Amazon Takes Round One in Patent Dispute 229
Masem writes "Amazon has gotten a preliminary injunction placed on
Barnes & Noble due to the fact that B&N used
Amazon's patented 1-Click method for ecommerce.
This does not bode well for those fighting against
business model patents, and if Amazon does turn out victorious,
this could deal a lot of damage to e-commerce." Now, at this point it is only a preliminary injunction, however, it does not sound the tone we'd like to hear.
This is the good US... (Score:1)
preliminary injunction != major finding of fact (Score:4)
--
Matt Singerman
The good thing... (Score:3)
In a perfect world, the patent isn't valid if it was obvious to one skilled in the art. Hopefully B&N will duke this thing out and get a good precedent set.
Bad, Bad, Bad (Score:3)
Paging the WTO vandals to the PTO (Score:1)
Perhaps having 2 titans go at it will finally shed the needed sunshine on this nonsense -- so perhaps the injunction is a good thing in the end.
This could be easy to get around. (Score:3)
Then you have 2-click shopping. But, then again, I'm applying for a patent on n-click shopping, where n > 1. So I would have to sue.
End run (Score:1)
Pfft.. (Score:1)
Hmm.. I think I'll patent 2-click shopping.. 1-click plus an "OK, I really don't mind that you saved my credit card number in your database, so go ahead and let anyone with my cookie automatically order anything they want!" button
How much of a problem? (Score:2)
The good thing is that there is, as there is with many patents, a way around it -- Barnes & Noble just has to change enough that it can be considered different. Honestly, the technology used by places like amazon and buy.com aren't really that good. All they seem to do is store your ip. That's just great if you happen to order something from a public computer. It saves your info for anyone else to use. They do have this "if you're not XXX, click here" line, but that just relies on users to do the right thing. I have long ago learned that you can never rely on and end-user to do the right thing.
The sad thing is how many people don't seem to realize what can happen if they save private information on public machines. In the computer lab at school, so many people use programs like Eudora and Outlook Express to check their school mail accounts and leave their account info saved locally. They don't seem to realize that anyone who logs in at the same machine can access their mail account.
In my opinion, a company that cares about the people ordering from them would make them log in and produce the information from that. It's slightly less convenient, but it's also more secure.
Whatever (Score:3)
Re:preliminary injunction != major finding of fact (Score:2)
Don't spend money at Amazon.com (Score:1)
It's a great place to shop, but there are lots of alternatives. I'll spend my money with vendors who aren't resorting to dirty patent tricks in such an obvious way.
Re:The good thing... (Score:2)
The bad part is that it's just as likely B&N will simply make their ordering system a "two-click" setup than fight with Amazon over a patent issue. B&N isn't in the business of proving the patent system is silly. They're in the business of selling books. If the bottom line says a fight over a patent issue isn't worth the trouble (i.e., they're not likely to loose a bunch of customers simply because they remove the one-click approach), then I bet they'll just decide to do away with one-click rather than fight it. They have nothing to gain just by proving the patent system is stupid, so they'll probably not bother.
At least that's my guess.
Why I hate amazon.com... (Score:1)
We should all do our seasonal book and music gift buying at bn.com! I have...
Eric
... (Score:2)
Why I'm not going to be buying from Amazon anymore (Score:3)
While Amazon's service is generally good, and shopping there is easy and convenient, I can't in good faith endorse anyone who abuses the patent system the way they have. I'll be more than happy to shop there again, if they make it clear that they will make it their policy to not patent obvious software "inventions".
Steeltoe (Score:1)
Guess who'd be paying for an "Amazon-One-Click E-Commerce Tax" in the end?
- Steeltoe
Games for Children - Corporate Style (Score:1)
All these obviously repressed corporate types are doing nothing but childrens games -- only this time they expect their Coke at the end.
(Jinx - owe me a Coke!)
-m
Re:preliminary injunction != major finding of fact (Score:1)
--
Matt Singerman
Geek Business gone Big Business (Score:2)
I am firmly of the belief that public companies are inherently evil.
This evilness is especially disturbing to observe in companies we think/thought are/were cool. It seems like once a company goes public, it loses its soul -- the purpose of the company is then to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Obviously, you have to be somewhat ethical to make money -- you must keep your employees and customers, and you must behave according to the law to keep from being involved in lawsuits.
