> Except it wasn't: Amazon--like everyone else filing a patent--had a duty to bring the idea to market within the time frame that US patent law required, which they then did. _That_ is the how.
That's not proof of non-obviousness. And even if it were, it's still not a reason to allow 'what' patents (which the law actually doesn't allow! But they get granted anyway).
> Demanding the patent goes into the specific details
You are arguing a strawman. A patent must describe the invention in sufficient detail for someone skilled in its art to reproduce. Incidental details shouldn't be (and I believe aren't, legally. What the USPTO actually does in practice is a different matter) grounds for calling an alternate implementation non-infringing.
What you're describing is a hideous perversion of the patent system. It allows patenting any obvious [1] idea so long as you are first to file [2]. Alternately, if the idea is novel and non-obvious, it grants patent protection without requiring disclosure of implementation. It basically grants patent protection to trade secrets.
[1] A test for non-obviousness: does an implementor care to look at your patent or reverse-engineer your implementation, or is a description of what the invention does sufficient?
> [1] A test for non-obviousness: does an implementor care to look at your patent or reverse-engineer your implementation, or is a description of what the invention does sufficient?
This seems like a wonderful test of obviousness to me.
However, the "what" could be: "A method of reducing the number of online sales that are attempted but somehow aborted".
The "solution" of having a single click to purchase, in the context of cached purchase info and permission, might not be obvious to everyone working on that problem. (Even though it might be obvious in hindsight - which is not a barrier to patentability.)
That "solution" is specific enough to not block other's from solving the same problem (avoidance of aborted purchases) in via different methods.
That would be the approach I would use to defend single-click against your test. (Not a lawyer, no special legal expertise, just working through the logic as I can see it.)
> the "what" could be: "A method of reducing the number of online sales that are attempted but somehow aborted".
That's a good point. But it does open the door to patenting so many things it would make business impossible - store layout? Ad composition? Sales timing? Employee treatment?
The other problem is the 'could' in your hypothetical - as far as I know, that's not what Amazon put on the patent application. Probably because they knew it is not patentable subject matter.
That's not proof of non-obviousness. And even if it were, it's still not a reason to allow 'what' patents (which the law actually doesn't allow! But they get granted anyway).
> Demanding the patent goes into the specific details
You are arguing a strawman. A patent must describe the invention in sufficient detail for someone skilled in its art to reproduce. Incidental details shouldn't be (and I believe aren't, legally. What the USPTO actually does in practice is a different matter) grounds for calling an alternate implementation non-infringing.
What you're describing is a hideous perversion of the patent system. It allows patenting any obvious [1] idea so long as you are first to file [2]. Alternately, if the idea is novel and non-obvious, it grants patent protection without requiring disclosure of implementation. It basically grants patent protection to trade secrets.
[1] A test for non-obviousness: does an implementor care to look at your patent or reverse-engineer your implementation, or is a description of what the invention does sufficient?
[2] And eventually implement.