4 ms·

It worked out well for both of them. I recall, at the time, when Apple did the deal for $1mm, that it provided a lot of validity to Amazon that their patent wa

It worked out well for both of them. I recall, at the time, when Apple did the deal for $1mm, that it provided a lot of validity to Amazon that their patent was for real, and any vendor that was directly competitive with Amazon would likely think, at least a little bit longer, before directly ignoring Amazon's patent on "one-click" purchasing.

vanderZwan 8y ago
This article does not in any way provide us with enough information to conclude whether it was a good licensing deal for either party. It just tells a romanticized Steve Jobs business story. We don't know if this license helped Apple sell so many products that it paid back the investment. For Amazon it obviously worked out on two fronts, since they also got paid 1M. Unless you mean that this has to be weighed against lost Apple product sales on Amazon? Were Apple products even for sale on Amazon at the time?
- lyzan 8y ago
  He is "recalling" from other information at the time. I don't think most apple products were for sale on Amazon at that time, but that's not really what he's talking about. He's referencing that other ecommerce sites (e.g. walmart) couldn't just say "oh, one click buying is a good idea, and an obvious one, so we'll implement it too". By having Apple pay significant money for right to use the patent, it adds validation that it isn't a frivolous patent, and actually a useful, non-trivial, non-obvious solution which warrents being licenced. It gave Amazon much better ground to file patent infringement against any competitor that attempted a 1 click checkout solution without licensing the patent, both improving chance of further licensing and reducing the chance competing ecommerce platforms would implement the feature without licensing it through Amazon.
  - ghshephard 8y ago
    Exactly correct (and much better put than I did). I remember, vividly when the "one-click" patent came out, and honestly, it seemed completely ludicrous. All of the people I knew in the valley at the time openly mocked it. It was exactly the sort of thing that any intelligent designer would have come up with, given the presence of cookies (which were at least a bit innovative, but Netscape had provided a royalty-free license to the patent). "One-Click" purchasing is precisely the idiocy that we think of, when we think of Patent abuse. So, when Apple actually paid money to Amazon, what occurred to me at the time, was that Apple had in a single stroke both added some legitimacy to the Patent, and probably got a discount on the deal because they were the initial customer. It's unclear whether the one-click behavior on IOS made use of any the processes described in the 1-click patent, but, at the very least, it didn't hurt that Apple had it in their back pocket. All in all I think it was a win-win scenario for both parties.
    - fjsolwmv 8y ago
      It's a simple story of mafioso power collusion. Amazon wanted to use bully power, but wasn't strong enough on its own, so Amazon recruited Apple to join. Amazon gets to rob the marketplace, and Apple gets "protection" and and an advantage against the mutual competitors Amazon attacks.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  >>This article does not in any way provide us with enough information to conclude whether it was a good licensing deal for either party. It just tells a romanticized Steve Jobs business story. I suspect a lot of deals are done this way. Joe talks to Kevin and legal sets it up. Done in a heartbeat, just in case. Whether it worked out or not...who knows but Apple went full speed ahead selling and didn't end up in court battles. (yeah, they might have won but it's just $1 mil)
- jm4 8y ago
  Us old timers remember what was happening at the time. It turns out it was an incredible deal for both sides. The 1-click patent didn't have a great deal of credibility at the time. Many people in the tech industry were railing against Amazon and 1-click. It seemed like such a stupid patent and I think a lot of people didn't expect it to hold up. Apple launched the iTunes store with $0.99 mp3's during the same period and the whole thing hinged on 1-click shopping. You could click a button to preview and there was one right next to it that would buy the song. No confirmation screens or checkout process. Downloaded and added to your library. It was so easy and people were spending a fortune on there because there was nothing else like it. Keep in mind this is one the heels of the decline of Napster and other mainstream P2P apps. People were being ratted out by their ISPs, sued and settling for $3000 for downloading some crummy song. Here you could do it legally and inexpensively and with a great UX because of 1-click. And for the first time you could buy a single song instead of an entire album. Prior to that, we had "singles" that contained a radio song from the album and a couple b-sides for like $5-8. Apple had to launch iTunes with 1-click for it to be successful. The $1M license fee cost far less than the inevitable lawsuit would have. They made a fortune with iTunes and used it to enter new product categories. You could argue that that was one of the pivotal moments that transformed the company into what it is today. That licensing fee was highway robbery. You also have Amazon who, at the time, had an outstanding selection, the best prices, fast handling times, reliable shipping and the most friction free buying process anywhere. Many retail sites didn't even have user accounts back then. You would enter your info with each order. The ones that did have accounts still made you click through several screens to place an order. Amazon's end of the deal is they got paid $1M to not have to sue anyone (and possible lose) and have their ridiculous patent become credible overnight. The result was they maintained their superior online shopping experience by preventing others from mimicking it and leveraged it to become the beast they are today.
  - fapjacks 8y ago
    It seemed like such a stupid patent because it was a stupid patent. These are exactly the kinds of patents that represent what's wrong with our patent system.
  - cuboidGoat 8y ago
mtgx 8y ago
It's the strategy Microsoft employed with android OEMs too, except Microsoft actually paid them and/or gave them a deal in which the first OEMs to accept the licensing came out on top. Once that was done it was much easier for Microsoft to convince the rest of the OEMs to pay up for the licensing.

