Peter
Calveley told technology law podcast OUT-LAW Radio that he had
gathered much of his information for his campaign to have the
patent revoked from archive.org, whose information is provided by
Alexa, an Amazon company.
“Archive.org and the Wayback Machine which archives web pages
was especially useful, the irony being that all the information for
it is provided by Alexa which is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Amazon,” he said. “So thanks Amazon.”
Calveley said that he is not an anti-patent zealot or an
advocate for the reform of the whole US patent system, but that he
engaged in an 18-month lone battle with one of the internet’s most
successful companies because he was bored.
“I live in New Zealand. New Zealand is a very boring place. You
have to come up with something to do,” he said. “I was toying with
the idea and then I got annoyed by this book that was a bit late so
I thought well, why not?”
Many activists in the US are campaigning for reform of the US
patent system because they say that patents are awarded to
technology companies too easily, and covering too broad an area.
They say patents are often awarded for obvious technology or
innovations that have already been invented.
US patent law forbids the identification of earlier versions of
an invention – called prior art – by third parties, except in the
very early stages of a patent application.
Calveley, though, filed a request for a full re-examination of
the patent in question, and was successful in persuading the US
Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) that 21 of the patent’s 26
claims ought to be struck down. In doing so, he may have found a
viable vehicle for opposition to patents that campaigners might
use.
“I think that there are a lot of people out there who have
amazing expertise and knowledge in the prior art, and they’re just
not applying themselves to opposing patents when they really
could,” he said. “I do think that re-examination can give you a lot
of bang for your buck compared to litigation and court.”
Amazon’s 1-Click patent became famous in the late 1990s when the
company asserted it against competitor book shop Barnes and Noble,
which wanted to challenge Amazon’s dominance of online book
sales.
Calveley discovered a system, called Digicash, from the early
1990s which allowed the payment and transfer of money and which, he
said, incorporated a one-click system. “They didn’t even think of
patenting it, they just thought it was such a minor feature,” he
said.
Amazon now has the opportunity to respond to the USPTO
examiner’s view that 21 of the 26 claims should be rejected.
