Slashdot Log In
IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Nov 22, 2006 06:46 PM
from the they-did-it-first dept.
from the they-did-it-first dept.
Petersko writes "It appears Amazon is about to be sued for patent infringement by IBM". From the article: "Hundreds of other companies have licensed the same patents, and IBM has tried to negotiate licensing deals with Amazon "over a dozen times since 2002," Kelly said. Amazon.com, which has bought a lot of hardware from Hewlett-Packard Co. over the years but not IBM, has allegedly refused every time."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Almost a month old (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Almost a month old (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch (Score:2, Funny)
Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The patents system has devolved to be that if you are the first to file a piece of paper
Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you). It's like a winner of a race claiming that if it wasn't for him, nobody else would have crossed the finish line.
Re:Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
A good analogy would be the development of a race car. IBM is like the company that perhaps developed a car or two. Reasonable patents would probably be on the engine design, electronics, etc. Instead, however, the patent office has granted it the patent to "race cars"; disallowing anyone else from developing their own engines, electronics, or what have you, and putting it all together.
Is the difference so hard to comprehend in technological contexts that the patent board is unable to differentiate between the two?
Parent
Almost a great point (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you).
The idea is to protect people who invest those resources into developing technology from people who just wait for the technology to be invented and then just selling it without any of the research costs involved.
What I do hate is that patents have turned from protecting a method of producti
Re:Patents (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And I would bet that many other audiences would do as well. Those are commonly believed to have common sense of sorts.
CC.
Re:Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's a prisoners' dilemma, because once I've told you the method, it's easy for you to claim that was what you were going to do anyway, and I have no way of proving otherwise.
Similarly, if you tell me your method first then it's easy for me to claim _that_ as what I was going to tell you. Whoe
Re:Not all ideas are like this (Score:4, Insightful)
In your examples, idea for a UI, Napster, YouTube - they have their specific implementations and only those are patentable (I'm sure there are at least 50 ways of implementing user interface, napster, youtube, slashdot or digg).
If you think these ideas are somewhat original, then let me tell you that ideas are a dime a dozen. Don't worth anything at all unless it's elevated into something tangible, like an implementation.
Unless, of course, you may be confusing between an idea and an implementation. Sometimes the line is blurred but it certainly exists. Napster and YouTube - they have good business ideas. Slashdot and Digg - the idea is a "community system" (which, again is a dime a dozen), but Slashdot and Digg are implementing it differently.
Parent
Re:Not all ideas are like this (Score:5, Interesting)
ideas on their own cannot be patented. Only implementations can be.
Unfortunately this is not true - and that's the whole problem. These days patents - especially software patents - seek to eliminate anybody from achieving the same goal as the patent holder. You don't patent the implementation of the telephone, the first claim in your application is on the idea of a two way voice communication device. Then you claim (2) "the device in claim 1 wherein the voice is transmitted by modulated electrical signal over a wire; (3) the device in claim 1 wherein the voice is transmitted by modulated electromagnetic waves; (4) the device in claim 3 wherein the electromagnetic waves are radio waves; (5) the device in claim 3 wherein the electromagnetic waves are microwaves; (6) the device in claim 3 wherein the electromagnetic waves are visible light; ..."
If you look at a patent they always start with a very generic claim describing the idea as a whole, and if you implement something that matches that idea, you infringe. The patents then go on to claim each detail of the implementation and each combination of sets of details in the implementation, the idea being that if the first claim is knocked out one of the others might be upheld. The full implementation normally comes right at the end of the list of claims.
Companies are going off and trying to patent every idea they can find, not in order to protect their own investment which is usually negligible and almost always entirely irrelevant to the first claim, but in order to shut down or extort money from anybody else who need to use the idea to get something done.
Parent
Here's a thought (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "no evidence of copying" is the sticky part. You're back to a system that requires that patent examiners be shrewd enough to understand the fundamental difference between one patent and the next. What would obviously
Re:Patents (Score:5, Informative)
The system is not premised on the idea that nobody else could have come up with the idea. The system encourages people to take their ideas and reduce them to practice. Having the invention filed with the government exposes the knowledge to the public, who benefit where the alternative is keeping the details a secret.
The patents system has devolved to be that if you are the first to file a piece of paper .. regardless of how obvious your idea is .. you win a monopoly on it for 20 years (with possible infinite extension via mickey mouse legislators).
Unlike some other countries, the US is not a first-to-file jurisdiction. Instead, it is a first-to-invent jurisdiction, generally giving rights to the first person to come up with the idea. Furthermore, obviousness is a bar to patentability (although a challenger is not allowed the benefit of hindsight when making this obviousness determination). Except in very strange circumstances (usually involving government appropriation of defense-related inventions) there is no way to extend patent rights beyond 20 years. The mickey mouse legislators you refer to are dealing with copyright. Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you). It's like a winner of a race claiming that if it wasn't for him, nobody else would have crossed the finish line.
