Publisher Speaks Out Against Amazon Patents 325
andy@petdance.com writes, "In a
recent Ask Tim article on the O'Reilly Web site, Tim O'Reilly takes Jeff Bezos to task for his attempts at patenting 1-click and the associates program. An Open Letter to Amazon is provided for adding your voice to Jeff & co." O'Reilly has a very thoughtful letter about how Amazon's attitude would have killed the Web in its infancy. He also submitted a letter to the IP mailing list which explains his thoughts a bit more. See also NoWebPatents.Org which is running their own anti-Amazon boycott, and our previous story about RMS's call for a boycott.
Persecution of Amazon (Score:1)
Reality check: Linux (and for that matter, the Internet itself) would not be in its current state if it were not for these Large Corporations! Hell, I'll do you one better: Linux would not be in its current state if it weren't for Amazon! How many Linux developers do you think used Amazon to purchase books such as Command-Line Crap in 21 Days by Dennis Ritchie or Go Fork Yourself: A Complete Guide To UNIX Process Control by W. Richard Stevens? How many of these same developers used 1-Click Ordering (TM) to purchase these books? Fuckloads of them, that's how many. Fuckloads.
So stop whining, zealots. Your high-pitched objections to the legitimate actions of a true business innovator grate harshly against my very soul.
"1-Click Ordering" is a registered trademark of Amazon.com. Patent pending.
O'Reilly Does NOT speak for us! (Score:1)
You have only to look at the presence of O'Reilly books on your bestseller lists vs. those at your competitors to realize how much of your computer book sales are driven by the hard core technical community that is O'Reilly's customer base. And I can tell you that those customers are solidly against software patents.
How DARE he assume that we are against software patents?? Without intellectual property protection, who would bother innovating anything? Not all of us are willing to work for free. For those who are, without IP protection, the GPL would be worthless!
Why I'm not boycotting Amazon (Score:1)
Do you really think that bn.com or etoys.com or any other online retailer you care to name would behave any differently, if they had the chance?
What would be achieved by convincing Amazon not to pursue frivolous patents? Even if you succeeded, someone else would get the stupid patents instead and enforce them against Amazon. Is Amazon really to be blamed for trying to avoid that?
Boycotting Amazon only treats the symptom, not the underlying problem that patents like these are granted by the USPTO. Convincing Amazon not to pursue stupid patents wouldn't change the fact that stupid patents are granted--it would just then be other companies getting stupid patents. What are you going to do, keep playing whack-a-mole-with-boycotts indefinitely, as other companies get stupid patents?
Even if you could somehow get all companies to agree not to file stupid patent applications, without addressing the underlying problem that such patents are being granted, it would only take one bad company to start filing them to ruin the agreement for everyone.
So the problem lies with the USPTO, not with Amazon. In fact, I believe that often the best way to get a bad law fixed is to abuse the law. This draws attention to the problem and promotes reform. But that's an argument I'll save for some other time.
What's to be done, then? I don't have a quick solution. I would like to point out, however, that I believe the problem lies more with the USPTO management, rather than rank-and-file patent examiners, who I believe do the best job they can with limited resources. There's a number of things which point to this:
1. Subject expertise. I've heard it said by others that the USPTO lumps software patents in with electrical engineering--thus you have examiners whose subject specialty is EE trying to evaluate software patents. (This is what I've heard--I don't know it for a fact.) I know that in general, patent examiners usually have at least a master's degree in their field. So examination of software patents may be worse than other fields.
2. Time allowed for examination. I understand that examiners' quotas are such that they have about an hour or two to examine each patent application. This is an order of magnitude or so below what is necessary to do a thorough job. I know, because I am a patent searcher at a major corporation--that is, I basically do some of what patent examiners do, except that I have the time and budget to do a proper job. A thorough search for prior art takes me anywhere from 2 to 20 hours of work, depending on the complexity of the subject--the average is probably around 4 hours. Keep in mind that this is only conducting the search, and not actually evaluating the documents I've identified as possible prior art to see if they really would invalidate a patent application--I turn my search results over to the attorneys and let them handle that. Patent examiners have to both conduct the search and evaluate the documents found.
3. Search system. The USPTO management recently installed a new search system for examiners--one which is very slow and inefficient, and is largely hated by examiners. For more details, look at the PIUG-L archives [derwent.com] (Patent Information Users' Group), and scroll down to the posts by Gregory Aharonian, who has posted repeatedly on the topic. Be sure to look in particular at a petition submitted to Congress [derwent.com] by a number of examiners fed up with the new search system.
Sorry to ramble on, but it's one of my peeves when I see people blame patent examiners for granting stupid patents, when in fact I believe the fault lies with USPTO management.
Re:Who gives him the right? (Score:1)
Why no patents? (Score:1)
Every day, I see more and more "geek" agitation here on Slashdot, rallying against the evils of the U.S. patent system. Instead, we are told, all ideas should be "open sourced" so to speak; anyone should be allowed to use them.
Patents were designed to stimulate progress, and that is what they have done. Much in the same way as software licenses. Slashdotters are perfectly willing to violate patent laws, but if you dare to violate the satus quo of their "community" (like LinuxOne did), you better watch out. They did nothing illegal. *Nothing*.
So who are you to judge? Instead of patents and software licenses (and of course, if anyone were to violate the GPL, we'd hear about it immediatly, but the warez trading on Slashdot sids goes unmentioned). Your hypocrisy is what's holding you back. You scoff at patents which *you* don't own, but try anything new with Linux and you're denounced as a scam artist by software and music pirates. How typical of the Linux scene: moralizing, holier-than-thou teenagers who've probably never held a job in their whole life, and are too lazy to actually *buy* software or music, thus providing *incentive* to the creator (or am I being to reactionary here, comrades?)
In short, while you condem others, your behavior is both unethical (as defined by the Bible) and illegal, while that of Amazon or other patent holders, is not.
The only way to fight this... (Score:1)
When amazon begins enforcement of their new patent. I truely hope that their victim has the guts to viciously attack Amazon, the USPTO, as well as the patent examiner by name.
Typically, I hate to see the little guy trampled by big corporations, but the USPTO is a farm system into the high-priced patent attorney ranks. A tour of duty can bring immense wealth to a cunning young lawyer.
S/He must lose his house, his/her savings, and her/his future earnings. S/He must stand as an example to all examiners who come after that the job can have serious, life-altering consequences.
Someone will argue that they know a bright young lawyer who is just trying to make his way in this big, complicated world. Well, thats fine, but let's see him earn that future. The paperwork two-step currently performed in regard to software patents is unacceptable.
Software only needs copyright, trademarks, and trade secret protections. Those are enough to balance the low capital cost of computer science with the needs of industry. A piece of software only becomes a device when viewed through the paper veil of too many lawyers.
Slashdot's new plague: Whining ACs (Score:1)
Storal of the mory, whining gets you nowhere, so take 3 minutes, make yourself an account, and enjoy the ability to (meta)moderate. In the meantime I'll just be glad that I normally browse at +1.
----------------------------
Re:abolish corporate patents (Score:1)
Your proposal might help a little bit, but not nearly as much as real patent system reform.
A little hypocracy? (Score:1)
Given that ORA have siezed control of the camel as a trademark when associated with Perl. Which seems pretty patently absurd to me.
Or is it simply that Tim opposes poor use of intellectual property laws when the offender is not ORA.
Put your money.. where your mouth is? (Score:2)
What if Yahoo patented the portal, or something really stupid like that? What I would really like to be done to Amazon is the same thing they have done to the Web.
One click shopping isn't that good an idea though(which is probably why no one was doing it), the shopping cart metaphor seems to work ok.
I don't know, the idea of one-click shopping seems so insecure. Remember a while ago, people wouldn't trust the Internet with the smallest things? It was thought that small transactions, like lower than $50 would be used in eWallets or somesuch would rule the day. Why did people suddenly start trusting the Internet so much? I mean, the same level of crypto existed back then?
Amazon is using the excuse that "Oh since no one did it before, we must have invented it." No, it is just that people wouldn't trust it at the time, and no one had a reason to impement it. Would someone explain to me why people should trust it???
Hmm don't eWallets qualify as prior art for Amazon's thing?
We need a blacklist of these stupid patent companies. Amazon, Unisys. They should be advertised as the bloodsuckers they are.
Re:not abusing amazon? (Score:2)
Amazon.com is in the same category as Wal-mart, Borders, BN and Starbucks. They've managed to become very successful, but along the way have done things which make me quite willing to avoid using their services. I doubt they even notice my absence, but I get to know that I'm not knowingly financing actions which I don't agree with.
I have absolutely no problem with success, as long as you play fair and don't intentionally cause injuries.
----------------------------
I know I won't be doing this (Score:2)
If I am not mistaken, your idea of placing conditions on people's freedom to enter into this license agreement with open source software is completely contrary to the spirit of the thing and specifically clashes with the GPL. I certainly will never support it, no matter how intensely I oppose corporations wielding software patents. It's almost as bad as the idea of building an 'open source patent portfolio' and then acting just like the corporations, to teach them a lesson! no no no ;P
No, that's not the case (Score:2)
As a corporate entity they are _compelled_ to behave like this, in all seriousness, with no concern for whether it is fair, valid or even sensible. They are _one_ 'reality check' away from a major collapse of their valuation- which could really blow up in their faces. Everything depends on the world continuing to think 'Amazon will stomp all other online booksellers! Jeff Bezos is man of the year!'. The second that no longer makes sense to, say, Wall Street, the reality takes hold- the reality is that they've had a _lot_ of trouble getting anywhere close to turning a profit.
They _are_ serious, they are playing the patents as a game, and they will continue to abuse the system until they crash and burn, because that is basically all they have- that and brand name loyalty, which is being eroded by their actions. They might have nasty contracts for affiliates (has anyone asked CmdrTaco if he's legally allowed to _pull_ the links to Amazon? Or did he sign off on a contract mandating them for X amount of time?). But mostly they have a stock valuation that's keeping them going. If that fails and the perception is that they've stumbled and no longer dominate, they have very serious trouble.
Does it? (Score:2)
The equivalent of GPL in the patent sphere (Score:2)
The equivalent in patent terms is not a patent. It is the publication in a unarguably conspicuous place of the relevant ideas, in such a way that patent examiners can get access to and search for the ideas. Like the GPL, it impedes your ability to force people to pay for your idea (implementation is still fair game). Also like the GPL, it penalizes nobody and focusses on one key point: anyone can do anything with an established public domain idea _except_ patent it and restrict other people from using it.
The missing piece is this: we have no way of publishing any such ideas anywhere that will stand up in court as public domain. I feel strongly that just putting stuff on your website will not do- the patent examiners will not grovel through a million websites, and the whole point of the exercise is to make it possible to _block_ the blind granting of patents on things. There is a way to formally announce things as PD, but it costs money (much less than a patent) and is not a forum for sharing the ideas with a broad public. I've said before and I'll keep saying: we need a formal website for 'outing' ideas and inventions of all kinds, a centralised 'bazaar for inventions' that can be easily searched by patent examiners, individuals and corporations alike. The latter group is important: even if the patent examiners aren't on the ball, if you get two corporations grabbing a public domain idea, each one will bitterly deny the other's right to patent the idea- and the individuals and actual inventors won't have to concern themselves with that aspect. End result is that the idea stays public domain as intended.
Is anybody ever going to help put together such a site? I am getting desperate. The possibilities are great: even in the case of preexisting patents, it is often possible to come up with an invention of narrow focus that does not infringe on the patent. Such work done for an effective public domain resource would be able to rapidly propagate such workarounds to the public and to industry, quickly reducing the usefulness of existing patents unless they are genuinely brilliant inventions. But there has to be the site, it's useless to just have a bunch of random people putting stuff on their web pages...
Re:P/E ratio of zero is very good! (Score:2)
Wouldn't 1/0 approach infinity?
Re:Spyglass should have patented "Back" button. (Score:2)
Now, if CERN had patented HTTP...
--
New license? (Score:2)
Amazon hosts using Stronghold/Apache. I bet they use gobs of other free software, and they give back to the community by filing for software patents?
If people really want to make a statement about their beliefs that software patents are bad, add a clause to your open source software specifically removing the rights for any corporation or individual holding software patents from use of your software without express written permission.
bezos@amazon.com (Score:2)
Feb 29 00:46:54 doma sendmail[23503]: AAA23503: from=, size=19449 , class=0, pri=49449, nrcpts=1, msgid=, proto=SMTP, relay=mattyt@localhost [127.0.0.1]
Feb 29 00:46:55 doma sendmail[23505]: AAA23503: to=, delay=00: 00:01, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=smtp, relay=mail.oz.net. [216.39.128.2], stat=Sen t (AAA13184 Message accepted for delivery)
I didn't see it anywhere yet (I searched this entire thread and all of the above links for 'bezos'). I cut and pasted the letter into an email, with a few brief comments of my own. Maybe if he gets several thousand 20K emails from people, all of whom are very net-connected, who are saying they won't shop at his store until he rescinds the 2 patents, he'll think twice. Just a suggestion....
