Case 3- Patent War on the Web: Amazon v. Barnes & Noble

In September of 1999, Amazon.com was awarded patent no. 5,960,411 ("411") for their "one-click" ordering system that was introduced in 1997. This system enabled consumers to be able to complete an online transaction in just a single action or "one click". Barnes & Nobles introduced its own ordering system where only a single action was needed to purchase a product called "Express Lane" in May of 1998. Amazon quickly sued Barnes & Noble in violation of patent 411 and sought a preliminary injunction which would prevent the Express Lane from being used. In December 1998, the District Court sided with Amazon and granted the preliminary injunction forcing Barnes & Noble to add a second step or action. Barnes & Noble appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit and in February of 2001 the U.S. District Court vacated the injunction on grounds of the validity of the 411 patent. Eventually the case was settle out of court by Amazon and Barnes & Noble under a confidential agreement.

-Kayla

Does the Amazon one-click method meet the standards for a valid patent?

According to our text a valid patent is "novel, unknown or unused by others, not referenced in publications, must satisfy the criteria on non-obviousness and must be useful" . According to this previous quote in our book this would classify the Amazon "one-click" system as a valid patent. I agree that this type of patent should have a limited time frame that is shorter then a traditional patent. Technology pushes us to progress and innovate to its highest level. This type of innovation should be able to be modeled especially since it would benefit and create further advances. The "one-click" system is merely an innovation of technology. The patent itself should be placed for the coding to make this system, not merely the idea of the "one-click" system. How is it fair, if you can create a system just as good if not better, you can't use it because there is a patent on the innovation of the "one-click" system?

- Michael LaPan, Adam Magiera

Do you agree with Bezos' suggestion that cyberpatents (or business method patents) should only last 3-5 years?
Yes, we agree that cyberpatents should have a limited time frame that is shorter then a traditional patent. Technology pushes us to progress and innovate to its highest level. This type of innovation should be able to be modeled especially since it would benefit and create further advances. Also, if one person or company were to have complete control over an idea or business method it could create a monopoly in their favor. On page 131, Spinello states "...from a purely economic perspective, business method patents are costly because they allow companies to reap monopoly rents and this leads to a deadweight loss of consumer surplus for society."  We also believe the duration of such patents should be shortened not just for this reason but also because as such patents accumulate, it becomes difficult to not accidentally infringe on these patents when creating a new business model.(Spinello, p.131) This would greatly slow innovation in the field of business causing harm to many more people than it helps which makes it unethical to keep the standards as they are today according to utilitarianism.
 -Michael Lapan, Kayla, Angela, James Hignite, Adam Magiera

Are online patents, such as the ones awarded to Amazon and Priceline, necessary for "the progress of science and the useful arts" in the context of cyberspace? Which philosophical theory best supports your position?
My take on this case study is that Amazon should not have been allowed to patent just the idea of the "one-click" checkout. I feel that if they were seeking a patent, it should have been on something more like the coding for the one-click checkout. Another argument against Amazon being allowed to patent this idea is that it doesn't pass the "non-obviousness" criteria that is required in order to be granted a patent. For something to be "non-obvious" it cannot be obvious to anyone "skilled in the art." (Spinello, pg 107) It seems like it would be obvious to other companies in the industry that using only one click would make the checkout process easier for customers.
You can use Utilitarianism in this case to argue that giving Amazon(or any company) a patent for just an idea would not promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. In fact it would do the opposite. Allowing a company to have a monopoly on an idea by way of a patent would promote more discord rather than happiness.
-Angela
I also believe that based on utilitarianism Amazon's patent was not ethical. This is because the patent was beneficial only to Amazon in helping increase their business but hurts all consumers by forcing them to take longer shopping everywhere online except Amazon. While granting an advantage like this is the intent of patents the business method patents are unique in that they harm consumers as well as rival businesses.
-James Hignite

 Some say that Amazon and other Internet companies like Priceline are adapting old ideas to new forum. Should a company be allowed to get a patent for doing this?
We agree that Internet companies are adapting old ideas to new forums. The one-click system could be compared to the express-lane or self-checkout at a grocery store. By taking this old idea and putting it in cyberspace and getting a patent is unethical. According to utilitarianism this would not promote the most good for the general good because it is not giving credit to the idea already formed. 
-Angela, Kayla

Sources:

Amazon's 1-Click Patent. N.d. Photograph. N.p. 22 Feb. 2014. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57412683-94/amazons-new-appstore-feature-could-be-patent-suit-bait/>

Spinello, Richard A. Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2014. N. pag. Print.