The limited rights given to a patent holder is one of the main incentives that drives the metaphorical race you describe. Without patents, things would surely be invented... just not as quickly. And once they were, the details would be kept completely secret, robbing value to society. Without patents, here's how the race would go: once the winner reaches the finish line, all the other runners are instantly transported to the finish line and given gold metals. So what is the incentive for any one runner to be first? Nobody would run. They would more likely meander indifferently towards the finish line.
I'm not some crazy lover of patents. I believe that some reform is in order. But the basic premise makes sense in our currently capitalist business environment.
Parent
Statement should read... (Score:5, Insightful)
It should read:
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, actually:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
I agree with you entirely that we need to revise the way and extent to which patents are issued, but the fact is that the issuance and enforcement of patents (along with copyrights) is one of the fundamental purposes of the US government, as defined by the Constitution. (You can of course start an effort to get that section amended; good luck with that.) A better approach is to look at the explanatory clause -- "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" -- and start ruthlessly revising those sections of IP law which do not work toward that goal.
Step 1: if it's not a physical object, a working model of which can be presented at the time of filing, don't grant a patent. Period. End of story. No software algorithms, no "business methods," no DNA sequences, etc. -- software can go copyright; the other two examples shouldn't get IP protection at all -- and no speculative ideas for something that someone might want to make someday, either.
Step 2: deem any patents which are not being actively exploited to be unenforceable, and the IP represented in them to be public domain. IOW, if you have a patent on something, you have to be either distributing it on the market, or be able to show that you're working toward the goal. Otherwise, everyone else gets a shot too.
Step 3: require patent holders to defend their patents, as is the case with trademarks. If the patent holder could reasonably be expected to be aware of a violation -- as IBM certainly could be expected to be aware of Amazon -- require them to begin legal action within one (1) year or forfeit the claim.
These three steps, if followed, would I think substantially reduce the amount of patent bullshit which is currently doing the exact opposite of "promoting] the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The lawyers whose clients still have a legitimate claim would still have plenty of work. Similar though not identical reform is needed for copyrights and trademarks; Step 1 in the former case is reducing the term of copyright to 20 years or so and keeping it there.
Parent
But. . . wait a second! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IBM is the ultimate patent troll. They make quadzillions every year licensing their patent portfolio. In fact, Microsoft's recent foray into the patent business are based on recreating IBM's success. When it comes to patents IBM is definitely not the good guy.
Re:But. . . wait a second! (Score:4, Insightful)
In suing Amazon, are they trying to sue away a competitor? Don't think so. Are they trying to extort money? Given IBM's size, I doubt it.
On the flip side of the coin, IBM is pro-OSS at this moment, and I'm glad that IBM has so many patents.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's IBM's side of the story [ibm.com]. Even with IBM writing the story you can see that IBM is basically claiming to own Amazon's business. I didn't read the actual patents (nor am I going to read them), so I can't tell you exactly what the claims are, but I wouldn't be surprised if any ecommerce site would infringe.
Now, if you happen to be the sort of person that happens to believe that IBM should own the concept of ecommerce whether or not they have written or sell code that is ecommerce related then I suppo
Good, but bad (Score:2)
What is everyone thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was younger, I screamed 'information wants to be free' as loud as any of you. However, that was probably the dumbest idea ever to be voiced. Information is the most valuable asset in the world, and it always has been. People die for information all the time. The CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO, and all the other agencies we love to hate are solely about information. Wars are won and lost because of information. Societies succeed or disappear because of information. Information wants to cost you everything.
We may think the patent system is broken, but we do need a patent system, and we need a patent system that covers algorithms. An algorithm one of us invents is just as valuable as a widget some mechanical engineer invents.
Re: (Score:2)
And these organizations exist and work so hard at keeping information unfree. Why? Because information "wants" to be free. This is almost a theorem of thermodynamics. Unshared information is an unstable equilibrium and it takes a lot of work to keep the information state at the top of the hill.
The internet is like adding a new path to the lowest energy state and information is just "desperate" to flow down
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so. This can be done with suitable NDAs and/or pre-contracts (eg. negotiating a flat high percentage and no money up front for use of the ideas, with the understanding that this is just a stopgap and renegotiating will occur once people know what's on the table). This is of course impractical now, since investors would
Re:What is everyone thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Problems with that theory:
Parent
Re:What is everyone thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
In your note above, you say going it alone might take so long to get there someone else scoops you. In that case, you want to protect that you got there first, or patented the idea first. Patents weren't designed to protect the person that gets there first.