Re:Slashdot hypocrasy? (Score:2)
I'm amazed this post has a score 4, considering it seems to have even less fact checking than your average /. story [slashdot.org].
--
Re:Slashdot hypocrasy? (Score:2)
Uh, I followed your link and got:
Guys, pretty please cut your ties with Amazon? Or just take your links to Amazon and put in place a message saying why you should boycott Amazon until Bezos drops this stupid lawsuit? It's the right thing to do...even if it's a pain in the ass to code. Thanks.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Well, if the company paid for the research and had an agreement with the student that any results were owned by the company, then it seems to be legal to me. It might have been a bad idea for the student to invent such a thing while in that employ, but on the other hand maybe he wouldn't have thought of it without their financial support.
If a person has a clever idea, and patents that what's wrong with that? because in THIS case some people here are NOT agreeing with the US patent commission? And should issue a boycot?
Well, there are really several different complaints going on at once. To sum up:
So what seems to be a lot of confusing ranting is really four different kinds of complaints going on at once. In this article, all four of those groups of people are unhappy with Amazon.com.
Re:He can't refuse to ship to Amazon (Score:2)
I think the problem is that "stopping sales to amazon" won't change anything. It doesn't "convince" Amazon to change their ways. Amazon doesn't "need" O'Reilly (in the sense of buying their books directly from ORA). Amazon feels no pain or loss if they get the titles from ORA direct or via the distributor. (I also am not sure what percentage of the books already come from the distributors... it could be that the percentage of books that come direct from ORA is small-to-non-existent.)
Re:New license? (Score:2)
It's easy to say "oh, just publish the info and its prior art", but one can easily look at one-click shopping to know that prior art didn't prevent the patent from being granted, and it doesn't prevent B&N from having to spend Donald Trump Lotto defending themselves.
If you hold the patent, you save yourself the court costs down the road.
Now, if you wanted to maintain a PABL (Patent-Abuser Black List), that's a different story altogether....
an interesting patent-reform proposal... (Score:2)
The basic idea is that whenever a patent is issued, it should be put up for auction. When the auction is over, flip a coin. Heads: the highest bidder buys the patent. Tails: the government buys the patent and puts it in the public domain.
This would benefit society through wider use of patented technology, while still letting people who sponsor patentable innovations get rewarded. If the auctions price the patents fairly, the benefits to consumers through having better and cheaper products will outweigh the taxes they have to pay to get the government to buy the patents.
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
Re:an interesting patent-reform proposal... (Score:2)
Suppose interest rates are 5% on T-bills (bonds issued by the US Treasury), and I believe that patent #7,000,000 has a 1% chance of making $1e9 per year. Therefore, owning that patent is worth as much as owning T-bills that pay $1e7 per year. To buy T-bills that pay that much, I'd have to spend $2e8 ($1e7 divided by 5%). Therefore, it would be rational for me to bid $2e8 on patent #7,000,000.
If I already own patent #7,000,000 and it's up for auction, I should bid $2e8 on it. Then, one of three things will happen:
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
Re:O'Reilly puts his money where his mouth is. (Score:2)
I agree with the posts that have pointed out that O'Reilly hasn't put his money where his mouth is, yet. He's taken a stance which I respect, and done it in a way I respect, but he really hasn't made much of an economic move. I wish he would, and there's good arguments for doing so floating around this discussion.
What I'm curious about is why he doesn't seem to think others should put their money where their mouth is. In his letter to Jeff Bezos, he states "I agree with [Stallman's] message, although not his methods." This implies to me that he's against the idea of a boycott, and I can't figure out for the life of me why.
Could you elaborate, Tim?
Or go for independents. (Score:2)
My favorite physical bookstore has a presence online, along with plenty of other independent bookstores:
All of these are smaller, independent bookstores that aren't huge conglomerates (or Internet behemoths,) and are very good alternatives to the conventional. This list [gte.net] has a good selection of online bookstores, including the ones listed above.
Or, there's always the old fasioned way. Walk to your local used bookstore. I guarantee that there is one in your town, and you might just find something worth reading.
Patch to fix Amazon patent problems... (Score:2)
216.92.118.211 www.amazon.com
Action is easy when the alternatives always
present themselves.
Books.com is now B&N (Score:2)
I just tried to reach Book Stacks at www.books.com [books.com], and it now appears to be simply Barnes & Noble [bn.com]. Does anyone know a working URL?
FWIW, while Amazon.com is abusing the patent system, B&N does not exactly wear a white hat. It has been B&N who have most agressively, in the brick-and-mortar market, been squeezing out independant bookstores. Support your local independant booksellers!
TOO LATE (Score:2)
Expect to hear from my client shortly regarding further legal action.
_________________
Re:Poorly moderated. (Score:2)
Its pretty troll like and content free AND plain incorrect. Linux was developed fine without the help of patents or any proprietary standards. You could say it was developed DESPITE those things (which do tend to stifle innovation).
Yes it is a troll.
Well Spoken.. but.. (Score:2)
Re:O'Reilly puts his money where his mouth is. (Score:2)
While I do admire Tim's decision to speak out - it's way more than any other industry leader has done, and I do believe utterly that he speaks from his heart and not from any profit motive, the net effect on the profits of his company will probably be very positive.
Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation
Re:A little hypocracy? (Score:2)
Re:A little hypocracy? (Score:2)
Re:I disagree with a lot of your points (Score:2)
I disagree with using the GPL with patents because the GPL was designed to encourge the freedom of information. Doing something like this doesn't do that - it forces authors to use the GPL which isn't helpful.
While I do like the GPL, I think most people will agree that it is a pretty.. aggressive.. open source licence. That's okay - it's designed to be like that. But in some cases, it makes it difficult to work with.
For instance - say the Amazon One-Click shopping patent had been GPL-licenced. Apache couldn't use it (Apache Licence), Zope couldn't use it, I don't think any Java webservers could use it (because of the Java libraries) - when I say "use it" I mean have it linked into something like an Apache Module. Oh yeah - PHP couldn't use it either, if it linked to any of the many non-GPL PHP classes.
SO to produce software that can use that patent, you'd have to write and maintain a GPL'ed Webserver (if you want to implement it in there for performance reasons), some kind of web development system - no CSPAN-Perl, remember, and then finally implement your program - all the while paying lawyer to stop people using your system on the web.
I guess it could be useful for a company to GPL-licence a Patent, and then sell exemptions to that licence (like the Reiser-FS). Actully, that could work pretty well.... I should go an patent it before Amazon does.
I'm not a anti-GPL person, BTW. I like the GPL a lot more than a BSD licence, but this isn't what it was designed for.
This is my first post with Mozilla M13 Linux - I hope it works! - Woah.. the screens all black in the preview.. but no crash yet...
