Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech

Home » Posts tagged 'Amazon'

Tag Archives: Amazon

Sale proceeds from Norman McNamara’s books will go to ‘Young Dementia UK’



Young Dementia UK is a very interesting charity.

The original name of the charity, “The Clive Project”, was a tribute to Clive and Helen. Our name change to YoungDementia UK is aimed at strengthening that tribute well into the future.

Clive was in his mid-40s when his career as an Army officer suddenly nose-dived. He had difficulty communicating with his colleagues. He was made redundant in 1992; he was 45 and his children were 3 and 4. He never worked again.

After a fraught year of failed job applications and difficulties in coping at home, Clive was forced to look for a reason for his difficulties. Clive was diagnosed with early onset dementia in December 1993.

There’s another great initiative worth noting, involving this ‘Give as you live’ website.

This website enable people to donate to a charity of their choice, just by doing their normal shopping online. You sign up to their website, then just do your shopping as you normally would (but via their website), and then they donate a percentage of the shop to the charity of your choice.

Major retailers have signed up for it – John Lewis, Tesco, Amazon etc.

So many people do their food shopping online, or buy presents and household items online. Imagine if a small donation was made to YDUK (“Young Dementia UK”) every time how much money could be raised? And as I say, it doesn’t cost the person shoppping a penny or take up any of their time!

And in another great move – sale proceeds from Norman’s books (twitter here) will go to this years nominated charity of 2014 which is Young Dementia UK.

You can view the books here on Amazon UK.

 

 

Silent Voices “My Battle With Alzheimer`s Rages On [Paperback]

Me And MY Alzheimers: Me and My Alzheimers, join me as fight the fight of my life against this awful illness: 1 [Paperback]

More Than Words, Poems by An Alzheimer`s Sufferer [Kindle Edition]

More than words, poems by an Alzheimers sufferer: My everyday fight with Alzheimers: 1 [Paperback]

The Ghost Of Marnie Jones: 1 [Paperback]

Silent Voices “My Battle With Alzheimers Rages on” [Kindle Edition]

Me And My Alzheimers [Kindle Edition]

The Amazon "1 click" patent



Telstra Corporation Limited v Amazon.com, Inc [2011] APO 28 (9 May 2011)

The patents and patent applications directed to Amazon’s ‘1-click’1 online shopping concept have attracted substantial controversy around the world, in particular in the context of the patentability of business process and software patents. The ‘1-click’ concept allows customers to make online purchases with a single click, with the payment information needed to complete the purchase previously provided by the user.

The Australian Patent Office has rejected Amazon.com Inc’s patent application for its 1-click ordering system after a successful opposition by Telstra Corporation Limited.

Therefore, the decision gives Amazon a clear indication of how it can amend its patent application to overcome the rejection. This decision forms part of a long history of challenges around the world (most notably in the United States and Europe) to patent applications filed by Amazon for its 1-click ordering system which provides for a simplified process for purchasing goods online.

In Australia, the grant of Amazon’s application (AU 762175)2 was opposed by Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra). The opposition was primarily on the grounds that the claimed invention was not novel and lacked an inventive step in light of a number of prior art documents, including one of Telstra’s own patents. The patent application claims a method for ordering an item in response to a single action performed to order the item.

Construction

Firstly, the construction of the term ‘a single action’ was considered, both with reference to the clarity of the claims and as being pivotal to the questions of novelty and inventive step. The opponent argued that the claimed ‘single action’ was unclear, and did not necessarily mean ‘only a single action’ (the wording used in corresponding US patent 5960411). The Delegate referred to the principles of construction as laid out in Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1988] 13 IPR 385, and with reference to the specification and dictionary definitions came to the conclusion that the claimed ‘single action’ does mean ‘only a single action’.

In this construction heavy reliance was placed on the description that ‘…the single action generally refers to a single event received by a client system that indicates to place the order.’ In light of this passage, the Delegate goes on to say that despite (semantically) being two actions, an action such as the double click of a mouse button would ‘clearly fall within the scope of ‘a single action’ as that term is to be understood in the claims’.

1-Click ordering is not new in light of Telstra’s “click-to-call” patent

Amazon’s patent application contained 141 claims. The Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents found that some of the claims (including the very broad first claim directed, quite generally, to a single action item ordering system) were not new in view of one of Telstra’s “click-to-call” patents, which Telstra filed before Amazon filed its patent application for the 1-click system.

Telstra’s patent describes a method of making a telephone call in which a person simply selects (clicks on) the telephone number they wish to dial in an electronic directory to place a call. Importantly, the method allowed the parties to the call to make prior billing arrangements, streamlining the calling process and allowing them to make a call in only one step. The Delegate considered the placing of a call to be the ordering of an item.

