Amazon 1-Click At Center Of U.S.-Euro Online Collision

Written by Frank Hayes
July 13th, 2011

Amazon’s 1-Click patent is still obvious in Europe. Last month, the European Patent Office published its decision on Amazon’s patent application, which was rejected by an examiner in 2007. After Amazon appealed that rejection, a five-person board concluded that the examiner was right—to the EPO, 1-Click is nothing new. That decision creates an interesting gap in E-Commerce patent law, because the decision comes just months after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to strike down the much-loathed patent.

The European decision also points out the increasing legal split between U.S. and European E-Commerce requirements. For example, in the U.S., one-click checkout requires a license from Amazon, but cookies can be used routinely for customer tracking. In Europe, 1-Click is unpatented, but many cookies will soon require an opt-in in E.U. countries. The further the two markets drift apart legally, the more complicated cross-border E-tailing becomes.

The 1-Click rejection came after a patent appeals board decided 1-Click lacks an “inventive step,” in part based on information from U.S. magazine articles published in 1996 and 1997 about using cookies and shopping carts in E-Commerce. Although Amazon’s approach went farther “to reduce the number of user interactions involved in selecting items, which makes E-Commerce easier, faster and more comfortable, and also to reduce the amount of sensitive information sent over the Internet, which may be intercepted, in the Board’s view the skilled person would have tried to solve these problems because they are both explicitly mentioned” in one of the magazine articles, the board concluded.

“The obvious trade-off between the two processes, namely security vs. simplicity, cannot establish an inventive technical contribution,” the appeals board added. That might be a novel business process that’s patentable in the U.S., but it’s not enough for a European patent.

That decision widens the gap just a little more between what’s legally required for U.S. online retailers and those in Europe. Over the past few years, the EU has passed a series of privacy and consumer-protection regulations that have tightened up what’s allowed in Europe. Most of those new rules still have to be converted to laws by EU member nations. But as that happens, things will get messy.

The most potentially ugly regulation has to do with cookies. According to a privacy regulation that was supposed to be implemented in most EU countries by May (but hasn’t been yet by most countries), a Web site must get permission in advance for any cookie that isn’t required by a customer-initiated action. In practice, that means a cookie that remembers what the customer has in a shopping cart is probably OK. But for any more sophisticated tracking, the customer must opt in.


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.