I disagree with a lot of your points (Score:2)
This isn't a good idea. I've seen a couple of posts recently suggesting this idea - patenting things and then licenceing them only to GPL'ed software.
I disagree with this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, who is going to pay the legal costs of enforcing it?
Secondly, and more importantly it put limitations on the freedom of use of ideas. While it can be argued that the GPL does the same thing - it doesn't really. It only puts limitations on the implementation of those ideas. Someone if free to re-implement something written as GPL software, provided they don't use any of the source.
I'm somewhat unsure as to how I stand on softwear patents. While I feel I should say that all software patens should be abolished, I do see that they do have something of a point.
My personal idea is that the length that software patents are valid for should be radically shortened - to something like 1 year. I do understand that doing that might create something of a disincentive for some really hard-code patents - and those are the things that I can see a good reason to protect.
I mean if someone thought up an algorithm to compress audio by an order of magnitude more than MP3s - they should have some protection and a chance to make some money out of it, I think.
How long are patents valid for at the moment, anyway?
Re:TOO LATE (Score:2)
However, my method involves a much more targeted approach than your wonton mouse movement anywhere within spitting distance of the screen - there are no buttons or vast areas to traverse, just targeted images that instantly send the item selected on its way!
Should you be even a pixel off an actual item and into the empty space surrounding, that would constitute the agreement to buy advertising or product placement spots on the site, depending on how close you were to the (numerous) add banners. Not only are you shopping, you are also selecting valuable advertising space for your own business needs at the same time!
To end with let me also emphasize our compassion for the fellow shopper - at the point of credit card declination we handily close your browser window for you to avoid embarrassing overdraft fees.
As you can see, your method merely outlines a means of selection of a single item and contains little direction for context to purchase with - in the end, a simple derivation of the historical "one-click" technique.
My legal counsel sadly consists of but one elderly gentleman from the village of Sinanju named Chuin, but he eagerly awaits contact with... er, from, your firm and your client.
Re:Then why does Slashdot advertise Amazon.com (Score:2)
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Slashdot hypocrasy? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot hypocrasy? (Score:2)
Jealousy (Score:2)
Re:"Worthless?" Amazon got a preliminary injunctio (Score:2)
C&C is the highest standard of proof for a civil action in the United States.
While the standards are certainly different, and BRD is probably tougher, there is no meaningful practical difference. At the end of the day, the jury couldn't care less what the label is -- this is what the judge will tell them (in an 11th Circuit Patent case -- mileage may vary):
Take any six people off the street (jury pools are scary-dull generally; and any smart ones will be excluded), make them listen to mind-numbing testimony for two weeks, three hours of jury instructions (and the instructions on invalidity are both complex and dull), let them hear an expert on both sides who seem equally intelligent, show them a ribboned deed from the USPTO, and I can assure you what the result is likely to be.
As for Amazon's chances of winning, I hereby volunteer to take the stand and testify to my uses of cookies in Web programming before 1997. I'll give the jury some clear and convincing evidence, all right. They won't be confused.
Good Luck! Naive statements such as the one set above, even as far more articulately put on behalf of B&N, couldn't convince the judge -- why would it convince any jury?
Such evidence wouldn't, by itself, even be relevant to invalidate the patent in suit, which is not directed to a cookie. Moreover, "before 1997" would not suffice to invalidate the patent in suit -- indeed such vagaries is precisely the stuff that creates doubt sufficient to defeat the standard. Testimony, without documentary evidence, is usually insufficient to meet the standard.
The heat here is not in the use of cookies, generally, but in a particular and limited use of a cookie.
Amazon's patent assertions are worthless.
Maybe they are -- I'd like to think so. But certainly nothing posted so far on Slashdot suffices to show that this is the case, even by a preponderance of the evidence, let alone C&C. Moreover, nothing brought before the Judge at the preliminary injunction hearing convinced the Court that such a claim would have any merit whatsoever.
So, here it is -- same challenge I posted earlier. Find MEANINGFUL prior art, and post its citation to the web -- or send it to B&N. Otherwise, I'd advise being somewhat more circumspect about making arrogant and extravagant claims. Amazon, at least, has a case. Denying this, without more, would be futile.
Spyglass should have patented "Back" button. (Score:2)
Hindsight is 20/20 eh? hehehehe...
--
PanDuh!
Who gives him the right? (Score:2)
That... and really, is one-click shopping really what it is? I mean, don't you have to make at least a few clicks anyway (choose a novel, type in your name/credit card number [at least the first time] and then follow that by the confirmation, choosing the shipping....)? Is it really One-Click, and is it even revolutionary?
-Chris
Re:I hearby outline the Half-Click shopping techni (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:heres a different take on things... (Score:2)
What if by showing that "playing the patent game" makes you lose all around (customers hate you, you get boycotted, and eventually your patent will not hold up).
I think its a great thing that amazon is doing.
maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think in the end this is what their actions will show.
Ofcourse that is what the spindoctors will make them say: they have been doing it all along to show the evils of patenting. but if they're not saying it now, I will not believe them.
//rdj
Re:a usefull first post (Score:2)
first post in this thread to be moderated down.
(although I was just trying to make sure that the
letter could be read by everyone.)
But moderating down the post where I admit my
mistate was kind of pathetic.
Oh well perhaps the slashdot guys will read this
thread and it will give them some insight as to the problems with the current moderation system.
Moderators:
Feel free to moderate this as you wish
Re:"Worthless?" Amazon got a preliminary injunctio (Score:2)
"Clear and convincing evidence" is a weaker standard in the courts than "beyond reasonable doubt".
As for Amazon's chances of winning, I hereby volunteer to take the stand and testify to my uses of cookies in Web programming before 1997. I'll give the jury some clear and convincing evidence, all right. They won't be confused. And just about every other programmer I know who was working before 1997 can do the same thing.
Amazon's patent assertions are worthless.
Whatever happened to Einstein? (Score:2)
What have we come to?
Re:Slashdot hypocrasy? (Score:2)
Rob, the poster is right about this. You've assured us that Slashdot would remain true to its principles, despite becoming a business. Here's a good opportunity for you to prove it. Breaking off your relationship with Amazon may cost a few dollars, but if Amazon prevails, it may cost you and Andover.net and all of the rest of us a lot more in the long run.
Tim O'Reilly has risked some trouble for his business by taking up a public fight with one of his biggest customers; but it will be worth it for him to stand on principle. Will Slashdot be willing to do the same thing?
Do what Fraunhofer did: (Score:2)
MP3 is the same way, well, except, that they didn't actually release anything useful on their patent. The black-magic that they managed to produce is their MP3 codec, but you won't find that on any patent application. they made it trade-secret. It deserves a patent, if anything does.
