Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You should try reading that patent sometime before you claim it isn't reasonable.

It is profoundly dishonest to characterize patents using a trivial phrase like "one-click" and then pretend like that also means that the patent is itself trivial.

I know why you do it- it fits your ideology.

But it doesn't fit reality.



Would you care to explain which part of this patent is not trivial?

http://www.google.com/patents?id=O2YXAAAAEBAJ

Until then I'll have to assume we live in different realities.


Is that actually the entirety of the patent? If so, that is a major-league joke.

You mean a client communicates with a server with information, then returns some information? How delightfully ingenious!


You think Barnes and Noble copied the novel implementation of one-click, as disclosed by the patent, and didn't use bog standard database and cookie techniques?


You cannot implement "one-click" using "bog standard database and cookie techniques".

Your idea of what this patent covers is incorrect. It is not a patent on the feature of "press a button to make a purchase and skip the checkout process" or "have a cookie so we know who you are".


I'll bite - what parts of the patent can't be done with bog-standard techniques? I took a look and it seems obvious in retrospect, though so many things do.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: