
Amazon Goes Web 2.0 Wild to Defend 1-Click Patent 77
theodp writes "Six years ago, Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly urged the masses to give-patent-reform-a-chance as Richard Stallman called for an Amazon boycott. On Monday, the pair will reunite to kick off O'Reilly's new Amazon-sponsored Web 2.0 Expo with A Conversation with Jeff Bezos. Be interesting if the conversation turned to Amazon's ongoing battle against an actor's effort to topple Bezos' 1-Click patent, which The Register notes included dumping 58 lbs. of paperwork on the patent examiner, including dozens of articles from the oh-so-Web-2.0 Wikipedia, which the USPTO had already deemed an un acceptable source of information ('From a legal point of view, a Wiki citation is toilet paper,' quipped patent expert Greg Aharonian)."
Re:A quote for the ages (Score:4, Insightful)
There's disagreeable things in this article - Amazon's ludicrous patent, the whole concept of Web 2.0, and The Register in general. So, it's nice to come away with something that's patently ('scuse the pun) obviously true. Wiki citations are most surely toilet paper, and not just from a legal POV.
I don't quite get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary speculates that Bezos might get called out over the one-click patent.
The article says... wait... this isn't summarizing any article.
So what's happened? Nothing new. What's going to happen? Very possibly nothing new.
When did Tim O'Reilly become such a scumbag? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the FTA:
O'Reilly has the money and the influence to help strike out this dumb patent, but he chooses not to do so. It would be a nice irony if the USPTO threw it out because Tim's chum Jeff used Wikipedia. I'd laugh my fricking ass off.Re:A quote for the ages (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A quote for the ages (Score:5, Insightful)
But there is no black or white here. Wikipedia is not apropriate for serious use, where it's important to be correct. But it's a massive quick and dirty database. If I want to know what X is and I've never heard of it, I can go to wikipedia and get an overview. If the authors did their due dilligence, I can find a decent collection of links off site that will tell me a bit abotu the subject matter.
Wikipedia can be a useful tool. Just not for most important applications.
Let's use a programming analogy. The "right" way to deploy a new application cross platform would be to code it in C or Java, or some other language apropriate to the task, and fine tune each version for each platform, and hunt for bugs on each platform. Annother, quick, relativly painless way, if it were an unimportant, trivial task, would be to just put together a web based Java applett, or perhaps even a flash object if it's simple enough. Hell, millions do this with YouTube, every day because it's "good enough". Even though an MPEG, MOV, AVI, or other video file played in a stand alone player would be "better".
From a legal point of view (Score:4, Insightful)
The "patent expert" might as well have said The journal of machine intelligence and pattern recognition is toilet paper because the pages change from issue to issue.
If archive.org could take an examiner, or anyone else, to a wiki version dated before the filing date of a patent, then I think it can be used to establish prior art.
Even if the USPTO says it won't accept the wiki, a court could over rule them.
Beautiful symmetry in patent law vs. Wiki (Score:5, Insightful)
And from any sane person's point of view, 99% of comments from patent experts are toilet paper, which is why we're in such a mess today.
So, it's beautifully symmetric. Patent lawyers and Wikipedia were made for each other.
Although in Wikipedia's defence, it gets it right ***far*** more often.
In any case, Wikipedia can always be corrected, and very easily, that's the power of it. Whereas the only way of correcting a patent lawyer is with a lobotomy.
Re:A quote for the ages (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between wikipedia and normal websites is that normal websites aren't editable by just anyone. So, if the general quality of a webpage is high, then you can reasonably assume that the quality of any given citation is likely to be high. But that just isn't the case with wikipedia; just because article one (or even paragraph one) is well written and researched, that doesn't even go a little way to showing that article/paragraph two is going to be.
Re:A quote for the ages (Score:4, Insightful)