This is sorta like 3dfx patenting the idea of using a hardware-accelerated 3d graphics card to speed up games, then keeping all of the research and tricks they use in their implementation a trade secret.
So, we get the WORST of both worlds. They don't disclose their 'real' invention, and yet they are granted a patent that stops anyone else in their business from functioning. Full disclosure? HAH!
It's not that black and white. (Score:2)
Bad companies can do good things every now and again, just as good companies can do stupid things.
Amazon isn't condemned for being huge. It's condemned because it's huge and abuses its size when making bonehead market-narrowing moves like this. Yes, geeks have bought from Amazon a lot in the past. That doesn't make the One-Click patent any less wrong.
Re:Still has momentum. (Score:2)
Would shareholders understand? (Score:2)
It is a pretty tough sell to shareholders when it comes to the one click patent. Sadly, unlike the one click patent the companies had some risk of boycott themselves due to their dealings with other companies with other violations. Also explaining why environmental damage and human rights violations are bad is a pretty simple task to explain to shareholders compared to the one click patent.
Most of them I'm sure are not aware of the patent issue (and I'm sure some who are wish they would have thought of it). Saying "Lets not ship to a big name (granted money losing) company so we can gain respect" is a hard sell to make. Granted you wouldn't say it that way but I think that's how your large share holders may hear it. It would be nice if they would go for it, but it could backfire and get ugly. Even just the attempt might rattle shareholders enough to lose their confidence in whomever proposes the idea or the entire company.
IMHO
Re:Still has momentum. (Score:2)
Please, if you have continuing trouble with Fatbrain, let me know. (Yes, that is a real un-spam protected email address) I tend to purchase books in $300 increments online, and when I need them I need them. I'd hate to either got caught by a unreliable company or support the bad habits of such a company.
Prior Art in Bloom County? (Score:2)
I recall a week-long strip of Berkley Breathed's Bloom County cartoon, where Opus the Penguin got addicted to a virtual reality home shopping network. He found that if he just points at an item he sees in the unwieldy goggles, it's ordered and delivered. "I think I just bought a forklift."
I wish I had a copy of it to scan, but it's in one of the anthologies, I'm sure.
Given that Bloom County stopped running before Bezos conceived of Amazon.com, and given that the patent on the waterbed was denied due to Robert Heinlein's depictions in novels, may we not consider this a form of prior art?
Still has momentum. (Score:2)
Well, I'm glad I was wrong!
Amazon Site Patents (Score:2)
It occurs to me that we are dealing with a range of expression problem. In copyright law, your right to assert copyright over a work decreases as the number of ways to express an idea decreases. That is, if there are only a small number of ways to describe something, you can't assert copyright over one of those ways. It seems that the patent office doesn't make the same distinctions. There is very little argument that these patents represent new or inobvious thinking.
Personally, I think the only way this is going to be solved is if the rest of the patent offices in the world (outside the US) summarily decide to ignore US patents in the software arena. The US office has demonstrated its complete ignorance and inability to handle this area, and is doing tremendous damage, to the detriment of individual inventors and small companies everywhere.
United States Patent 5,715,399
Bezos February 3, 1998
Secure method and system for communicating a list of credit card numbers over a non-secure network Abstract A method and system for securely indicating to a customer one or more credit card numbers that a merchant has on file for the customer when communicating with the customer over a non-secure network. The merchant sends a message to the customer that contains only a portion of each of the credit card numbers that are on file with the merchant. The message may also contain a notation explaining which portion of each of the credit card numbers has been extracted. A computer (38) retrieves the credit card numbers on file for the customer in a database (40), constructs the message, and transits the message to a customer location (10) over the Internet network (30) or other non-secure network. The customer can then confirm in a return message that a specific one of the credit card numbers on file with the merchant should be used in charging a transaction. Since only a portion of the credit card number(s) are included in any message transmitted, a third party cannot discover the customer's complete credit card number(s). United States Patent 5,727,163 Bezos March 10, 1998
Secure method for communicating credit card data when placing an order on a non-secure network
Abstract
A method and system for placing an order charged to a credit card, over an unsecured network. The customer completing an order for goods or services enters information required for the order, such as the shipping and billing addresses and identification of the goods, but enters only a subset of the credit card account number to which the order is to be charged. The order is transmitted over the Internet or other network to a remote merchant location (32) from a customer's location (10). A computer (38) at the remote merchant location processes the order to extract the data provided by the customer for storage in a database (40). During a subsequent telephone call to the remote merchant location, the customer enters the complete credit card number, preferably on a touch-tone keypad (28). The touch-tone signals are processed by an automated attendant system (44) for input of the complete credit card number into the computer. Using the portion of the complete credit card number that corresponds to the subset entered by the customer on the order form, the computer identifies the order previously placed and inserts the complete credit card number in the order data stored on the database to finalize the order.
United States Patent 5,960,411 Hartman , et al. September 28, 1999
Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network
Abstract
A method and system for placing an order to purchase an item via the Internet. The order is placed by a purchaser at a client system and received by a server system. The server system receives purchaser information including identification of the purchaser, payment information, and shipment information from the client system. The server system then assigns a client identifier to the client system and associates the assigned client identifier with the received purchaser information. The server system sends to the client system the assigned client identifier and an HTML document identifying the item and including an order button. The client system receives and stores the assigned client identifier and receives and displays the HTML document. In response to the selection of the order button, the client system sends to the server system a request to purchase the identified item. The server system receives the request and combines the purchaser information associated with the client identifier of the client system to generate an order to purchase the item in accordance with the billing and shipment information whereby the purchaser effects the ordering of the product by selection of the order button. United States Patent 5,999,924 Bair , et al. December 7, 1999
Method and apparatus for producing sequenced queries
Abstract
A method and apparatus converts an original query into a sequenced query that takes into account a range of values of a variable defined by a start and end point in performing the query. The start or end points are calculated if necessary and a query to collect all of the start and end points may be generated, and a query is generated that produces a constant set of start and end points defining consecutive periods, such that all the data in the tables related to the original query is constant over each of these periods. These two queries are merged into the original query to produce a sequenced query capable of execution on various database software and capable of taking into account the range of values of the variable in performing the original query.
Re:What saddens me is what they'll accomplish. (Score:2)
You do realize that this is completely against the letter and the spirit of the GPL, do you?
Re:Open ideas now so they won't get patented (Score:2)
One of his points was that we should all put our ideas on the web and let them be linked to
The problem with that idea is that it's still far too easy for someone like Amazon to see a useful non-patent like that, then gain their own US patent on it. The original owner now has to face not only a usurper using a patent that's morally theirs, but may even have to defend their right to access their own work.
