Salon.com has an article (the AP report) here Final trial is in September.
There is a question I have and may be someone here knows more about it.
After Mr.Bezoz had his "thought exchange" with Tim O'Reilly about how patents could be reformed, Tim O'Reilly, Mr. Bezos and a lawyer launched the BountyQuest site.
To "prove" their seriousness about Mr. Bezos' committment to support patent reform initiatives, the one-click patent was included on the BountyQuest site. Anyone who could provide "prior art" to the one-click patent claims (had to be prior to Sept 27th), would be awarded $10,000.00.
the one-click BountyQuest.
I always wondered, why the exclusion clause in the BountyQuest was added, excluding shopping cart software packages to be excluded from the BountyQuest. Below the exclusion paragraph.
(Quote from one-click BountyQuest:)
Shopping cart ordering models, which are excluded by the claim. Unpublished or secret information, e.g., trade secrets or internal company memos (even if they describe the invention and are before the relevant date).
Information we already have, e.g., information cited by the examiner in the patent case (see the front page of the patent) and information that we have cited to BountyQuest prior to posting.
Information published after the "Prior Date" listed above.
(End of quote)
It striked me as very strange that this was added. Because it seemed to be
very clear that open source software was available before September 1997
with which one-click ordering feature had been implemented and experimented with. The question was only if those implementations were
"obvious" for someone who is "professional in his trade". (Unfortunately
the exact "phrasing" about this I can't retrieve right now - I have lost
my archived posts in the now sold deja.com archives).
My hope is that Barnes & Nobles has really collected enough evidence to
have a good shot in the final trial, but nevertheless the exclusion part in the
BountyQuest had left some real doubts in my mind about the seriousness of this BountyQuest.
Anyone could help me understanding why that clause was added to the
The AP report says among others:
"In its ruling Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., said it believed Barnes and Noble "has mounted a substantial challenge to the validity of the patent." Based on that, the court said it did not believe Amazon was entitled to preliminary injunction relief.
Barnes and Noble said the ruling validates its argument that the case is without merit." (end of quote)