Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement

Posted by kdawson on Mon Oct 23, 2006 02:10 PM
from the who-are-the-good-guys-again? dept.
Patents
A large number of readers wrote in about IBM suing Amazon over commerce patents. The Ars Technica coverage linked is one of the few sources that goes beyond the brief AP or Reuters stories that everyone is running. Here is IBM's press release. Some of the patents in question go back to the 80s and they do seem to pretty much wrap up the idea of online commerce, if they prove valid. IBM says many others are licensing the patents but Amazon won't give them the time of day on the subject.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I guess there's some patent problem on /. too? :)

    • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aqua_boy17 (962670) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:21PM (#16550286)
      If IBM holds a patent for 'Posting messages to an interactive service' there may well be. I mean, some of these are pretty broad:

      US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
      US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
      US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
      US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities.
      US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.

      Without reading the actual applications, it sounds to me like that covers like 99% of anyone selling or storing anything on-line. I mean, WTF? Storing data in an interactive network? How broad is that net?

      • And then there's... (Score:5, Funny)

        by HiggsBison (678319) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:28PM (#16550372)
        Doesn't SCO or somebody have it locked up with:
        "A Method for Doing Stuff with Things" and
        "A Method for Doing Stuff with Things Involving a Computing Device"?

      • If IBM holds a patent for 'Posting messages to an interactive service' there may well be. I mean, some of these are pretty broad:

        US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
        US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
        US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
        US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities.
        US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.

        Without reading the actual applications, it sounds to me like that covers like 99% of anyone selling or storing anything on-line. I mean, WTF? Storing data in an interactive network? How broad is that net?

        And I'm absolutely sure that there is no point in reading the applications. After all, there is no possible way that the actual claims might be substantially more specific and narrow.

        The other day I flipped through the card catalog at my local library. In a few hours I absorbed a subtantial fraction of Western culture and learning.

          • Aqua_boy17 wrote:
            Well, after all this is /. You should be happy that I at least even read part of TFA. Now you expect me to actually go and look up the applications before getting all up in arms?

            Not to mention the fact that if you're a software developer, the standard advice is to avoid knowing anything about the details of software patents. If they can argue you "knowingly infringed" on a patent you're up for triple damages.

            I suspect this is one of those things where the situation is so stupid, no one can believe it's the case -- the patent system is designed to encourage publication of useful technical information, but this triple-damages rule means that no one can read it.

      • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mydron (456525) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:12PM (#16551046)
        Without reading the actual applications, it sounds to me like that covers like 99% of anyone selling or storing anything on-line. I mean, WTF?
        Here's a tip: a patent's legal boundaries are NOT defined by it's title. As disappointing as it might be, you actually do have to read the patent and, in particular, its claims. The claims of a patent (in light of the patent's specification) define it's legal boundaries. Even the specification itself is not enough. I could describe every conceivable phenomena in the universe and the allowed claim might read: "A red thimble made out of tin with thirteen divots arranged in a circular pattern on the exterior of said thimble." Clearly I've patented much less than all conceivable phenomena.

        The title of a patent is intentionally broad. The issue is that otherwise patent infringer's can argue in court that they earnestly looked for applicable patents before they implemented their widget but they couldn't find any such patents. They will argue that if they did infringe they did so by accident. (Patent holders get thrice damage from infringer's who willfully infringe compared to infringer's who do so by accident.) A patent holder doesn't care to entertain such arguments so they intentionally title their patents very broadly, thus ameliorating the issue.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by RevMike (632002)
            Ok then, here's claim 8 from the 5,319,542 patent:
            ...
            Its scope is not all that much narrower than the title.

            Sure, when you exclude claims 9 through 14, as well as ignore what was already cited as background art in section 2. B2C style e-commerce as typically implemented today is not claimed by this patent, having been already cited as background art using Prodigy as an example.

            A more interesting area to examine is the Objects:

            Therefore, it is an object of this invention to provide a new electronic

      • Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Hartmeister (928651) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:18PM (#16551136)
        People are thinking that IBM bought these patents or just went fishing. I'm sure these patents are from the IBM-Sears joint Prodigy service. Prodigy really was ahead of its time in many of its concepts.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Kaenneth (82978)
          I used to work for Sears, and I thought it really unfortunate that they closed down the famous 'Sears Catalog' shortly before the Internet took off.

