ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Amazon's one-click shopping patent"
m (→Prior art: less ambiguous) |
m (* [http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000312mag-patents.html Patently absurd], a 2000 article in the New York Times) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Amazon's "'''one-click shopping'''" patent became infamous both because it's trivial and because it's clearly a [[business method]]. | + | [[Amazon]]'s "'''one-click shopping'''" patent became infamous both because it's trivial and because it's clearly a [[business method]]. |
==Status in various regions== | ==Status in various regions== | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-click 1-click] | * Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-click 1-click] | ||
| + | * [http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/software-patents/amazon.html Description of the history of the 1-click patent] | ||
| + | * [http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000312mag-patents.html Patently absurd], a 2000 article in the New York Times | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 08:30, 1 August 2009
Amazon's "one-click shopping" patent became infamous both because it's trivial and because it's clearly a business method.
Status in various regions
- USA: granted USA alternative link
- Australia: Granted (according to AIPLA)[1]
- New Zealand: Granted, then Peter Calveley wipes away Amazon One Click Patent, but it's rumoured to have been reinstated later.
- Canada: Refuses 1-click and business methods in general
- European Patent Office: According to FFII[2]: "The application reached the third stage of examination (A3), i.e. it was recognised as referring to a patentable invention and a full novelty examination was conducted" but after controversy in the USA and new prior art, the patent was rejected. But FFII also notes that "In 2001 the patent application was split into two new applications, of which one was granted and one is still pending." The patent granted in 2001, EP0927945, was revoked in 2007.[3]
Prior art
In response to Tim O'Reilly's $10,000 bounty for anyone who could find prior-art to invalidate the 1-click patent, contributors found existing patents on: [1]
- 1-click TV shopping[2]
- the use of a remote data terminal to place orders[3]
- single-action ordering during radio broadcasts[4]
In 2006 Cordance Corp., who have an earlier patent that they claim covers the 1-click shopping idea, sued Amazon for patent infringement. The court case will take place in the second half of 2009.[5]
External links
- Wikipedia: 1-click
- Description of the history of the 1-click patent
- Patently absurd, a 2000 article in the New York Times