Could you fight a patent battle with Amazon ? I couldn't...
Yes, I know this isn't how the patent system should work. Given some of the idiotic, obvious and non-original patents granted by the USPTO recently, then I doubt if thie own searches to extablish originality could extend as far as using Google. Publication, outside a paper journal, is just no longer a workable defence against false claims of originality.
publicity does not matter (Score:2)
such lawsuits are, however, more rare because the number of such shareholders is much smaller and because they have less information about what goes on inside the company.
Re:O'Reilly puts his money where his mouth is. (Score:2)
Re:O'Reilly puts his money where his mouth is. (Score:2)
sorry, my statement was meant to read as, "if I were not buying books from Amazon, but were downloading them instead, my Amazon boycott would be moot. (like my Microsoft boycott is: I run linux :)
Your other points/questions are interesting, but I'm too exhausted to take them up. Another day, though...
Re:What saddens me is what they'll accomplish. (Score:2)
"What saddens me is what they'll accomplish. Humorously enough, it's what a majority of Slashdot seems to want, the abolishment of the patent system."
First of all, I really hope that's not what the majority of /.ers want, because the patent system (when it works) is a good and necessary thing.
Secondly, I don't see this causing anything more than a well-justified revamping (read: shake-up) of the whole patent system. Somehow it's fallen apart at the seams, and too seldom does what it was put in place for: To give originators the incentive and protection to release their ideas to the world.
But even in all the hype, the entire world of computing isn't big enough to destroy the patent system. If we're lucky, maybe it's just big enough to fix it.
Re:O'Reilly puts his money where his mouth is. (Score:2)
How dare they. (Score:2)
And now they go and pull a stunt like this!!! I'm absolutely livid. All I'm asking for is one dollar per page that is displayed and transferred using 'Two Eye (tm)'.
Feedback (Score:2)
Patents were historically introduced to encourage inventors to share their works rather than hide them in the back shed, and so promote the works of innovation and a technological society. As the pace of technology increases, this becomes less important, and in fact allows organisations to strangle access to particular technologies, stifling innovation. The length of patents should be modified accordingly and automatically.
I don't see the people at the patent office getting a clue about innovation anytime soon. The incremental stripping away and smoothing of features is very much a part of technological improvement. Also, massive innovations are sometimes recognised only in retrospect. Determining the difference between genuine innovation and technological "smoothing" leaves the patent office open to all sorts of problems with inconsistency.
Length of patents could be determined by some constant divided by the number of patents issued to all organisations over the previous year (not from Jan, from the date of submission). Alternatively some more sophisticated exponential based formula could be used. This would give a boost to innovators in slow periods and the acceptance of lots of spurious patents would quite appreciably devalue the value of other patents submitted.
It kind of "floats" patent duration like currencies are floated. Maybe you could extend the concept and have some kind of patent market, I'm not sure. I'm not sure whether you'd want it.
Why this patent possibly SHOULD have been granted (Score:2)
And no, this isn't intended as a troll.
So far I haven't seen anyone give a single example of prior art. The best argument that anyone has made is that it was an obvious use of the existing technology (ie cookies). By cookies had been out for a year or two before Amazon started offering 1-click shopping. In HINDSIGHT this is an obvious invention. Given that it so obviously IS a benefit to the customers and that Amazon did have lots of intelligent people trying to make the customer experience better, why would it take them over a year to impliment this "obvious" invention. Because perhaps it isn't "obvious" until you've seen it. I think that 1-click shopping DOES meet the USPTO's definitions for patentability.
Now they could still have it disallowed if someone can prove prior art. One thing to note here is that you don't need to prove art prior to the June 1997 filing date, you need to prove art prior to the July 1996 date taht Amazon made the technology public. Even citing the fact that it was in widespread use as of the date they filed the patent is meaningless if no one else had publically used it before they did (as long as those two dates are less then a year apart which they were).
I've seen people cite prior art on the associates/affiliates program patent but I haven't seen anyone cite a specific dated example of prior use of 1-click ordering. If people DO have hard data of a use before July 1996 THAT would be a reason for the patent to be invalidated, but this was NOT an obvious invention and shouldn't be disallowed as one.
Again, I'm not trying to troll here, I think that this is an important point that gets overlooked constantly in these discussions. All that said I don't think Amazon SHOULD defend the patent, but to me it looks like they have the RIGHT to.
-Brad
A few comments on Tim O'Reilly position (in text) (Score:2)
> I have struggled with this issue since RMS first
> approached me to sign on to his campaign.
> I've declined to urge a boycott
I'm always amazed how RMS is straight on target. The FSFS calls for a boycott of amazon. Everybody laught: "I won't last", "It is stupid", "Nobody cares". But RMS don't mind. And things are slowly moving.
Tim clearly admit that he wouldn't move if RMS didn't boycott.
Few people remember, but the FSF boycotted apple for years. It was not allowed (by the license) to port GNU software on the macintosh. And now, Apple is (more or less) open-sourcing Darwin, the OS behind MOSX. There may be a correlation between those facts or there may not.
> I'm not completely opposed to software patents,
> since there are some things that do in fact
> qualify as legitimate "inventions", but when I
> see people patenting obvious ideas, ideas that
> are already in wide use, it makes my blood boil.
Well, looks like his blood take some time to boil. And need a little help to do so. (he admited that he waited for rms to start to struggle)
> [The patent] is a slap in the face of Tim
> Berners-Lee
Slippery argument. Would things be better is amazon gave a large amount of money to tbl ? Or isn't the simple fact that people are making much money with the web is a 'slap' on his face ?
> Fence in that platform, and who knows what
> opportunities will never come to light?
This is exactly what amazon wants. They have brand recognition. They have market share. Now they need to lock the thing and start making money.
> I urge Amazon to give up on this patent.
Sure. But the other amazon patents are good. He admited a few line before, that he is a 'not completely opposed' (which means that he is okay with the concept). I must congratulate him to stand on such strong position. And sure, he doesn't support the boycott. Mmm.
Summary (with a childish voice):
"Oh, amazon, it is not fair to all those nice people that give me thier money. My friend rms is upset. I love you as you sell many of my books, but this is a little too much. I'd like to publically ask you to recognize that it is not good and to promise me you won't do it again (but well, you do as you want anyway)."
Cheers,
--fred
Re:Amazon alternative (Score:2)
Amazon alternative (Score:3)
not abusing amazon? (Score:3)
I'm glad to see Tim come out and publicly comment on this 1-click patent.
