Talk:1-Click/Archives/2013

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

Technology
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)