          If that shipping infrastructure remained in place, but just added a Web front end, they could have been THE online store, with their brand recognition.

  • Oops, the beast escaped (Score:4, Funny)

    by ClosedSource (238333) * on Monday October 23 2006, @02:12PM (#16550130)
    Looks like the monopoly-conviction-avoiding-patent-hoarding beast that is the true soul of IBM managed to escape for a few moments. I'm sure he will be back in his cage before the new IBM true-believers notice him.
    • I sort of agree. If these patents suck, then IBM sucks for doing this, squishing-of-SCO be damned.

      One quote, though: "after nearly four years of attempts by IBM to resolve its concerns with Amazon.com over infringement of IBM's patents." So it's not quite like the submarine style surface-and-sue approach.
      • This is indeed a submarine style approach. In the article: "The '542 patent, for instance, was filed in 1990, while the '771 patent was filed in 1993." Notifying somebody in 2002 for infringing on something that, in IBM's words, "represents the work product of tens of thousands of scientists and engineers and billions of dollars of investment," is either done on purpose, or is a product of gross negligence.
        • Or maybe the infringement happened during or shortly before 2002. IBM actually do a lot of research while Amazon didn't even exist in 1993. They were founded 2 years later.

          Amazon have been quite litigious with obvious (allegedly) patents. There's a good chance IBM did most of that stuff earlier.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fozzyuw (950608)

      Is this seriously all you have to do?

      IBM said that Amazon.com has willfully infringed and continues to infringe on a number of key IBM patents, including: 1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service. 2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network. 3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service. 4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities. 5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.

      I'm g

      • IBM is a company interested in making proffit. they are neither good or evil. The existance of Linux is highly proffitable for them, so they encourage it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with them believing in open source as such.

  • An old slogan comes to mind (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelson (129150) * on Monday October 23 2006, @02:12PM (#16550134) Homepage Journal
    As crazy as this patent insanity gets, I can't help but think of the phrase, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

    • Re:An old slogan comes to mind (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shados (741919) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:16PM (#16550186)
      Indeed. Actualy, considering IBM's track record, which while not perfect, is not quit in line with a patent troll...I wouldn't be surprised if the ONLY reason they used this against Amazon, is because Amazon does the same thing to others.

      • Re:An old slogan comes to mind (Score:5, Interesting)

        by db32 (862117) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:32PM (#16550424) Journal
        I suspect the same. Amazon has a pretty sketchy track record as far as patents go, and while IBM isn't perfect, they have been turning loose alot of their projects into the OSS world and generally playing nice with the OSS crowd. I think while they are also serving their own interests, they deserve some credit for their handling of a certain fiaSCO.

        It may be my wishful thinking, but fair and honest business practices don't always cause the fastest growth, they do tend to lead to the best long term growth. So IBM just may be swinging the big stick to get Amazon back in line.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bcattwoo (737354)
        Indeed. Actualy, considering IBM's track record, which while not perfect, is not quit in line with a patent troll...I wouldn't be surprised if the ONLY reason they used this against Amazon, is because Amazon does the same thing to others.

        I would. IBM is going to spend millions of dollars on a lawsuit just to prove a point to Amazon?? Perhaps Amazon will respond with an "I know you are, but what am I?" countersuit.

      • I wouldn't be surprised if the ONLY reason they used this against Amazon, is because Amazon does the same thing to others.

        Then be very surprised. IBM has a long history of strong-arming other companies with its patent portfolio [forbes.com] and extracting license money from them [ffii.org]. In fact, Marshall Phelps (who now works for Microsoft [microsoft.com] fwiw), turned IBM's sleeping patent portfolio into a $1+ billion profit [forbes.com].

    • Re:An old slogan comes to mind (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Gulik (179693) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:50PM (#16550734)
      "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

      Of course, with IBM's patent portfolio, they can match you sword-for-sword and still have fifteen thousand left to swing at you after you've run out.

      Which won't protect them from any of those patent litigation firms, but then there's still the sheer megatonnage of IBM's legal department to contend with.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by rts008 (812749)
        Good point.

