So? The end result can't be "patent gets transferred to Telstra", since Telstra didn't apply for a patent in the first place. If Telstra is shown to have "invented" one-click first then the patent will be nullified and the invention enters the public domain, right?
As is so often the case in legal matters, the difference between 'win' and 'loss' is a matter of perspective.
Don't celebrate too soon, because the Australian 1-click patent isn't dead. It's not even resting, or pining for the fjords. It is alive and well, slightly scuffed, but still broader in scope than in any other jurisdiction in which it has been allowed.
Incidentally, the costs that can be awarded in a matter before the Australian Patent Office are strictly limited by regulation. Despite the length and complexity of the proceedings, the costs awarded are unlikely to much exceed $10,000. Not an amount that either Amazon or Telstra will care about (and, at a guess, less than 10% of what the case actually cost each party).
Bear in mind that this is a decision of a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents. This decision won't bind anyone except, presumably, the Commissioner of Patents. Its value as a legal precedent anywhere else in the world is roughly zero.
IANAL, but Australia and the US have a free trade agreement that specifically includes patent rights and one of the strongest arguments against its ratification here was that Australian developers would be subject to frivolous patent troll lawsuits just as they are there.
If that is the case (a big if), I suppose there could be some legal implication in the US, but you'd have to ask a patent lawyer with intimate knowledge of the FT agreement to be sure.
In the IP sphere, free trade agreements are more often focused on the types of laws countries must put in place to protect (or limit, depending on your point of view :)) IP within their own country. So, for example, the US-Australian FTA requires that both countries provides for copyright to exist for at least the author's life + 70 years, or that the only grounds for the revocation of a patent are those that would mean the initial filing was invalid.
The USFTA doesn't automatically mean that Australian IP decisions gain legal significance in the US, or vice versa. For this decision to actually have any impact on Amazon's patent in the US, someone would have to litigate it. The Australian decision could certainly be used as evidence in that litigation (as the questions of novelty would be similar), but as noted about would not have any binding authority.
Thanks for the clarification. A bit off-topic but are you sure about the author's life + 70 years copyright agreement? I remember during the controversy where copies of Orwell's "1984" was remotely wiped off a number of Kindle's, there was some discussion about how Orwell's works were now out of copyright in Australia (and elsewhere) but are not in the US. (eg. http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/)
Yes... sadly, Australia jumped in early on applicability to software. IBM's fault, natch. The case was in 1992, confirmed by high court in 1994. The USA didn't fuck it up until 1998.
It's unreasonable to task the patent office with determining novelty and non-obviousness in software. Imagine examining mechanical engineering patents if millions of people carried machine shops around in their backpacks.
It is a shining example of what is wrong with the US patent system for sure (he says haughtily as an Australian) but worst patent ever granted? Doubtful.
There's stiff competition for the "worst patent ever", but surely one of the lowest must be when using a stick as a dog toy was patented in the USA. Don't believe me? Look here:
After being issued (and extensively mocked), it was finally reexamined by the director of the USPTO himself. Over the course of several years, they finally managed to invalidate all of its claims. Why? There were two other patents that covered that material already (one of which, mercifully, was only a design patent).
If you want some other crazy patents, I suggest looking at these:
That's a little overdramatic. As an international customer, I hate the 1-click shopping, because surprises you with obscene shipping charges now and then.
don't know anyone who actually set up one-click on purpose.
i'm a fan of the subscription on the other hand. Even tough i fear they could use for timely price increments. e.g. 70% of the people that subscribe to product A choose to deliver on the first week of the month. than for that week that product price will jump 10%, since it's already 'sold' and then go back to being the cheaper amazon price.
they are both being dicks