By Lori Enos E-Commerce Times
03/15/01 10:31 AM PT
Even though BountyQuest's hunters failed to
discover technology that clearly invalidates
Amazon's 1-Click patent, several entries allegedly
came close.
High Performance, Low Cost Solutions for eCommerce Surviving and thriving in today's competitive online retailing world is not getting easier. This white paper provides insight on technology that scales eCommerce applications to support more advanced end-user functionality and a rapidly growing user base.
A contest posted on BountyQuest asking
for examples of technology that would invalidate Amazon's 1-Click
patent ended Wednesday without
a winner, but with some damage to the intellectual property claim,
according to publisher Tim O'Reilly, who launched the initiative.
The submissions from the 1-Click bounty hunters included
a 1993 Doonesbury cartoon, a reference to the Norm character from the
TV show "Cheers" saying "Get me a beer," a CD-Rom from a Montreal bank, and
various existing patents.
Although no submission was able to show an earlier invention that
matched Amazon's 1-Click technology, as described in the patent,
some of the documents offered did show single-step
ordering in other shopping environments.
According to a statement on the BountyQuest
site, that evidence "should make it far
more difficult for Amazon to enforce its exclusive right to 1-Click ordering."
"Simply put, the threat to e-commerce posed by the 1-Click
patent is now severely diminished," BountyQuest said.
Patent Posse
BountyQuest, a Web site that invites
companies and individuals to post rewards for technical information that
can be used to challenge a patent claim, was founded in October
by O'Reilly, together with
Amazon chief executive officer Jeff Bezos and Boston patent attorney
Charles Cella.
Reportedly, Bezos pays for the patent-busting site out of his
own pocket, and not with Amazon's funds.
Court Loss
Last month, Amazon lost a
round in its patent lawsuit with Barnesandnoble.com
when the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., lifted a
preliminary injunction that had barred Barnesandnoble.com from
using a one-click Web shopping technology on its site.
In the ruling, the court said that Barnesandnoble.com "raised
substantial questions as to the validity" of Amazon's 1-Click
patent, which allows returning customers to buy a product
without repeatedly filling out personal information.
Techies Wanted
In October, O'Reilly offered a US$10,000 bounty through
BountyQuest to anyone who could provide artwork or other documentation
proving that Amazon was not the first to come up with the idea
of one-click Web shopping.
"There was no Bounty winner, mainly because the 1-Click patent
is specific to the Web and describes not just a single-mouse
click system of ordering, but also claims many technical
details, including the presentation of a user name and partial
shipping and billing information. If you don't match all those
elements, you can't invalidate such a patent in its entirety,"
BountyQuest said.
Gadfly Goading
O'Reilly has been a longtime critic of Amazon's 1-Click
patent. In an open letter to Bezos in February 2000, O'Reilly
wrote, "One-click ordering is a clever marketing slogan.
However, your patent fails to meet even the most rudimentary
tests for novelty and non-obviousness to an expert in the
field."
However, after examining the evidence and the submissions
received through BountyQuest, O'Reilly was forced to conclude,
according to the latest posting, that "the breadth,
depth, and quality of the prior art documents that my Bounty
turned up does, in fact, indicate that one-click shopping on
the Web wasn't nearly as obvious as we all assumed it was."
O'Reilly added: "In fact, all the prior art that was submitted
specifically for the Web confirms Amazon's belief that they
were doing something original."
Some Came Close
Even though the bounty hunters failed to
disqualify Amazon's patent, several entries came close,
including a patent issued in 1995 to Thomson Consumer
Electronics for a one-click shopping mechanism for interactive
TV. O'Reilly noted that the language used in the Thomson
patent "uses language that matches [Amazon's patent claim]
almost exactly."
Other patents that came close to challenging Amazon's claim
included a 1998 patent for an e-commerce system using data
terminals, and a 1994 patent for a two-way radio shopping
system.
O'Reilly said in a conference call with reporters
that he may pay a bounty to some of the bounty hunters who came
close to invalidating Amazon's patent.