Here's the patent: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazonpatent.html

It's great that they got rid of most of the claims, but it looks like independent claims 6 and 9 still broadly cover a client/server approach to one-click shopping carts. Can any IP lawyers in the house comment on the ramifications of losing the method claims?

How does this pass the non-obvious test? I'm not that smart (or even a true expert in the field) and even I can immediately tell how to implement the system.

There are lots of patents for things that are obvious to someone that is an expert in the field. Biotech is just as bad. I hope the recent patent reform makes something of a difference.

Thank god. That was the stupidest patent ever.

How about this one?

http://tinyurl.com/2os5mw

I concede, but at least I won the popular vote...

OK, that one wins.

Do they get to keep all the money they collected as royalties?

Unless the contract says otherwise, yep. But I doubt they'll be able to keep on charging current licensees (like Apple for example)...

I'm surprised that companies like Apple, with sizeable legal departments, didn't bother to do the research necessary to get the patent thrown out. Sure, I can see that they might pay royalties in the short term for the sake of expediency, but I wonder why they didn't also investigate getting the patent re-examined themselves...

I have a feeling that it would be a very bad idea for Apple to piss off Amazon in that way.