vanderZwan 8y ago

This article does not in any way provide us with enough information to conclude whether it was a good licensing deal for either party. It just tells a romanticized Steve Jobs business story. We don't know if this license helped Apple sell so many products that it paid back the investment. For Amazon it obviously worked out on two fronts, since they also got paid 1M. Unless you mean that this has to be weighed against lost Apple product sales on Amazon? Were Apple products even for sale on Amazon at the time?

lyzan 8y ago
He is "recalling" from other information at the time. I don't think most apple products were for sale on Amazon at that time, but that's not really what he's talking about. He's referencing that other ecommerce sites (e.g. walmart) couldn't just say "oh, one click buying is a good idea, and an obvious one, so we'll implement it too". By having Apple pay significant money for right to use the patent, it adds validation that it isn't a frivolous patent, and actually a useful, non-trivial, non-obvious solution which warrents being licenced. It gave Amazon much better ground to file patent infringement against any competitor that attempted a 1 click checkout solution without licensing the patent, both improving chance of further licensing and reducing the chance competing ecommerce platforms would implement the feature without licensing it through Amazon.
- ghshephard 8y ago
  Exactly correct (and much better put than I did). I remember, vividly when the "one-click" patent came out, and honestly, it seemed completely ludicrous. All of the people I knew in the valley at the time openly mocked it. It was exactly the sort of thing that any intelligent designer would have come up with, given the presence of cookies (which were at least a bit innovative, but Netscape had provided a royalty-free license to the patent). "One-Click" purchasing is precisely the idiocy that we think of, when we think of Patent abuse. So, when Apple actually paid money to Amazon, what occurred to me at the time, was that Apple had in a single stroke both added some legitimacy to the Patent, and probably got a discount on the deal because they were the initial customer. It's unclear whether the one-click behavior on IOS made use of any the processes described in the 1-click patent, but, at the very least, it didn't hurt that Apple had it in their back pocket. All in all I think it was a win-win scenario for both parties.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    It's a simple story of mafioso power collusion. Amazon wanted to use bully power, but wasn't strong enough on its own, so Amazon recruited Apple to join. Amazon gets to rob the marketplace, and Apple gets "protection" and and an advantage against the mutual competitors Amazon attacks.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>This article does not in any way provide us with enough information to conclude whether it was a good licensing deal for either party. It just tells a romanticized Steve Jobs business story. I suspect a lot of deals are done this way. Joe talks to Kevin and legal sets it up. Done in a heartbeat, just in case. Whether it worked out or not...who knows but Apple went full speed ahead selling and didn't end up in court battles. (yeah, they might have won but it's just $1 mil)
jm4 8y ago
Us old timers remember what was happening at the time. It turns out it was an incredible deal for both sides. The 1-click patent didn't have a great deal of credibility at the time. Many people in the tech industry were railing against Amazon and 1-click. It seemed like such a stupid patent and I think a lot of people didn't expect it to hold up. Apple launched the iTunes store with $0.99 mp3's during the same period and the whole thing hinged on 1-click shopping. You could click a button to preview and there was one right next to it that would buy the song. No confirmation screens or checkout process. Downloaded and added to your library. It was so easy and people were spending a fortune on there because there was nothing else like it. Keep in mind this is one the heels of the decline of Napster and other mainstream P2P apps. People were being ratted out by their ISPs, sued and settling for $3000 for downloading some crummy song. Here you could do it legally and inexpensively and with a great UX because of 1-click. And for the first time you could buy a single song instead of an entire album. Prior to that, we had "singles" that contained a radio song from the album and a couple b-sides for like $5-8. Apple had to launch iTunes with 1-click for it to be successful. The $1M license fee cost far less than the inevitable lawsuit would have. They made a fortune with iTunes and used it to enter new product categories. You could argue that that was one of the pivotal moments that transformed the company into what it is today. That licensing fee was highway robbery. You also have Amazon who, at the time, had an outstanding selection, the best prices, fast handling times, reliable shipping and the most friction free buying process anywhere. Many retail sites didn't even have user accounts back then. You would enter your info with each order. The ones that did have accounts still made you click through several screens to place an order. Amazon's end of the deal is they got paid $1M to not have to sue anyone (and possible lose) and have their ridiculous patent become credible overnight. The result was they maintained their superior online shopping experience by preventing others from mimicking it and leveraged it to become the beast they are today.
- fapjacks 8y ago
  It seemed like such a stupid patent because it was a stupid patent. These are exactly the kinds of patents that represent what's wrong with our patent system.
- cuboidGoat 8y ago

mtgx 8y ago

It's the strategy Microsoft employed with android OEMs too, except Microsoft actually paid them and/or gave them a deal in which the first OEMs to accept the licensing came out on top. Once that was done it was much easier for Microsoft to convince the rest of the OEMs to pay up for the licensing.