Talk:1-Click

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit]

Why is the US Patent No not provided anywhere? It is 5,960,411 Cow duo (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Templates and boxes[edit]

WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Technology[edit]

Someone decided to hype this controversial patent as a "technology", which is clearly in dispute and not neutral language. Furthermore, the references to Amazon.com, ITunes, and Barnes and Noble were astroturfing [i.e. advertising disguised as non-advertising.]

Reinserted references to corporations involved with 1-Click ordering and removed unsourced POV language like "Despite the apparent obviousness..." I inserted information about the FSF's boycott of Amazon due to the 1-Click lawsuit. The previous version seemed overly insistent that 1-Click was a common method of ordering on the Internet, but offered no sources to state so. (Disclaimer: I work for Amazon.com. This edit is not made on behalf of my employer.) White 720 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps an explicit "criticisms" section is appropriate? The fact that this patent is often cited as an example of patenting the obvious (whether or not such claims are in fact valid) should probably be captured, as it reflects the context associated with this patent in today's internet culture.--Trails 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. As long as reliable sources are cited for criticisms, they would fit in this article. Of particular interest are sources related to the patent dispute currently in progress. White 720 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Added recent news and fixed link to the USPTO page. Tekkaman 10:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the rest of the world?[edit]

What is the patent status of 1-Click outside the US? 81.153.111.37 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The corresponding EU patent issued, but was then opposed. The opposition appears to have been successful. More here--Nowa (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the gift ordering patent, not the 1-click patent. The EPO press release[1] mentions: "This patent is not to be confused with the “One-Click” patent application, which was withdrawn after the first EPO examination and never granted in Europe."
...but I remember distinctly that the 1-click patent was granted by the EPO. Will search... Gronky (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to get the question on European validity resolved. If, as any article on a patent should have, the patent number(s) or an IPTO reference were given, it would be much easier to complete the entry. GioCM (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)