The Delegate referred to the ‘reverse infringement test’ for novelty, where infringement occurs when each and every essential feature of a claim is disclosed in the alleged anticipating document. Under the construction of the claims adopted, the Delegate found that 10 of the 141 claims did lack novelty in view of Telstra’s own patent.

Some claims not inventive in light of common general knowledge

The Delegate also found that claims 1, 2 and 4 – 61 were not inventive in light of the common general knowledge (“CGK”) known to persons skilled in the art at the priority date. Specifically, the Delegate accepted Telstra’s submission that:

  • the display of order or item information for Internet ordering systems and the use of a web browser to access that display; and
  • the use of, amongst other things, clicking a mouse button over a pre-defined area of displayed information to select information or send instructions,

formed part of the CGK.

The Delegate concluded that, in respect of claim 1, the “single action” was the only feature which was not already part of the CGK (“CGK”).

He found that, “as a matter of simple logic”, one way to ensure that customers could check-out more easily (a problem the invention was trying to address) was to reduce the number of steps involved in “checking-out”, ideally down to one step.

Interestingly, although the Delegate accepted Telstra’s submission that claim 1 permits there to be one or more additional actions prior to the “single action” claimed, in assessing whether the claimed system was new, the Delegate appeared to count the number of actions required to place the order. On that basis, he excluded a number of documents published before the filing date of Amazon’s patent application which included more than one action when assessing whether Amazon’s invention was “new”.

 

 

Inventive step

“Inventive step” was also considered.

Because the application was filed before 1 April 2002, combining two or more unrelated prior art documents or acts to establish lack of an inventive step was not possible. Consequently common general knowledge figured prominently in the case put forward by Telstra and evidence from experts in the field was extensive from both sides.

The Delegate referred to a number of approaches for determining whether the claims were obvious or not, advocating the problem–solution approach whilst being mindful of its limitations – particularly with respect to combination or simple inventions.3 Under this approach the Delegate found that the use of an identifier (such as a ‘cookie’) as defined by claims 3 and 62 to 141 was in fact inventive. This is despite the finding that cookies were, in their own right, common general knowledge at the priority date.

On this finding, 60 of the 141 claims which do not include the identifier feature were found to be invalid.

The future

As would be expected Amazon has been provided with an opportunity to propose amendments to the application to address the Delegate’s findings.

Perhaps what the outcome of this case emphasises is how important it is to bear in mind the common general knowledge and state of the art at the time a specification was filed. The widespread scepticism about how this kind of software implementation could possibly be patented is, arguably, based on the opinion that this solution must have been obvious given e-commerce, storing a computer’s details on a server, and the use of cookies were all known at the time.

Therefore, ultimately, although the Delegate found that a patent could not be granted for many of Amazon’s broader claims, Amazon concentrated its arguments on claims involving the use of cookies to enable 1-click ordering. The Delegate found that claims relating to the use of cookies were new and inventive when Amazon filed its patent application in 1997, and therefore deserving of patent protection. Subject to any appeal to the Federal Court of Australia lodged by Telstra or Amazon, Amazon can now amend its application and obtain a patent for claims relating to its use of cookie technology in the context of 1-click ordering.

The Golden Age Of The Cloud



This article looks at a new technology which is taking the business and IT worlds by storm: “cloud computing”. As this new industry has a lot of clients with a lot of money, it is not particularly surprising that commercial lawyers have become acutely sensitive to the cloud clients’ needs, concerns and expectations.

Why get involved in the cloud?

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) have been fast to appreciate that the internet offers a golden opportunity for them, and equally lawyers have been quick to realize that they can offer specialist advice to the benefit of SMEs. Businesses remain fascinated by ‘cloud computing’.

But what is cloud computing? In the simplest of terms, it is IT-as-a-Service. Your company has access to its data and software over the internet (which in most IT diagrams is shown as a cloud). This, like many new technologies, it has its own set of benefits and challenges.

Benefits

Cloud computing fans claim five key benefits, and these contribute to the overall competitive advantage of the business.

  • Cheap: your IT provider will host services for multiple companies; sharing complex infrastructure is argued to be cost-efficient, and you pay only for what you actually use. This is very attractive to SMEs.
  • Quick: The most basic cloud services work ‘out of the box’ – it’s perfect for start-ups, especially in the current harsh economic client.
  • Up-to-date: Most providers constantly update their software offering, adding new features as and when they become available.
  • Scaleable: If your business is growing fast or has seasonal spikes, you can go large quickly because cloud systems are built to cope with sharp increases in workload.
  • Mobile: Cloud services are designed to be used from a distance, so if you have a mobile workforce, your staff will have access to most of your systems on the go.

