A few years ago, we wrote about a case in which a company called Cordance
claimed that Amazon's (infamous) patented one-click "technology" infringed on
its own one-click patent (
6,757,710). Cordance's patent was actually granted many years
after Amazon's technology was on the market (and its patent granted), but Cordance tried to show an earlier priority date through a convoluted set of previous patents and continuations. Thankfully, a jury
disagreed with Cordance and said that Amazon didn't infringe, and in the few areas where it might have infringed, Cordance's patent claims were invalid. The judge then changed the ruling to reject the invalidity part -- allowing Cordance to
sue a bunch of other companies, including Apple, Paypal and Victoria's Secret.
However, the original case was appealed and, amazingly, CAFC actually
ruled against Cordance and sided with the original jury, noting non-infringement for some parts, and the parts where Amazon might infringe... those claims were declared invalid, and predicted by Amazon's own technology. That should be good news for those sued by Cordance in that other case. However, this really highlights the craziness of the patent system. Is it really valuable to have two companies spending years in court arguing over who can do something in one click?
Permalink |
Comments |
Email This Story



Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/02090916108/once-again-amazons-one-click-patent-is-found-not-to-infringe-cordances-one-click-patents.shtml
geek news technology news tech news computer news
No comments:
Post a Comment