Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 163 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • I guess there's some patent problem on /. too? :)

  • 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.

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

    by Kelson (129150) * on Monday October 23 2006, @02:12PM (#16550134)
    (http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 11, @05:30PM)
    As crazy as this patent insanity gets, I can't help but think of the phrase, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

  • what IBM wants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wardk (3037) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:12PM (#16550140)
    (Last Journal: Thursday July 22 2004, @11:14AM)
    IBM just wants amazon to let them use the heralded one-click "invention" without royalties. this is their first offer.

  • Prior Art? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gbulmash (688770) * <semi_famous&yahoo,com> on Monday October 23 2006, @02:13PM (#16550144)
    (http://www.fundraw.com/ | Last Journal: Friday October 26, @03:42AM)
    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 was let loose on it, it might seem so.

    But, while the Internet was still the domain of geeks, academics, and scientists, and not open to the public, there were still lots of online services like Prodigy, CompuServe, and AOL back then, and IIRC, they had some nascent e-commerce going on, including catalog ordering, back then and before that. It would be interesting to see if that patent could be challenged on the basis of prior art and how that prior art evidence could be gathered.

    - Greg
    • Re:Prior Art? by Mateo_LeFou (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @02:17PM
      • Re:Prior Art? by the eric conspiracy (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @02:21PM
        • Re:Prior Art? by bidule (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @02:56PM
        • Re:Prior Art? by TClevenger (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:09PM
      • Great quote. by AJWM (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @02:27PM
    • Re:Prior Art? by AdamKG (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @02:20PM
      • Re:Prior Art? by neurojab (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:46PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Prior Art? by Chandon Seldon (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @02:37PM

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

      by RevMike (632002) <revMike.gmail@com> on Monday October 23 2006, @03:23PM (#16551220)
      (Last Journal: Thursday January 18 2007, @09:10PM)
      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.

      [ Parent ]
      • ePlus v. SAP by aeryn_sunn (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @08:57PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • One click (Score:1)

    by stecoop (759508) * on Monday October 23 2006, @02:14PM (#16550170)
    (Last Journal: Monday March 21 2005, @03:37PM)
    We'll, amazon has the one click patent; therfore, either IBM patent is obvious or the whole pattent system is severly screwed. These are the only two choices; dont compalin about the lack of choices so choose one.
    • Re:One click by darkchubs (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @02:25PM

  • Oh my (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ixne (599904) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:16PM (#16550200)
    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...
    • Re:Oh my by Bill_the_Engineer (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:36PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Use of an electronic catalogue? (Score:1)

    by dfn5 (524972) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:18PM (#16550244)
    (Last Journal: Thursday January 06 2005, @12:42PM)
    Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.
    Are you freaking kidding me? Do they expect you to order a print catalogue and then order from that?
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • 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.

  • Obviousness doesn't matter anymore (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cracked Pottery (947450) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:20PM (#16550272)
    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.
    • Re:Reminded of a story by duranaki (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @02:51PM

    • 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".
      [ Parent ]

    • 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.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Reminded of a story by darkchubs (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:27PM
    • Geeks: KNOW THY HISTORY! by cr0sh (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @06:55PM

  • But if (Score:2)

    by Andy Gardner (850877) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:22PM (#16550302)
    a corporation can patent something as fundamental as this that would mean the whole damn patent system is screwed u... oh wait
    • Re:But if by Mikachu (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @02:30PM
      • Re:But if by Andy Gardner (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @02:42PM
      • Re:But if by RoboRay (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @02:43PM

      • 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.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:But if by MillerAH (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @07:01PM
        • Re:But if by davidsyes (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @09:49PM
        • Re:But if by Alsee (Score:2) Wednesday October 25 2006, @12:06PM
        • Re:But if by Nimey (Score:1) Monday October 23 2006, @03:28PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:But if by raduf (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @03:22PM
        • Re:But if by JohnFluxx (Score:3) Monday October 23 2006, @04:40PM
    • Re:But if by Don_dumb (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @05:17AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • I sincerely hope... (Score:1)

    by Phobetron (1017164) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:26PM (#16550356)

    Is it possible that this is a veiled plan to finally destroy obvious process patents? Those patents are about as obvious and widely-scoped as they come. It really would take a case of this scale to finally cause some movement on patent reform, IMO.