I just did a few quick lookups on Quicken, and it would appear that so far my boycott of amazon has cost them a touch over $7k. Unfortunately the boycott is bound to fail since we can only help them lose more money, which is evidentally pinnacle to their business plan.
How does Jeff Bezos sleep at night?
----------------------------
Re:Slightly OT: Tim defines open source! (Score:3)
Re:He can't refuse to ship to Amazon (Score:3)
Wish that it was, though. :)
Re:Still has momentum. (Score:3)
Look at www.noamazon.com [noamazon.com] and find other merchants, and you'll do well as a consumer.
Thanks Amazon! :-)
PS. Can't help with the neural nets, sorry...
Slashdot hypocrasy? (Score:3)
Why doesn't Rob and friends put their money where their mouth is? Literally.
An anti-Amazon open source license? (Score:3)
How could the open-source community retaliate? They probably can't do this, since it just doesn't fit the philosophy, but it's fun to imagine modifying the open source licenses so that they specifically forbid Amazon from using the software. Take your favorite license and consider adding the following article:
Oh, all right, we can't do that. But it would serve 'em, right, wouldn't it?
Wrong.... and some things do deserve patents. (Score:3)
MP3 is only specced as a bitstream, (and implicitly, a decoder to decode it). ISO does not spec how one does the encoding to that bitstream... That ISO working group does require that there be a reference implementation, it says nothing about the quality and sophistication of that reference implementation; it just has to work and create valid bitstreams.
Compare this with MPEG[12]; The reference MPEG encoder does work, but it doesn't do the black-magic things that commercial encoders costing thousands of dollars will do as far as high-quality encoding at low bitrates.
Similarily, a lamish coder like 8hz and the other freeware encoders are based off the reference encoder, and likewise aren't very sophisticated. The fraunhofer encoder is black magic and proprietary, and I would have no problems with them patenting it. (As patenting would lead to disclosure of how they accomplish their black-magic.)
Instead, they patented a variety of relatively obvious techniques that ANY encoder would use.. This way they get to kill competetion and still keep their coder trade secret. This is why I dislike their patent; for this abuse. They get the best of both worlds; they don't have to disclose anything non-obvious, and they still get a government-granted monopoly on MP3 coding.
Had they patented their encoder, I would be gloriously happy. The tricks used in their encoder would be disclosed to the world, and likely it could or would be improved upon to make it faster or higher quality. Nor would I have any problems with their monopoly, as I know that I merely have to wait for it to exit patent protection. Also, someone who derive a superior encoder has the option of licensing the patent or selling it to them.
This is what the patent system was meant to support, this was the purpose, and properly used, its not all that bad of a deal for the world. What is a bad deal for the world is when 30-minute back-of-the-envelope ideas are patented and used to control whole industries. When someone patents the result of years of work, (like fraunhofer), they deserve the patent and its rewards.
But, since the patent office is granting patents for quick ideas, people like fraunhofer patent the obvious ideas behind their invention, then they keep their real work a proprietary secret.
Summing it up: ``Patents should be granted for perspiration, NOT inspiration.''
Re:O'Reilly puts his money where his mouth is. (Score:3)
And please sign the petition [oreilly.com]
HH
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
Re:Still has momentum. (Score:3)
Hit Fatbrain or Barnes & Noble. The prices are usually dead on even, the level of service is the same (BN) or slightly better (Fatbrain). Plus, the others don't try to shove a Barney DVD down your throat after you've just read the abstract for 'Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence' Just forget that Amazon ever existed, and I don't think you'll miss them.
Offtopic: Anyone here ever used neural nets to differentiate data sets/photos? It's looking to be a new pet project of mine, and I'd be most appreciative of any guiding words..
Well Maybe... (Score:3)
Go sign the open letter (Score:3)
Many people have already signed the letter but not as many as commented on sunday's x-files episode. Quit talking and go do something.
I know that many of you already have this was not meant for you. I was talking to the people who will cry and whine here, but will never make it past the slashdot story to go try and express their opinions.
What can we do? (Score:3)
We need an organization that has the money to place public service advertizements telling JQ Public whats what in a direct, no bullshit and preferably funny way to keep these companies inline.
I am not very aware of such organizations if they exist. Can you tell me who I should be giving my charitable donation to?? (Tax time in the US..a good opportunity) Are they trustworthy?
My fav quote from the article...kinda sums it up
<i>In short, I think you're pissing in the well. </i><p>
Holding each other over barrels (Score:4)
I wonder if Tim O'Reilly has or is contemplating such a move. I don't expect it to happen, but it would certainly be a huge event, and not the first time that O'Reilly has done The Right Thing.
Cheers,
Jeffrey
Re:O'Reilly puts his money where his mouth is. (Score:4)
O'Reilly puts his money where his mouth is. O'Reilly chose to chase up the issue. i.e. O'Reilly is putting his money (and influence) where his mouth is.
No, he's not putting money anywhere than in his bank account at the moment. If he were putting his money where his mouth is he would be refusing to ship through Amazon.
Please note, I am not making any statement about whether or not that is the right thing to do. Just disputing your rhetoric. At the moment all that is happening is "mouth". There is no economic incentive issuing from O'Reilly. RMS is the one advocating that we put our money somewhere else other than Amazon.
Let's not get confused about the difference between a verbal appeal and an economic boycott!
--Crush
It's time to act (Score:4)
I'm tired of participating in ineffective boycotts.
It's time to DO SOMETHING!
Good Lord! How much longer are we going to have to put up with crap like this? The Corporate Man(tm) isn't going to do anything about this, because they either already have or are trying to aquire their very own frivolous patents. It's time for someone to stand up and start filing civil suits. I've got disposable income, I'll contribute.
I'm sorry but boycots/embargos simply don't work. (Blockades on the other hand...) They do in theory, but in reality it's pretty damn hard to reach critical mass.
Re:Persecution of Amazon (Score:4)
This is a case of abuse. Before the 1-click patent fiasco, geeks were some of the heaviest supporters of Amazon.com. Many of us participated in the affiliate program, as did Slashdot itself. Many of us patronized Amazon by purchasing books and other goods from them.
The fact is, Amazon's patents are clear abuses of the patent system. The entire community, RMS, and now O'Reilly have spoken out again the patent. This is different from a Slashdot troll saying "Borland is shit. If they're going release their compiler for free, they have to GPL it and do the same to their debuggers. Otherwise I'll bomb their offices. Who cares if it's their property to do with as they wish? I WANT MY GPL!"
Slightly OT: Tim defines open source! (Score:4)
Did anyone else catch this?
"It's a well known technology truism that all of the smart people don't work for you, and that one of the surest ways to success is to get more ideas and more work out of people outside your own fences."