        "...IBM's legal department to contend with."
        They were not referred to as the Nazgul without reasons.

        These guys will be serious contenders in almost any arena that IBM will choose to enter.

        IBM may be a shadow of it's peak days, but they are no punks still today. They have proven themselves survivors in markets that have extreme turnover rates, and a lot of corporate corpses laying by the wayside to prove it.

        Anymore, it gets more difficult to pick sides in the patent/IP battle.
        IBM vs. SCO- no probl

  • what IBM wants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wardk (3037) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:12PM (#16550140) Journal
    IBM just wants amazon to let them use the heralded one-click "invention" without royalties. this is their first offer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by griffjon (14945)
      This actually has a lot of validity. In my ideal world, IBM actually wants Amazon to start putting some of its more overreaching business process/software patents into some patent commons, like IBM has already done. Most corps have to pursue patents for everything they can possibly try, because everyone else is doing the same. The amount of patent infringement that happens every day is insane, but all the corps have big enough patent portfolios that it's a mutual-self-destruction effect keeping everyone
  • My first thought on this was that one of the criteria of granting a patent is that the concept is "non-obvious". And when I saw that one of the patents was "Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue", I thought "that's very obvious!".

    Based on the number, it's the earliest one, and the article summary says the patents go back to the '80s. TFA says it was filed in 1990. Was it so non-obvious then? If we think back to the "dawn of the public Internet", and realize this was before the general public w
    • heh.. a decent try but The Mother of all Demos

      http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/1968Demo.html [stanford.edu]

      Would've made the concept of ordering from an online catalog pretty obvious to anyone in attendance, I think. I haven't read the patent details, though
      • I don't see anything in the MoaD that would be prior art for e-commerce. I'd be much more inclined to cite simple mail order with an order taker sitting at a terminal or France's (what was that called?) as prior art.

      • Heh, I love this bit quoted from the above linked website:

        In this segment Doug outlines the participation of ARC in the planned ARPA computer network to be established within the next year (1969), in which 20 different computer sites across the country will be connected in a network. Doug muses that with the planned band width of 20KB per second and delay times with less than one-tenth of a second, he might be able to show the present demo again next year from Boston.

        So, you're saying that Internet shopping

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AdamKG (1004604)
      It would be interesting, but, in the long run, ultimately futile.

      I for one do not beleive patents are in and of themselves a bad thing. The problem with patents is that the best way to use them, business-wise, is to patent obvious things, obfuscate that in your application, and then sue, sue, sue. There are ways to reward innovation that do not encourage this model, however, and that is what we should adopt.

      So, how? I would argue that we should use a method in which patents are universal, that is, a pa

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)

      by RevMike (632002) <revMike@NOSPAm.gmail.com> on Monday October 23 2006, @03:23PM (#16551220) Journal
      My first thought on this was that one of the criteria of granting a patent is that the concept is "non-obvious". And when I saw that one of the patents was "Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue", I thought "that's very obvious!".

      Actually, it isn't as obvious as the title would make it seem. Google it and read the actual application.

      Essentially, it is about automating B2B supply chain management. Catalogs from several vendors are stored on publicly available servers. A potential purchaser makes a private copy combining the items from several vendors into a single catalog, then modifying that catalog with privately negotiated price structures and terms for those vendors. Then the PO is generated and transmitted directly to the vendor.

      So it is not about simply doing what we've always done with mail-order, it is about efficiently comparison shopping and maintaining private price lists for use by procurement functions in a business.

  • Oh my (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ixne (599904)
    US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.

    Too bad Sears Roebuck didn't have the same idea a century ago, eh? Then non-inperson sales would never have existed...

  • Amazom receives what it deserves (Score:5, Informative)

    by oliderid (710055) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:20PM (#16550268)
    The article says that Amazon is fighting unfairly against their competition with their One click patent. They are trying to close down other web sites. They just receive their own medicine. I'm sure these connoisseurs will appreciate it.

  • It hasn't since business methods and software have been patented. Check out the Eastern District of Texas. This is a popular venue for patent litigation plaintiffs. They apparently aren't inclined to waste a lot of time reviewing the original appropriateness of patents in the cases they hear. What's with the two seperate courts?

  • Reminded of a story (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Infernal Device (865066) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:21PM (#16550288)
    I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it's a decent story anyway.

