Bezos Patents Information Exchange 173
theodp writes "Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was handed a patent Tuesday for Information exchange between users of different web pages. Tough to tell what exactly it might cover ('various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention'), although RSS Newsreaders, TrackBacks, and Google News come to mind. Elements of Bezos' invention may evoke a sense of deja vu in those who used Third Voice or the Annotation Engine."
Oh my goodness (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe he's trying to patent all forms of information transfer on the internet! This is absurd and an example of why IP is wrong or its application corrupt!
In one embodiment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does that not make you want to retch? Legitimizing spyware with patents.
At least one can be fairly confident it won't "plug-in" to things not Windows.
Re:Holy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you say "Prior Art?" We knew you could.
That's pretty broad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Then again,
I'll have to sit down and read over the 3 primary claims again (1,9,16), but I'll bet this thing's got P.A. all over it. Especially since they only cited *2* references, and thiese ideas have been out there for quite a while.
I just thought of this. (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand the need to complain about the patents that are issued over software in the US, but let me ask a question. Has anyone thought that articles such as this might later be used as evidence that OSS programmers should have been aware of the existence of the patent, and set them up for the triple damages provision of patent law?
Just a thought.
Invalid? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is an important point, becuase NOT having the correct inventors is one of the ways a patent can be ruled invalid or fraudulent (which I forget) in court.
Re:Amazon gone Evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
A) one against bn.com 5 years ago.
Patents are defensive as well as offensive, also amazon has it's own notation prior ar
Re:All you have to do is prove Prior Art (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because the current system has been abused beyond all recognition does not mean that the concept of software patents is a bad thing.
Re:Holy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bezos has the money to spend on patents. College students in a garage developing Amazon++ don't. The threat of legal action shuts them down. That's why patents shouldn't be granted like that. A suit for anything else would get thrown out as frivolous. Once you have a patent, you have to spend money to get it invalidated. Uncool, and unconstitutional. Instead of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts," it hinders it.
Re:All you have to do is prove Prior Art (Score:5, Insightful)
various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention
Especially when the patent itself is already vague. If you were the first to design and build a piston-driven internal combustion engine, and you want to cover different sized pistons, different numbers of pistons, and different piston formations (V, I, radial, etc)
But when your patent is already vague, ie 'a different method for doing something that tons of people already do' and then you add 'various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention' you're basically asking the patent office to give you the right to rip everyone else off.
You know what I think the patent office needs to do? Suspend granting any more software patents until they can get their ass in shape. Maybe _no_ software patents is the answer, maybe _some_ software patents is the answer, I don't know. All I know is that the current system is complete bullshit, rubbish, etc and needs to be put on hiatus until we can properly figure out what the hell is going on and what constitutes ingenuity in software.
Can't software patents be completely ignored? (Score:2, Insightful)
Boycott the USPTO, not Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
To an extent, the people locked in the game are almost, but not quite, the victims. You can't reasonably say fsckit I'm not playing the patent game any longer - the others would be onto you like a pack of hungry street dogs attacking a weakened comrade. The USPTO loves the fact that they're processing heaps of patents and generating nice revenue. It makes them look powerful and important. Like the arms race, the only people that won out of it were the arms suppliers - not the recers themselves.
Re:All you have to do is prove Prior Art (Score:4, Insightful)
If we want to go back to first principles, start by asking what the purpose of a 'patent' is. Then see if software patents achieve, or are ever likely to achieve that purpose.
Re:Boycott the USPTO, not Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems more likely that the scope of victimization extends far beyond just the companies involved. A patentholder could exercise any and or all of its claims at any point, and at any terms, leaving those on the other side in a somewhat tenuous state. I see this as a way to raise the barrier of entry quite substantially. Once, all it took was a good idea and some programming skill, Now, almost certainly, one will need adequate legal counsel as well, which for many, simply isn't an option.
The USPTO loves the fact that they're processing heaps of patents and generating nice revenue.
That's about all it's generating. This madness certainly isn't helping is stated purpose, which is to foster innovation.
Like the arms race, the only people that won out of it were the arms suppliers
Don't forget the lawyers. They're masters at the art of bottom-feeding and scavenging off others' misfortune.
Prior Art? (Score:1, Insightful)
invention ? (Score:2, Insightful)