Triumph Of The 1-Click

Written by Frank Hayes
June 29th, 2010

It’s alive! Despite hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court would rescue retailers from patents like Amazon’s 1-Click, on Monday (June 28) the court decided not to outlaw the often-vague patents for business methods that bedevil retailers, especially online.

Yes, it’s business as usual in the wake of the decision: A patent for displaying products on grocery Web sites was announced the day after the ruling, and hundreds of patent lawsuits proceed apace. Still, the Supreme Court left the door open for the Patent Office, lower courts and Congress to tighten the rules for what can be patented?and how easily retailers can be sued.

Retailers are no strangers to patent threats, ranging from 1-Click to Card Activation Technologies’ more recent claim that every brick-and-mortar retailer that sells gift cards owes it patent royalties.

In the case of advertising company Grocery Shopping Network, its new patent is for part of an advertising service it already offers to retailers, including the Jewel, Lucky, Giant and Albertson’s grocery chains. When grocery stores display interactive flyers on their Web sites, customers can click on an item in the flyer (for example, Doritos on sale for $1.89) and see a list of all varieties available at a particular store (Cool Ranch, Fiery Habanero, Late Night Cheeseburger). Customers can then click on items to add them to a shopping list.

That’s much more specific and practical than many of the “process patents” that give so much trouble to retailers, especially E-tailers. Roughly 15,000 of those patents have been issued since they first began to surface in the 1980s, and many are so broad that one Supreme Court justice, Anthony Kennedy, has made it a point to write about the “potential vagueness and suspect validity of some of these patents.”

But it was Kennedy who turned out to be the swing vote this week as the court decided not to decide on process patents. In the court’s decision on the case known as Bilski, Kennedy wrote that “the Patent Act leaves open the possibility that there are at least some processes that can be fairly described as business methods that are within patentable subject matter.” Four other justices said they wanted to ban process patents entirely. But for now, they’re still legal.

For retailers, that means virtually nothing has changed on the patent front, and the patent misery continues. Process patents have made it ever-tougher for retailers to avoid stepping into someone else’s intellectual property in the course of doing business. That means retailers will continue to live in fear?a very reasonable fear?that almost anything innovative they do will attract a patent infringement lawsuit.

For that matter, retailers face the possibility of getting sued for things as “innovative” as adding value to gift cards or having a Web site. And E-tailers routinely settle Web site-related patent suits instead of putting up a fight, not because they believe the patents are valid but simply because a lawsuit would cost them millions of dollars.

And for every genuinely innovative patent?say, Amazon’s patent for taking videos of packages as they’re being packed or Apple’s patent application for selling concert tickets via iTunes?there are far too many vague, amorphous patents that have slipped through the system and continue to threaten retailers.

Where does that leave retailers? If the Supreme Court won’t fix the process patent mess, who will?

Congress might. The Senate is currently considering the Patent Reform Act of 2009. Two problems there, though: First, it strongly resembles the Patent Reform Acts of 2007 and 2005. Those bills went nowhere; that’s not a good sign for this time around. Second, the current version is largely aimed at limiting when and how patent lawsuits can be filed (good news in itself). But right now, it doesn’t have anything to say about abolishing process patents.

The Patent Office could help by tightening the screws on would-be patents that are vague, abstract or obvious. But that’s a tough proposition. Patent examiners face huge backlogs, in part because the number of patent applications has doubled since process patents were added to the mix. And even when a spurious patent application is rejected, appeals by a tenacious applicant can soak up examiners’ time. (That’s how the original Bilski patent application ended up before the Supreme Court: It was rejected all the way up the line. For the record, the Supreme Court rejected it too.)

Retailers’ best hope may still be with the courts. This week’s decision invited federal courts to look at narrower categories of process patents to see if, for example, everything in the category is an attempt to patent abstract ideas. That might thin down the number of patents plaguing retailers.

And with four justices ready to spike process patents altogether, one more vote swinging their way could eventually relieve retailers of their process patent pain.

But not this time around.


One Comment | Read Triumph Of The 1-Click

  1. Bill Bittner Says:

    Since most retailers have gone to a “buy” model instead of “build”, they are often insulated from patent infringement issues by their software contracts.

    Having said that, I agree the whole idea of software patents which has evolved from the replacement of springs and levers in machines with computer chips containing software programs has overreached as it moves to business processes. At one extreme you could say that all software is comprised of zeroes and ones and any software is just the obvious application of computer science. At the other extreme, you could say any computer program is the unique product of a programmer’s imagination and their creative skills. Neither of these two views is workable and the hazy middle is going to keep a lot of attorneys busy for many years.

    I guess the lesson here is if you know anyone starting out, a career as patent attorney is looking pretty good.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.