    Of course, I'm sure I'm being a bit too optimistic.

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

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:39PM (#16550556)
    (http://inglorion.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 06 2005, @07:17AM)
    ``IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement''

    And so it begins...

  • Karma's a bitch (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2006, @02:44PM (#16550634)
    ... ain't she, Jeff [stanford.edu]? Couldn't have happened to a slimier company.

  • A cross-licence thing ? (Score:1)

    by quiberon2 (986274) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:45PM (#16550656)
    This has got to be a cross-licence thing. It's too easy (now) for prior art to surface which will invalidate the IBM patents.

    Quite apart from this, Amazon supply a lot of books to IBM. The pair should be 'commercial friends', not competitors. Amazon don't do a lot of commercial solution providing and outsourcing.

  • Screw it, I'm going Amish (Score:1, Funny)

    by dapsychous (1009353) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:59PM (#16550878)
    (http://www.myspace.com/dapsychous)

    Seriously, this patent shit has gotten completely out of control. I understand that people want to keep other people from stealing their ideas and profiting on them, but patenting a concept? Christ! Can I go ahead and put a patent on a virtually representing people or places over electronic media for communication purposes? Just because it's not mainstream now, doesn't mean it won't completely fuel commerce in 10-20 years. Would it make more sense for a patent to last 2 years: Just enough time to get a product to market first? This would still stifle industrial espionage without killing commerce 10-15 years down the road.

    What exactly does IBM hope to accomplish with this? I can't think of any motivation besides milking Amazon for every penny.

  • limit (Score:1)

    by kurtis25 (909650) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:19PM (#16551162)
    Isn't there a statute of limitations? If you wait 10 years until a company has money before you mention said patent you are out of luck. If there isn't there should be. After all it's easier to stop something small.
    • Re:limit by Eccles (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @04:58PM
      • Re:limit by Eccles (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @09:21PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • 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?
    • Re:Whowa... by Lewrker (Score:1) Tuesday October 24 2006, @10:19AM
    • Yeah... right... by Eric Damron (Score:2) Monday October 23 2006, @08:23PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

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

    by ebresie (123014) on Monday October 23 2006, @06:15PM (#16553542)
    (http://www.bresie.com/ | Last Journal: Friday December 03 2004, @04:19PM)
    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.
    • Re:From TFA by cmburns69 (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @08:46AM

  • Yeeaaa im gonna be rich... (Score:1)

    by thorkyl (739500) on Monday October 23 2006, @07:13PM (#16554202)
    You all owe me $10.00 each
    I hold the patent on the concept of passing gas in a public vertical conveyance.

    --
    Send me my money...

    --
    That's what this patent crap smells like
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Tomorrow's News Article... (Score:2)

    by Pichu0102 (916292) <pichu0102@gmail.com> on Monday October 23 2006, @10:05PM (#16555430)
    (Last Journal: Monday July 17 2006, @06:40PM)
    "Amazon sues SCO for copyright infringement"

    It'll be like a triangle of lawsuits!
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • On another note.... (Score:1)

    by T.Louis (1015101) on Tuesday October 24 2006, @05:40AM (#16557222)

    ...a controversial patent by the Omni Corporation on "Nano Technology" has been passed. The patent is vague but includes the highly controversial paragraph of pateting everything under "100 nano meters".

    We had an excluvsive interview with one of the originators a Noble priced Physicist and he had only one comment on the matter:

    "...All your base are belong to us."

  • Re:80's? (Score:2)

    by lottameez (816335) on Monday October 23 2006, @02:37PM (#16550526)
    Used to be 17 in the US until the GATT treaty - now they're 20 years. I was thinking the same thing though - some of these patents must be expired or getting pretty close to it.
    [ Parent ]

  • Re:hahahaha (Score:2)

    by makomk (752139) on Monday October 23 2006, @06:43PM (#16553886)
    (Last Journal: Friday August 17, @08:29AM)
    US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
    Good bye Google

    He's no joking, by the way. Glancing through it, it looks sufficiently similar to Google's use of distributed storage that they should probably be fairly worried (though IANAL).
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:hahahaha by Splab (Score:2) Tuesday October 24 2006, @01:43AM
  • 8 replies beneath your current threshold.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.