Amazon Using Patent Reform to Strengthen 1-Click 71
theodp writes "As some predicted, lawyers for Amazon.com have recently submitted 1-Click prior art solicited by Tim O'Reilly under the auspices of Jeff Bezos' patent reform effort to the USPTO, soliciting a 'favorable action' that would help bulletproof the patent. Last June, an Amazon lobbyist referred to deficiencies with the same prior art as he tried to convince Congress that 1-Click was novel, prompting Rep. Howard Berman to call BS."
Re:What is the big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop the disease from spreading, don't ignore it till it bits you in the ass.
The whole thing on the idea of software patents is mentally and completely faulty.
Its all about abstraction physics, how to manipulate the abstract communication we humans have the unique ability and natural right and duty to create and use, as a matter of advancement. But software is in essence based upon that which is fundamentally recignized as not patentable.
Asbstract ideas, physical phenomenon and natural law. A forth is often claims to be that of mathmatical algorithms but that is a subset of the first primary three.
When man goes against father physics and mother nature, we falsely limits ourselves and it's only natural and physically predictable that problems will develope due to the friction against
Patents are written in terms and conotations that seem to support patents, but the same abstract idea can also be written in terms of that which is not patentable, not novel, etc..
The core of this ability lies in abstraction physics. The unavoidable action set, a set of actions that are "constant" in use, by not only programmers but every human capable of forming abstract thought and of course there is the influence of such that we convert to a phenomenon of physical movement and conversion.
So lest write abstracts about abstractions called patents but exposing the perfered non-patentable version that helps to expose the honesty of abstraction physics. Why Software is not patentable.
The idea of presenting prior art, prior to a lawsuit, that it may be used to strengthen a patent is an obvious example of the application of abstraction physics. As the absolute fact of the matter is, it honestly should not make a difference when the honest facts are brought forward. Unless, and only unless, dishonesty is being applied and used to make up excuses to continue a deception.
Software is not patentable, that is provable.
The real reason this hasn't come forward is because of vested interest in the lies contridiction the facts. This includes the softare industry in general and without regard for what side of the fence you claim to be on, open source or proprietary. As Programmers in general no more ant to give up the ego, status and/or pay any more than teh roman numeral accountants wanted to (resulting in the false limitation of mathmatics for some 300 years, when the hindu arabic decimal system was first developed and shown to be easier and more powerful).
Software will become as free as doing a calculation on a calculator, as nobody is charged royalities or licensing fees for using a calculator or pencil and paper to do some math. The only difference here is that the abstraction set is recognizably definable (the point of abstraction is word = definition, function name = function code, etc..and the "summing" tools are repetitive and recursive in nature (i.e. this function name = this code which is made up of function names whith their code, recursively)
If you think programming is more complex than that, it's really not, as "automation of abstraction usage" turned in on itself applies to code generation too. Autocoding (not the medical term, but the critical aerospace industry make use of it in primitive constrained ways - of which the constraints are recognized as false, limiting and caused by supporting the limits of proprietary claims of the software used.)
Google Abstraction Physics and Abstraction_physics (with and underscore).
Someone once asked for forgiveness for man, as he knows not what he does.
And there are those who claim they don't understand the simplicity of abstraction physics...what they and every one does.... just like I'm doing here, applying it.
Re:1 Click (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:1 Click (Score:3, Interesting)
If I invented something I would not be the first person to scream about protecting my invention. I don't believe in patents, I don't think ideas should be property. Many countries function well without giving people the right to stake their claim on aspects of the human thought process.
Any software I develop will be free software. I don't believe I was the first person to think of anything, and I don't deserve compensation for the ideas I come up with. I think making money by shouting "I thought of it first!" is dishonest, because there is no way to be certain, of the 6 billion people on the planet, who exactly thought of something first.
Laws governing "Intellectual Property" are broken. People don't file patents because their idea is valuable. They file patents because their idea is a trivial improvement on a similar idea and financially worthless unless given the exclusive right to use it. In order for an idea to be financially valuable on its own, it would have to be so revolutionary you wouldn't need a patent because no one would be able to understand it and copy it anyway. For example, if you were to plop down a food replicator at a tech convention, you wouldn't need a patent because no one in the whole place could even imagine the physics required to build one of those. Instead, patents are the legal of equivalent of "Infinity + 1".
Generally, 1-Click is just a concrete implementation on the concept of using stored data to perform an operation. How is saving the customer's CCN any different than saving any other piece of data? I've had companies keep my CCN on record before the internet was even around.
Patents are supported by average people because they're spoon-fed a number of myths. The urban legend about the guy who invented something but didn't get a patent so his boss/friend/wife/neighbor got rich from it. Second, patent supporters want people to believe that the good life, full of riches, women, and fast cars is only a patent away.