Market uptake

A report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), was published shortly before Christmas last year. Widespread adoption of cloud computing could give the top five EU economies a 763bn-euro (£645bn; $1tn) boost over five years; the CEBR also said it could also create 2.4m jobs. The US analysts Gartner estimates that, over the course of the next five years, businesses will spend $112 billion cumulatively on Cloud Computing.

Potential issues which businesses and lawyers can address

Cloud computing is not without potential problems.

  • Usability is an important issue. Some people, firmly wedded to “their” software, whether it’s Lotus Notes or Microsoft Outlook, are reluctant to switch to plainer online applications.
  • Perhaps the greatest concerns that customers face when using a cloud computing solution are those relating to security and privacy. In a traditional commercial relationship, providers will typically split up the servers for a specific customer, and a customer may even be able to impose certain physical and logical security requirements. This may not be possible once data are transferred to the cloud.
  • To the extent that personal information is stored in the cloud, customers must also consider compliance with applicable laws governing the privacy and security of personally identifiable information.

Who are the providers?

Cloud computing is at an early stage, with a small group of large providers delivering a slew of cloud-based services, from full-blown applications to storage services to spam filtering. Currently, Amazon, Google and Microsoft are key suppliers of cloud services.

Further reading

An interested reader is strongly recommended to go to the ‘cloud computing’ page of Taylor Wessing LLP. Taylor Wessing LLP is one of several firms with a specialist interest in the international commercial law of cloud computing:

http://www.taylorwessing.com/download/cloudcomputing.html


Prize competition – spot the mistakes in a blog post



Walaa Idris, in her popular blog, posted an article as advice for the blogger Darren Bridgeman.

Bad spelling and grammar are evident in all our blog posts. Walaa offered this really helpful advice:

My advice, as someone who knows how you feel, because I felt embarrassed whenever I misspelled words and made such obvious mistakes, but I found although some who correct me do it for their own self satisfaction, most truly care and just want to help me. Even though I continue to correct and pay extra attention to every word I type, still, I make many mistakes. Somehow I feel like the Ambassador of all the poor English speakers and writers and as such feel it is my duty to ask you to reconsider – so please rethink your decision.

Here is the text of a mythical blog post. There are at least 14 errors in it, identified in Simon Heffer’s “Strictly English” as common grammatical errors in the English language. It may be purchased from Amazon here.

Blog post by Troubleblogger

This week has been an extraordinary week in British politics. For example, one blogger has alleged that a Tory MP has left his wife for a woman, while she is fighting malignant melanoma.

Yesterday, there was a very interesting debate in the House of Commons on student finance. The excellent discussion demonstrated the problems of making policy in a Coalition government. The difficulties is probably compounded by the fact that Vince Cable is using data which is probably out-of-date. The thing is that none of the options for the future of student finance are credible.

Some of the options proposed to Lord Brown are inforgettable. To be fair, I would of thought that some of the options proposed would have seemed impressive to the Institute of Fiscal Studies. However, raising tuition fees is now a distinct possibility following the Browne Report. The problem is that Clegg said that he would not never go there.

In terms of feedback, the Labour Party must be feeling good. The concertos of criticism from Liberal Democrat voters were not nice to listen to. In a sense, it was if Miliband was trying to collapse a house of cards. Some commentators just got personal. For example, yesterday, some people, working for the Times especially, called Vince Cable ‘an ugly monster’, but this is perhaps tad unfair. I wonder what Andy Marr would have made of that?

It is difficult to know who came out of worst – Clegg or Cable. Some think it’s better if Cable had quitted his cabinet post, given his beliefs. Commentators wrote on Cable giving his speech whilst being transmitted on Sky.

There’ll be a debate on it: I don’t know if I’ll go. Under the circumstances, it should be interesting, don’t you think?

You can download the text of the blog post Blog poste.

Have a go at spotting the mistakes in them. Feel free to email your entries to Dr Shibley Rahman, management@lawandmedicine.co.uk

The winning entry will get a copy of this book, Iain Dale’s Guide to Political Blogging in the UK. with no expenses spared!

Alternatively, you can, again, buy it off Amazon UK.

Dr Shibley Rahman

Queen’s Scholar, BA (1st.), MA, MB, BChir, PhD, MRCP(UK), LLB(Hons.), FRSA
Director of Law and Medicine Limited
Member of the Fabian Society and Associate of the Institute of Directors

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech