back to article Gutting of Amazon patent was helped by Amazon-owned company

The New Zealand performance artist who brought down’s one-click patent said that he gained much of his information from a subsidiary of Amazon itself. He also said that he acted because so little happens in New Zealand that he was bored. Peter Calveley told technology law podcast OUT-LAW Radio that he had gathered …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    US patent law forbids ...

    "US patent law forbids the identification of earlier versions of an invention – called prior art – by third parties"

    Why? That's stupid.

    But then, so is MOST of US patent law. Can't allow the TRUTH to get in the way of bogus patents when it comes from third parties, can we. Oh no.

    I guess USPO knows that if third parties were allowed to dispute patents, 99% of us patents would be proved invalid. That's the only reason I can think of for having such a daft, and very obviously WRONG, law.

  2. Anonymous Coward

    US patent system is a joke

    Has anyone patented clicking yet?

    I don't mean on a web link, i mean the physical act of clicking a mouse button.

    I'm on it....don't worry, i will only charge 1cent per click

  3. Peter Gordon


    Why the hell would anyone challenge their OWN patent? What sort of idiot would go looking for prior art and then use it to revoke their own patent?

    I don't get it.

  4. JK
    Thumb Up

    Re: US patent law forbids ...

    Agreed. It needs to be chucked. Along with most patents.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    regards 3rd party prior art

    I think the argument is that if you allowed 3rd party challenges during the application process then companies would just spam the patent office with daft prior art examples to slow down the granting of their competitors patents. Sadly this reasoning is both utterly stupid and perfectly true. I believe it was Paris Hilton who observed that this seemingly impossible state of affairs can only ever be reached in situations where huge sums of money are involved (and who are we to argue)

  6. Colin Sharples


    The meeja here in Godzone strangely neglected to mention that he did it because NZ is such a boring place. They just had the angle about wanting revenge for his late book order. Funny that...

  7. Colin Jackson
    Paris Hilton


    "they’re just not applying themselves to opposing patents when they really could"

    Maybe because they have a life. Disturbingly, I'm planning on moving to NZ next year - this is the first time I've heard it's such a boring place even opposing patents is more interesting :(

    As Paris Hilton once said, "Sic Transit Gloria Gaynor".

  8. crayon

    @US patent law forbids ...

    "I guess USPO knows that if third parties were allowed to dispute patents, 99% of us patents would be proved invalid."

    The USPTO is self-funded by the application fees. Hence it would be in their interests to grant as many patents as possible. Who cares if they're invalidated later.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020