Amazon com oneclick Internet and software patent law

Amazon. com “one-click” Internet and software patent law Mike Foley Matt Landis Matt Clark Farman Syed

Background "The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius. " - Abraham Lincoln (only U. S. President to be issued a patent) • Patent debate not new • U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 w Are we the first group to mention this? • Patents originally unpopular • Popular periods: w Industrial Revolution w 1970’s+ (biotech) w 1990’s+ (computers)

Software Patent History Patent requirements • 1. 2. 3. 4. Statutory New Useful Non-obvious Software originally non-patentable • w Mathematical formula (not statutory) 1990’s - Patent Office changes policy • w Processes tied to “real-world” can be patented

Amazon. com and “ 1 -Click” • 1997 - Amazon applies for “ 1 -Click” patent w Purchasing process for repeat ordering without re-entry of personal information • BN implements a similar process called “Express Lane” • Amazon sues BN for infringement w “Express Lane” violates “ 1 -Click” patent • Settled out of court

Issues • Prior Art w Burden of proof w Sufficient amount • Obviousness • Usefulness • Ambiguity

Amazon. com’s perspective • Insufficient prior art w Seattle court case w bountyquest. com • Useful w BN w Apple

Amazon. com’s perspective • Self-defense w BN • Non-obvious method w Lockwood, Web Basket w Little prior art w Patent application in 1997 • Need to support patent system w Encourages future patentees

Ethical Cons • Amazon’s enforcement of their patent is hypocritical w Several free yet patentable products helped Amazon in early stages w CEO of Amazon calls for patent reform, yet won’t give up patent in question • Patent enforcement is detrimental to technological innovation

Legal Issues Against Amazon • Single “click” occurs after customer has decided to purchase a given item w Specifically, after locating an item’s page on the site • Problem: Patent is based on the process user’s state of mind

Hypothetical Situations Customer 1: • Goes to index page • Finds an item of interest • Reads item description, decides to purchase, clicks on “Buy” button Customer 2: • Goes to index page • Finds an item of interest • Decides to purchase prior to reading description, goes to item page, clicks on “Buy” Customer 3: • Knows what he wants to buy • Finds link on index page • Goes to item page, clicks “Buy” • First click on Index doesn’t count… why? Customer 4: • Goes to index page • Finds an item of interest • Reads item description, goes back to index, browses around, comes back to item page, decides to buy • Only Customer 1 fits Amazon’s process paradigm w Key is at what point the “decision to buy” is made

Other Legal Issues • Prior art may exist w Compuserve “Trend” system w “Web Basket” – 1996 w Japan set to reject patent § Prior art: “User Interface Design” by Alan Cooper • Patent may be obvious w Other technical professionals claim it is just “a rudimentary implementation of HTTP cookies”

Social Implications • Setting of case precedence • Empowering of large companies w Large legal teams for patent protection • Public examination (online forums, etc. ) • Outcry from civil rights communities • Satirical Responses

Future • Patent regulations changing • Increase in likelihood of software patents/business methods • Continued scrutiny from developer groups • Examination of possible patent infringements by businesses

Sources • http: //www. gnu. org/philosophy/amazon. html • http: //www. bitlaw. com/software-patent/history. html • http: //www. around. com/patent. html • http: //www. op. net/~pbd/amazon-1 click. html • http: //www. thestandard. com/article/0, 1902, 24439, 00. html • http: //www. oreilly. com/news/patent_archive. html • http: //www. wired. com/news/technology/0, 1282, 34887, 00. html • http: //www. theregister. co. uk/content/23/24345. html • http: //www. gcwf. com/articles/ipu_sum 00_1. html