|
|
为啥腾讯,阿里等大小公司要争夺网络支付？我昨晚沙龙答：因为国内靠广告收入的网站都不靠谱，电商是最有效的盈利模式，巨头们都要抢占电商的最后一关：绑定银行账号+支付。国内欠缺消费者信用和执法，不可使用Amazon1Click等便利的支付方式，腾讯支付和支付宝简易支付过程是关键，否则有网购冲动也嫌麻烦。在电商网站的购买过程之中，每增加一页，客户转化率或成功购买率就降低5~20%，很多网购或传统购物都是冲动型的购买，如果购买过程太麻烦，或被卡住，这些消费者可能永远都不会回头再买同一样东西。
如今支付宝和腾讯支付将大量的网民和他们的银行卡号绑定，这样就便利了网购，促使很多网购成功，以腾讯和阿里为主的电商合作伙伴就可以更容易拿到消费者的钱，所以网络支付是一个很大的商机，大家都在抢占这市场：绑定网民卡号。
商机也代表黑客有商机，但腾讯和阿里有钱，可以付很多技术、安全、和内控等费用，和赔偿消费者可能因为黑客和咋骗等的损失！
当然，网络支付渠道和平台还可以赚百分之零点几的手续费，但这在开始不是一个主要盈利，但如果将来消费增长很大，数年后这手续费收入也会非常可观！
http://www.webplusshop.com/
周三四晚广深 再下周二三沪京沙龙Webplus.com活动。最近热门话题：比特币最大交易所破产,京东要上市,阿里随后,微信支付红包袭击支付宝,理财通pk余额宝,嘀嘀pk快的打车,等都与互联网金融息息相关，互联网金融风险是什么？没吃过亏的创业者,投资者,消费者是没避险意识！北上广深#创业成长退出上市沙龙#主题:【如何控制互联网金融的风险】：
http://bbs.webplus.com/plugin.php?id=xj_event:event_center
《天使投资》英文版第一卷#Angel Investment#Vol 1电子书Beta版 刚在亚马逊Kindle发布 http://smarturl.it/Angv1！粉丝特价0.99美元，Webplus会员买后去三月北上广深沙龙凭收据报销。书价格很快会涨>10美元。
书不完美，请去en.Webplus.com给我意见或反馈！多谢捧场，将中国创业+天使的本色发扬光大去美国！
How Valuable is Amazon’s 1-Click Patent? It’s Worth Billions.
http://blog.rejoiner.com/2012/07/amazon-1click-patent/
by Mike Arsenault on July 13, 2012 with 1 comment
Since 1999, the 1-Click patent has generated billions of dollars in revenue for Amazon.com.
1-Click shopping removes the single biggest friction point for completing an online purchase: the checkout process. Amazon filed the 1-Click patent in 1997 and it was granted by the USPTO in 1999. In fairly broad terms, it protects any E-commerce transaction executed with one-click using stored customer credentials to validate.
The result of this “innovation” is that Amazon achieves extremely high conversion from its existing customers. Since the customer’s payment and shipping information is already stored on Amazon’s servers, it creates a checkout process that is virtually frictionless.
But, wait a minute.
Is Amazon doing the rest of the world a disservice by enforcing a patent that makes the experience of shopping online so much more enjoyable? No more fumbling through my wallet for a credit card, payment errors, multi-page checkout or silly upsells. Isn’t this the way the world should be? And doesn’t the idea of 1-Click checkout seem to be pretty obvious?
As is the problem with most software patents, Amazon was able to protect a fairly broad concept. The patent protects a “business method” vs. a specific invention. Not to mention, 1-Click technology could be helpful to every other U.S. online retailer in existence.
The Europeans agree. Amazon was never able to get the patent granted in the Europe in the first place. They’ve been appealing the decision since 2001 and were rejected again in 2011.
Despite the controversy, you can’t argue with that fact that this patent allows Amazon to provide a customer experience that is vastly superior to any other retailer in the U.S. Why wouldn’t they protect that? Despite Amazon’s unwillingness to share, they are willing to “partner” with other retailers for a price.
Apple licensed Amazon’s 1-Click technology in 2000. Apple felt that frictionless checkout was so important; it incorporated the tech into iTunes, iPhoto and the Apple App Store. How many times have you impulsively bought a song on iTunes or downloaded a new iPhone app without even a second thought? You can thank US 5960411 for that Holiday Angry Birds download. Instant purchase drives orders. There’s no question.
But, our original question was how much?
In 2011, Amazon did $48.1 Billion in revenue. Let’s assume that 1-Click increases Amazon’s sales by 5% each year. That’s an additional $2.4 Billion in annual revenue due to 1-Click. For the 12 months ending March 31, 2012 Amazon’s operating margin was 1.7%. That’s an additional $40.8 Million in operating income. And that number doesn’t include the licensing fees collected from Apple.
Together with Amazon Prime, Amazon has put forth what are probably the two biggest game changing products in online retail over the past two decades. The 1-Click patent is scheduled to expire in 2017, but my guess is that Amazon doesn’t really care.
They’ve already got their next innovation on the horizon: Same-day delivery. With that dagger, one has to ask if Amazon will put an end to local brick & mortar retail for good.
After all, how much more convenient could shopping get?
The Amazon “1 click” patent
http://legal-aware.org/2011/05/the-amazon-1-click-patent/
Posted on May 29, 2011 by legalawarenesssoc
Telstra Corporation Limited v Amazon.com, Inc [2011] APO 28 (9 May 2011)
The patents and patent applications directed to Amazon’s ‘1-click’1 online shopping concept have attracted substantial controversy around the world, in particular in the context of the patentability of business process and software patents. The ‘1-click’ concept allows customers to make online purchases with a single click, with the payment information needed to complete the purchase previously provided by the user.
