Victoria’s Secret, Apple And PayPal Sued For One-Click Checkout—But Not By Amazon

Written by Frank Hayes
March 23rd, 2011

How many times do you have to pay for 1-Click? That’s the question Victoria’s Secret, Apple and PayPal are facing. The three online retailers were sued on March 14 for using one-click checkout systems on their Web sites. But instead of Amazon, which spent years trying to get some legal respect for its 1-Click ordering patent, this time the lawsuit is coming from Cordance, which claims to have its own patent on the process of buying online with a single click—and which, it says, Amazon also infringes.

That’s got to be galling for Apple, which made a big display of licensing 1-Click from Amazon a decade ago. But it’s frustrating for all E-tailers, who thought they would only have to pay 1-Click tribute once, to Amazon. Now it looks like they may have to buy the same rights twice—unless Amazon (which isn’t named in last Monday’s lawsuit) can win its fight to be the only 1-Click game in town.

Confused? You’re not alone. Amazon and Cordance have been fighting over who gets to collect 1-Click patent royalties for years. Amazon’s U.S. patent #5,960,411 dates from 1999. Cordance’s U.S. patent #6,757,710 wasn’t issued until 2004, but Cordance originally applied before Amazon did.

In 2006, Cordance sued Amazon for infringing its patent. In 2009, a jury found (among other things) that Amazon’s 1-Click does infringe several claims of Cordance’s patent, but that those claims were all invalid. In February 2010, a judge decided that the jury was wrong, that Cordance’s patent is valid and that Amazon is infringing it. (Amazon is currently appealing that judge’s decision.)

A week later, the U.S. Patent Office ended a four-year challenge by deciding that Amazon’s 1-Click patent is valid, too.

That brings us to the March 14 lawsuit against the three retailers, which may not be going anywhere soon. Both that case and the ruling that Amazon is appealing are in the same federal court in Delaware. Because judges don’t like covering the same ground—especially in the same building—the three retailers may have to wait until Amazon finds out whether there really are two 1-Click patents.

For now, as murky as all this may be, one message is clear for online retailers: There are a lot of things you can buy in one step, but it looks like the right to 1-Click buying isn’t one of them.


Comments are closed.


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.