Proof positive that Tim O'Reilly knows from whence he speaks. That's got to be one of the most effective and concise explanations of the philosophy behind open source development I've ever read.
What saddens me is what they'll accomplish. (Score:4)
The constant creation of these silly patents can only result in litigation. After all, a patent serves only two purposes; to put a process or invention in a publicly accessable database, and to give you ammo to sue your competitors.
Once this goes to court, there's very little chance it will stand up. Unfortunately, as more of these stupid patents go to court, the courts will require better evidence than they do now, until eventaully patents become worthless.
And despite the Slashdot concensus, this is NOT a good thing.
Software patents are usually bogus, however I seriously believe that there are exceptions. The problem is, it's easy to look at a solution an say how easy it must have been to find. It's much more difficult to look at a problem and come up with a decent solution.
Google is a tricky piece of work. Macromedia Flash is an amazing bit of programming. I only wish that someone had patented HTTP, GPLed it, and then refused to let Amazon play, effectively kicking them out of the sandbox.
There are deserving patents out there. Amazon however seems to be "patent squatting", i.e. sitting on obvious patents and hoping they become valuable. Meanwhile the Patent Office understands just as little about the Internet as ICANN, which is an impressively small amount.
[Any errors or stupidity in this document is the result of not sleeping. Goodnight.]
-----
The simple answer is to use the competition. (Score:4)
And of course, it's always best to do a search for the cheapest price at places like pricescan.com [pricescan.com]
One question... (Score:4)
Open ideas now so they won't get patented (Score:5)
http://davenet.userland.com/2000/02/28/noMorePe
One of his points was that we should all put our ideas on the web and let them be linked to. To that end I'm putting my idea for a memory efficient hashtable on the web:
http://www.worldforge.org/website/servers/notpa
Ideally someone will make a searchable open idea database; but, in the meantime, the web and search engines can serve.
I hearby outline the Half-Click shopping technique (Score:5)
What then to do with the remaining mouse_up operation? No need to squander - you can purchase yet ANOTHER product by hovering over another item and releasing the plastic rodent from your grasp! In the same time as it would have taken you to purchase a single item at OTHER on-line shopettes you may have heard of, you have two delightful items in the air and almost there!
I being a genererous person who cares little for material things and has a boundless fondness for all things O' Riley, hereby place this idea (even just the mouse_down portion) in the public domain to be used by all without recompense.
Now the chorded binary mouse button quantity selection technique, that's another story...
"Worthless?" Amazon got a preliminary injunction! (Score:5)
Er. . . this patent has gone to court, and it has survived so far. Amazon obtained preliminary injunction, despite the arguments of a well-represented Barnes and Noble that the patent was invalid. Now, of course, this is hardly a final adjudication: all the court determined was that there was a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. More needs to be discovered, argued and presented to the Court, but this brings me to my point:
Whatever you might think of patents generally, the invalidity of this patent is not all that clear. While it is politically correct in this forum to savage the USPTO for issuing it, dropping lines like, "a trivial application of cookies," the truth appears far more interesting. It is far more difficult to make a legitimate, legal, argument as to this patent's invalidity.
Preliminary injunction in a patent (as opposed to a copyright or trademark) case, particularly when it stops a major enterprise from continuing business as usual, is quite rare. All a defendant needs to do is introduce evidence of invalidity or unenforceability that defeats plaintiff's claim there is a "substantial likelihood" of winning on the merits. This is the easiest standard B&N will ever face in this matter.
From now on in, B&N must prove invalidity to a jury by clear and convincing evidence, which is the civil law equivalent of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The jury will be told to find for the plaintiff unless they harbor an unwavering, clear and abiding conviction that the patent is invalid. Oh yeah, that will happen.
Not.
This is one of the principal reasons that plaintiffs win over 75% of patent cases that go to trial -- a jury, overwhelmed with reams of legal instructions from the judge and presented with technology it barely groks isn't going to harbor an unwavering, clear and abiding conviction of anything. Ultimately, what they will see is the pretty deed, and the judges instruction that, if they aren't sure, they should find for the plaintiff and go back to their families. But that's only the practical side of it.
It is one thing to say, without more, that the issuing of a patent is bad policy and should not have issued therefor. On that point, I might even find myself in agreement. It is another thing entirely to actually argue that the patent *IS* invalid. B&N was in a position to present their best prior art, and they didn't induce even the slightest doubt in the judge that there was less than a substantial likelihood that the patent was valid. In view of this, how, exactly, are they going to convince a jury that there isn't any doubt that the patent is invalid?
Price-to-earnings ratio (Score:5)
But to take this a step further, let's assume that Amazon actually deserves its large price-to-earnings ratio and combine it with something from http://www.oreilly.com/ask_tim/am azon_patent.html [oreilly.com]:
By scaring away other e-commerce sites, Amazon ensures that fewer people will find the Internet useful. That means fewer websites in the future, and therefore fewer people, and so on. Since Amazon depends on having a large user base in the future, why is it abusing a weak patent-checking system in an Internet-destroying way?
--
O'Reilly puts his money where his mouth is. (Score:5)
Everyone take note.
First of all, he noted that there was a community feeling of disgust over the software patent in question. Now, while O'Reilly makes a lot of cash from Amazon's business (a fact freely admitted to by O'Reilly), instead of refusing to "bite the hand" that at least partially feeds him and his company, O'Reilly chose to chase up the issue.
i.e. O'Reilly is putting his money (and influence) where his mouth is. It has been a long time claim that O'Reilly supports Open Source, and here is definitely doing the right thing [tm].
But not only that; how did he respond? First of all he wrote a private e-mail to Bezos, which wasn't necessarily a "you guys are evil! wtf do you think you are doing?!?!?", but a well-worded even-handed explanation of his situation. When that met with unsatisfactory results he has upped the pressure, with the petition mail, and public responses.
Sure, you might say, he's just protecting his own interests by mollifying the community and not abusing Amazon. But I would disagree with that. Not only has he made it clear on a personal level that he is not happy with Amazon's policies, but he's willing to step into the public space to state so, while not taking to anyone with a blowtorch.
And lets face it, if all Linux advocates, or any advocates whatsoever were so careful, and measured about their approach, there would be a lot fewer holy wars, and probably fewer lawsuits.
Cheers,
SuperG
Don't you get it? (Score:5)
Obviously, Amazon wants to set new records for losing money. Previous steady drains will be dwarfed when they finally piss off the largest chunk of their customer base. They'll set new records for hemorrhaging cash. And, if past performance is any indicator, their stock will skyrocket as a result.
Who knows, in a few months they may end up buying M$...
Amazon.com founding programmer also against patent (Score:5)