The Australian Patent Office has rejected Amazon.com Inc’s patent application for its 1-click ordering system after a successful opposition by Telstra Corporation Limited.
Therefore, the decision gives Amazon a clear indication of how it can amend its patent application to overcome the rejection. This decision forms part of a long history of challenges around the world (most notably in the United States and Europe) to patent applications filed by Amazon for its 1-click ordering system which provides for a simplified process for purchasing goods online.
In Australia, the grant of Amazon’s application (AU 762175)2 was opposed by Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra). The opposition was primarily on the grounds that the claimed invention was not novel and lacked an inventive step in light of a number of prior art documents, including one of Telstra’s own patents. The patent application claims a method for ordering an item in response to a single action performed to order the item.
Construction
Firstly, the construction of the term ‘a single action’ was considered, both with reference to the clarity of the claims and as being pivotal to the questions of novelty and inventive step. The opponent argued that the claimed ‘single action’ was unclear, and did not necessarily mean ‘only a single action’ (the wording used in corresponding US patent 5960411). The Delegate referred to the principles of construction as laid out in Décor Corp Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1988] 13 IPR 385, and with reference to the specification and dictionary definitions came to the conclusion that the claimed ‘single action’ does mean ‘only a single action’.
In this construction heavy reliance was placed on the description that ‘…the single action generally refers to a single event received by a client system that indicates to place the order.’ In light of this passage, the Delegate goes on to say that despite (semantically) being two actions, an action such as the double click of a mouse button would ‘clearly fall within the scope of ‘a single action’ as that term is to be understood in the claims’.
1-Click ordering is not new in light of Telstra’s “click-to-call” patent
Amazon’s patent application contained 141 claims. The Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents found that some of the claims (including the very broad first claim directed, quite generally, to a single action item ordering system) were not new in view of one of Telstra’s “click-to-call” patents, which Telstra filed before Amazon filed its patent application for the 1-click system.
Telstra’s patent describes a method of making a telephone call in which a person simply selects (clicks on) the telephone number they wish to dial in an electronic directory to place a call. Importantly, the method allowed the parties to the call to make prior billing arrangements, streamlining the calling process and allowing them to make a call in only one step. The Delegate considered the placing of a call to be the ordering of an item.
The Delegate referred to the ‘reverse infringement test’ for novelty, where infringement occurs when each and every essential feature of a claim is disclosed in the alleged anticipating document. Under the construction of the claims adopted, the Delegate found that 10 of the 141 claims did lack novelty in view of Telstra’s own patent.
Some claims not inventive in light of common general knowledge
The Delegate also found that claims 1, 2 and 4 – 61 were not inventive in light of the common general knowledge (“CGK”) known to persons skilled in the art at the priority date. Specifically, the Delegate accepted Telstra’s submission that:
the display of order or item information for Internet ordering systems and the use of a web browser to access that display; and
the use of, amongst other things, clicking a mouse button over a pre-defined area of displayed information to select information or send instructions,
formed part of the CGK.
The Delegate concluded that, in respect of claim 1, the “single action” was the only feature which was not already part of the CGK (“CGK”).
He found that, “as a matter of simple logic”, one way to ensure that customers could check-out more easily (a problem the invention was trying to address) was to reduce the number of steps involved in “checking-out”, ideally down to one step.
Interestingly, although the Delegate accepted Telstra’s submission that claim 1 permits there to be one or more additional actions prior to the “single action” claimed, in assessing whether the claimed system was new, the Delegate appeared to count the number of actions required to place the order. On that basis, he excluded a number of documents published before the filing date of Amazon’s patent application which included more than one action when assessing whether Amazon’s invention was “new”.
Inventive step
“Inventive step” was also considered.
Because the application was filed before 1 April 2002, combining two or more unrelated prior art documents or acts to establish lack of an inventive step was not possible. Consequently common general knowledge figured prominently in the case put forward by Telstra and evidence from experts in the field was extensive from both sides.
The Delegate referred to a number of approaches for determining whether the claims were obvious or not, advocating the problem–solution approach whilst being mindful of its limitations – particularly with respect to combination or simple inventions.3 Under this approach the Delegate found that the use of an identifier (such as a ‘cookie’) as defined by claims 3 and 62 to 141 was in fact inventive. This is despite the finding that cookies were, in their own right, common general knowledge at the priority date.
On this finding, 60 of the 141 claims which do not include the identifier feature were found to be invalid.
The future
As would be expected Amazon has been provided with an opportunity to propose amendments to the application to address the Delegate’s findings.
Perhaps what the outcome of this case emphasises is how important it is to bear in mind the common general knowledge and state of the art at the time a specification was filed. The widespread scepticism about how this kind of software implementation could possibly be patented is, arguably, based on the opinion that this solution must have been obvious given e-commerce, storing a computer’s details on a server, and the use of cookies were all known at the time.
Therefore, ultimately, although the Delegate found that a patent could not be granted for many of Amazon’s broader claims, Amazon concentrated its arguments on claims involving the use of cookies to enable 1-click ordering. The Delegate found that claims relating to the use of cookies were new and inventive when Amazon filed its patent application in 1997, and therefore deserving of patent protection. Subject to any appeal to the Federal Court of Australia lodged by Telstra or Amazon, Amazon can now amend its application and obtain a patent for claims relating to its use of cookie technology in the context of 1-click ordering.
|
本帖子中包含更多资源
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看，没有帐号？立即注册
x
|
楼主
