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 03:10 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This discussion has been archived.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 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

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

    by ClosedSource (238333) * on Monday October 23 2006, @03:12PM (#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.

    • 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

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

    by Kelson (129150) * on Monday October 23 2006, @03:12PM (#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."

  • what IBM wants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wardk (3037) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:12PM (#16550140) Journal
    IBM just wants amazon to let them use the heralded one-click "invention" without royalties. this is their first offer.

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

    by oliderid (710055) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:20PM (#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.

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

    by Infernal Device (865066) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:21PM (#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, @04:02PM (#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, @04:05PM (#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.

    • 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) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .ekiMver.> on Monday October 23 2006, @04:23PM (#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.

      • 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.

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

      by Aqua_boy17 (962670) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:21PM (#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, @03:28PM (#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, @04:12PM (#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:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Hartmeister (928651) on Monday October 23 2006, @04:18PM (#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:But if (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Phillup (317168) on Monday October 23 2006, @03:48PM (#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.

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.