

Telstra scores 1-click patent win over Amazon - astrec
http://www.zdnet.com.au/telstra-scores-patent-win-over-amazon-339314845.htm

======
nikcub
note that Telstra are not challenging Amazon on behalf of freedom loving web
users around the world, their claim is that they invented 1-click first

they are both being dicks

~~~
hugh3
So? The end result can't be "patent gets transferred to Telstra", since
Telstra didn't apply for a patent in the first place. If Telstra is shown to
have "invented" one-click first then the patent will be nullified and the
invention enters the public domain, right?

------
tybris
I'm confused
[http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Telstra-l...](http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Telstra-
loses-Amazon-patent-ruling-report-pd20110510-GQQCA?OpenDocument)

~~~
distillerykid
As is so often the case in legal matters, the difference between 'win' and
'loss' is a matter of perspective.

Don't celebrate too soon, because the Australian 1-click patent isn't dead.
It's not even resting, or pining for the fjords. It is alive and well,
slightly scuffed, but still broader in scope than in any other jurisdiction in
which it has been allowed.

See this article (and links within) for an explanation of how a win can still
be a loss.
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/12/amazon_telstra_paten...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/12/amazon_telstra_patent_law/)

Incidentally, the costs that can be awarded in a matter before the Australian
Patent Office are strictly limited by regulation. Despite the length and
complexity of the proceedings, the costs awarded are unlikely to much exceed
$10,000. Not an amount that either Amazon or Telstra will care about (and, at
a guess, less than 10% of what the case actually cost each party).

------
hessenwolf
"lacks novelty [and] an inventive step" Nicely put.

------
pmccool
Bear in mind that this is a decision of a delegate of the Commissioner of
Patents. This decision won't bind anyone except, presumably, the Commissioner
of Patents. Its value as a legal precedent anywhere else in the world is
roughly zero.

~~~
tjmc
IANAL, but Australia and the US have a free trade agreement that specifically
includes patent rights and one of the strongest arguments against its
ratification here was that Australian developers would be subject to frivolous
patent troll lawsuits just as they are there.

If that is the case (a big if), I suppose there could be some legal
implication in the US, but you'd have to ask a patent lawyer with intimate
knowledge of the FT agreement to be sure.

~~~
gavinballard
In the IP sphere, free trade agreements are more often focused on the types of
laws countries must put in place to protect (or limit, depending on your point
of view :)) IP _within their own country_. So, for example, the US-Australian
FTA requires that both countries provides for copyright to exist for at least
the author's life + 70 years, or that the only grounds for the revocation of a
patent are those that would mean the initial filing was invalid.

The USFTA doesn't automatically mean that Australian IP decisions gain legal
significance in the US, or vice versa. For this decision to actually have any
impact on Amazon's patent in the US, someone would have to litigate it. The
Australian decision could certainly be used as evidence in that litigation (as
the questions of novelty would be similar), but as noted about would not have
any binding authority.

~~~
tjmc
Thanks for the clarification. A bit off-topic but are you sure about the
author's life + 70 years copyright agreement? I remember during the
controversy where copies of Orwell's "1984" was remotely wiped off a number of
Kindle's, there was some discussion about how Orwell's works were now out of
copyright in Australia (and elsewhere) but are not in the US. (eg.
<http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/>)

~~~
gavinballard
Yup - that's one of the thing the USFTA changed when in came into force in
2005. The old restriction of +50 was changed to +70. See
[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/...](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s33.html).

------
Joakal
What the, software patents are allowed in Australia?

~~~
jdub
Yes... sadly, Australia jumped in early on applicability to software. IBM's
fault, natch. The case was in 1992, confirmed by high court in 1994. The USA
didn't fuck it up until 1998.

------
foobarbazetc
Wow. This is huge and this can set a precedent to get the patent killed in the
US as well.

One of the worst patents ever granted.

~~~
chc
Really? That seems unlikely. Foreign legal decisions can set precedent for US
court rulings? Are there any instances of that actually happening?

~~~
iwwr
Interestingly, if Telstra has _any_ US assets, servers or domains, they can be
seized.

------
RyanKearney
I'm going to file a patent for a 3-click checkout system, designed to provide
just the right amount of user input and confirmation.

------
gcb
Good thing for amazon.

don't know anyone who actually set up one-click on purpose.

i'm a fan of the subscription on the other hand. Even tough i fear they could
use for timely price increments. e.g. 70% of the people that subscribe to
product A choose to deliver on the first week of the month. than for that week
that product price will jump 10%, since it's already 'sold' and then go back
to being the cheaper amazon price.

Maybe i will patent this... just in case.

~~~
daeken
I use one-click on a near daily basis. Go to a product, click local express
checkout, and I'm done. Makes my life easy.

~~~
pkamb
Sign up for free Amazon Prime with a .edu email, it changes everything.

~~~
gcb
ha! free amazon prime... yeah, that change my opinion on one click.

without that, good riddance.

