation after that? Was it settled, or stayed for this reexamination?

  63. “Amazon still has continuation applications pending that claim priority to the original 1997 filing.”

    We need some new rules to prevent this abusive practice of wearing down the examiner!!!!!!

  64. “When you consider the number of references in the re-exam file, it is surprising that none of them, or no simple combination, provides convincing evidence of obviousness. Perhaps there is more in this patentthan meets the eye, simple though it appears in hindsight.”

    I’ve told everybody I know not to worry about this patent as it’s facially invalid cr$p.

  65. Patent scope, what scope? Just use two clicks. That’s what happens at most websites, shop much?

  66. “I’m afraid that this case could become the poster-child for post-grant reform.”

    What is this comment supposed to mean?

  67. When you consider the number of references in the re-exam file, it is surprising that none of them, or no simple combination, provides convincing evidence of obviousness. Perhaps there is more in this patentthan meets the eye, simple though it appears in hindsight.

  68. “A shopping cart model is the same as a drink tab at a bar. Anyone who has offered to pay their tab with a single gesture of their hand has done something similar.”

    Wow! That’s great. I hope you get to represent the next accused infringer of this patent and put that invalidity theory to the test.

  69. A shopping cart model is the same as a drink tab at a bar. Anyone who has offered to pay their tab with a single gesture of their hand has done something similar.

  70. “I wonder if he still wants to be considered as one of the serious posters on this site.”

    He never wanted to be considered serious — his goal was to be the most snarkiest. Not only did he acheive that status, he also acheived the status of being the biggest patent blog troll in the history of patent blogs.

    It seems that computer patents are making a comeback. All we need is Bilski to come out with a decision — albeit striking down the business method claims, but using language that clearly puts computer-related inventions squarely within the scope of statutory subject matter. Once that happens, the moon face troll will be unhappy for years to come.

  71. Why is it an abomination? Because it’s a software patent? It’s a clever idea, nobody else thought of it first, so why shouldn’t Amazon be allowed to protect it?

  72. I’m seem to recall that this site’s resident baboon was beating his chest and proclaiming the death of this patent after the first Office Action in this reexam.

    Guess he was wrong.

    I wonder if he still wants to be considered as one of the serious posters on this site.

    BWWWAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAA

  73. Whaoo !

    “The patent application was filed in 1997 and the patent is expected to expire in September, 2107. ”

    Denis, I believe that you made a typing error !

    Thank you for the blog.

Comments are closed.