In terms of getting funding for an idea, in my experience VCs fund teams and markets first, and ideas second. I do have some sympathy with this part of your argument, but not a tremendous amount. If your ideas are really good, they will fund you precisely because you can come up with good ideas.
CIA, spooks, etc.? Pulease. Patents aren't about protecting information, they are about releasing information but protecting ideas.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But, seriously, the small guy needs patent law more than the big guy.
That's a nice theory, but the reality is that the small guy can't afford patents, and the big guy can. The little guy is much better off keeping the important ideas secret, protecting them with trade secret and contract law (NDAs, etc.). Patent litigation is ruinously expensive, and if you end up fighting with a big guy, odds are very good that he'll dig up a dozen patents of his own that you are infringing.
Note that I do think pate
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I caught a headline on Slashdot the other day saying that Intel had been granted a patent on Web phones. The summary said it had been filed for in 2000. I didn't get the chance to read the article
Algorithms are not trinkets. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with your reasoning is that it goes against the most basic grain of how human culture has developed.
The most fundamental freedom of any person (after covering the basic necesities) is the freedom to think.
If you come up with a method to solve a problem you should be fully entitled to get some kind of remuneration if your method is useful. But I don't see why if I come with my own method to solve the same problem I should have to pay you anything for it.
Why only Amazon? (Score:5, Interesting)
By this description, it would seem that IBM is entitled to sue just about every online vendor on the web today.
For maximum patent lawsuit profits, I think they should hit the iTunes store next, then work their way down the list of all domains until the profit from the lawsuits drops to less than $10K per victim.
The potential for a cash grab is absolutely insane here, they could bankrupt just about every single online vendor on the web, though that might be counterproductive to their hardware sales, however if the lawsuit profits can be invested and grow at a rate greater than hardware sales profits, I guess that wouldn't matter and IBM could abandon hardware sales and simply manage investment funds started with lawsuit profits.
This is definitely the beginning of the end of online commerce.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only if IBM win.
There is a big difference between initiating legal action against someone and successfully arguing your case in court, perhaps more so in the US business world than anywhere else.
There is also a world of difference between attempting to use your huge patent portfolio to put pressure on a single target with a limited portfolio of its own, and attempting to use your huge patent portfolio against half the business world (and
Lately I begin to wonder.... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is quite seriously scary stuff in my opinion and just goes to emphasize how we really shouldnt have software patents in the first place. Sadly, im a big fan of big blue and dislike amazon quite alot.
I wonder how many people, who code just "stumble" on the same idea. If you locked a coder in a black box and told him write a site that sells things online and make it "feature" rich, how many patents would he infringe?
The broad nature of the patents (or at least how they are described in the article) makes me pray to god IBM dont win this one.
What does IBM want? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd be lovely if IBM descided that its time someone puts the U.S. patent office out of its missery, but I'm sure this isn't the case if they have been trying to negotiate licensing deals with Amazon. But it might still have that effect if Amazon is stupid.
good cop bad cop (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM Laywers (Score:2, Funny)
Good news? (Score:5, Interesting)
I like the idea of patents, but I loathe the way some companies abuse something that can be used to help the little man break into an industry by creating something truly innovative without having the big boys crush them. But now days, big companies like Microsoft are filing patents left and right and just seeing what sticks. It doesn't matter if they're invalid, MS will still file them and call it innovation.
What was I talking about again?
Parent
Re:Good news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not entirely sure; I think you were talking about how utterly evil and despised IBM used to be, how there's no guarantee that this isn't the first sign of a return to form, and that they are the world's most prolific software patentors, but you seem to have been distracted by an utterly irrelevant swipe at MS.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all that IBM has been doing lately, but understand this - they're not doing it because they're nice guys, they're doing it because it makes them money. If that were to change, so would their tactics. They're nice to us *now*; we cna only hope that they continue being nice.
Parent
Why do you like patents? (Score:3, Insightful)
In view of the last few days of sheer madness I find sad an discomforting that there are people out there still supporting what is clearly a rotten system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because IBM spends years trying to negotiate a deal before resorting to lawyers. They defend their patents.
Other scum sucking leeches buy up technology, kill the products, and just go around suing for infringement. They use patents to attack and rob legitimate tech producers.
How can you not cheer to see at least one company using patents the way they were meant to be used?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, this is a perfect example of why Amazon must keep patents. Our patent system is so broke the only way to defend yourself from "evil" companies like SCO is to stock your own ammunition.
It's like nuclear proliferation, until every company in the world signs a treaty, you have to continue to stockpile patents. Amazon officials have said in numerous interviews, patents are taken whenever they can be granted under the current (broken) system to prevent someone else from patenting an idea and tu
Re:OneClick? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:amazon (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)