    IBM is negotiating with Sun regarding a patent of some sort (which one doesn't matter). Sun goes through this whole dog-and-pony about exactly where Sun's patent comes into play and how much it's going to cost IBM.

    Long silence.

    An IBM lawyer clears his throat and says they're going to go back to Armonk and dig through their thousands of patents and see just which ones Sun has violated since the company started.

    IBM gets the patent license for free.

    Like I said, no idea if it's true or not, but it's illustrative of the power of IBM and their patent catalog.

    • No Kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pavon (30274) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:02PM (#16550916)
      IBM's patent portfolio is truly frightening in that the only thing preventing it from doing massive harm to the industry is self restraint and the enlightened self interest of wanting to remain relevant in the industry. Let's just hope their business never goes south. If you thought that the IP trolls that make money by buying the patents portfolios of failed start-ups was bad, just imagine the hell that will be unleashed if IBM enters a downward spiral and decides to "refocus the company revenue strategies on their intellectual property licensing opportunities".

    • Re:Reminded of a story (Score:5, Interesting)

      by _|()|\| (159991) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:05PM (#16550944)
      This Forbes article [forbes.com] is more in line with my recollection of the story. IBM approached Sun with a handful of bogus patents, which Sun's engineers handily debunked. However, rather than risk IBM digging through its portfolio for actually infringed patents, Sun coughed up the protection fee.
    • Whether this is true or not, what I wonder if people here realize just how long IBM has been around - in one form or another, IBM has been around since (roughly) 1890.

      That was the year the US Government needed a faster, better, more accurate method to tally the census figures for the nation. By constitutional mandate, it was decreed that the census needed to be counted every 10 years. The census prior to the 1890 census had just been totalled by the time 1890 rolled around (it took 7 years to total the 1880

  • a corporation can patent something as fundamental as this that would mean the whole damn patent system is screwed u... oh wait

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mikachu (972457)
      Normally I'd say you have a point, because I agree that the patent system is a load of BS, but at the time in which the patent was filed, I would very much doubt that e-commerce was as "fundamental" as you make it out to be.

      Ask your grandfather if he could have forseen people ordering something from his home with the click of a button and have it arrive at his house in the morning.

      • Re:But if (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Phillup (317168) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:48PM (#16550708)
        Normally I'd say you have a point, because I agree that the patent system is a load of BS, but at the time in which the patent was filed, I would very much doubt that e-commerce was as "fundamental" as you make it out to be.

        Name a form of communication that has NOT been used for commerce.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by JohnFluxx (413620)
          Reminds me feynman:

          "There are so many ideas about nuclear energy that are so perfectly obvious, that I'd be here all day telling you stuff," [Feynman says in exasperation to "a very nice fella" from the U.S. Patent Office visiting him at Los Alamos.] "Example: nuclear reactor...under water...water goes in...steam goes out the other side...Pshshshsht -- it's a submarine. Or: nuclear reactor...air comes rushing in the front...heated up by nuclear reaction...out the back it goes...Boom! Through the air -- it's

  • And so it begins... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:39PM (#16550556) Homepage Journal
    ``IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement''

    And so it begins...

  • Whowa... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Eric Damron (553630) on Monday October 23 2006, @05:09PM (#16552848)
    "Some of the patents in question go back to the 80s..."

    Wow, I thought that patents were fairly short lived! Can someone tell a layman how long can software patents potentially crush innovation?

  • Hate to bring this up but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ebresie (123014) on Monday October 23 2006, @06:15PM (#16553542) Homepage Journal
    So does US 5,446,891 [uspto.gov] - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities. mean that Google might be infringing also?

  • From TFA (Score:3, Informative)

    by micromuncher (171881) on Monday October 23 2006, @06:22PM (#16553628)

    1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.

    2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.

    3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.

    4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities.

    5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.

    Note the algorithmic detail hidden in the patents hide some of the totally obvious "Hey isn't that common sense?" and "How can they patent that!?"

    Of course I agree that on the surface, the patent claims are "insane" which is why Amazon ignores IBM. Almost as insane as a patten for a one-stop-buy button. The system is way broken, but read the patents yourselves to jump to the same conclusion.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.