Unfortunately, it's very good business strategy to file stupid lawsuits against people because they might infringe on a stupid patent you hold that stupid people shouldn't have issued you in the first place. This sort of stupid lawsuit is now just another tool of a "successful business." Suits probably have friggin' seminars on it.
A big problem (Score:2)
The 1-Click "technology" is very simple and logical construction that's fairly obvious to anyone creating ecommerce sites professionally. On the sites I've been working on, we're using similar techniques to ease the use of the site. So, IMHO, this shouldn't have received a patent at all as it's nothing unique and similar things have been constructed in the past for certain.
Now, the reason this being bad is that if other web developers want to give their users similar ease of use, they can't. As a user, you suffer. Amazon's patented a user interface contruction and thus making it harder for others to provide easy to use web services. And since Amazon is getting away with it, others will come behing. Is that really what you want?
sulka
Re:Bad, Bad, Bad (Not!) (Score:2)
Look at it from their POV - they own a patent on this. No matter how misguided, the law of the land says they should get royalties on it. And would companies walk away from one-click if they had to pay amazon $0.01 every transaction? I think not... its just too useful for those "unwashed masses" you speak of. So I think they're doing something sensible by enforcing their patent, rather like trademark protection. (Now if there were to be a net-wide backlash against them, that would be a different can of worms...)
Do I think this is a good thing? No, not at all - but the fault is in the broken US patent system. Amazon and B&N are just doing their bit to bring it to wide attention, and I for one will not be unhappy about the slugfest. (Though who gets rich from this? Amazon? Nah, not yet. B&N? Nope. The masses? Not really. Its a conspiracy by trial lawyers, of course... maybe they divvy up cases like this: You patent this, I use it, you sue me, we both get rich while the companies bleed...)
I'm cynical this morning! Must be the additives in the coffee...
Re:The good thing... (Score:1)
all fine & dandy until that pesky "two-click" patent pops up... Will have to wait and see I guess, but in a landscape littered with patent mines, this issue is going to come to the fore at some point, and I'd expect it from B&N before joeschmoe.com. They might deem it in their overall better interest to clear the general air with a court precedent if they feel confident they can win.
Good! (Score:2)
I hope to hell this stupid patent is overturned. I mean this is as obvious as you get. Storing the customer info in a database has been done for years. Making a 1-step buy button on the item is so obvious that it's ridiculous. There's plenty of prior art, as well.
I hope that B&N fights this one tooth and nail. With any luck, Amazon's patent will be ruled as unenforceable or overturned or something. Hopefully, the judge will see this as well, and decide to make a statement about companies patenting the blatently obvious to mess their competitors about, and say that the only way the get away with it is that the patent office is too busy to care anymore.
I need to vent my anger more often.
---
Re:Bad, Bad, Bad (Score:1)
The problem here is simply that even Amazon, the acknowledged leader in e-commerce book sales is still not turning a real profit. So, someone there decided to look shortterm and register this *rediculous* patent and now start a lawsuit. If they win, they will probably do more to hurt e-commerce than any other organization - simply because they will scare away other potential e-commerce businesses.
The only good thing here will be if the result of this lawsuit is a legal finding that you *cannot* patent software or webdesign techniques. Copyright the code - sure I can see that - but not the methodology. Absolute fscking B$.
Maybe I should patent "1-click" browsing:
"A method by which the user can be transferred from 1 Universal Resource Locator to another Universal Resource locator, automatically by simply using their pointing device to select an underlined word, phrase, symbol, or graphic image, and requiring only 1 click of the button on their pointing device. This method also to be available using the keys of their computer keyboard as an alternative."
Then I could sue every webmaster who has a page on the web and demand royalties!
Of course there would be no problem showing prior art - but then prior art undoubtedly existed *somewhere* before some Amazon programmer wrote a few lines of code that created some cookies on the user's computer.
Slow programmers? (Score:3)
Grab cookie.
Grab book id.
Use cookie to lookup userid in database, and extract shipping & billing details.
Create order.
Output pretty screen.
How hard were these programmers working?
Fight fire with fire. (Score:2)
Re:This is the good US... (Score:2)
Re:Paging the WTO vandals to the PTO (Score:2)
time frame (Score:2)
Right in time for Christmas shopping - what a great time to cause the most amount of damage with an injunction.
Re:Whatever (Score:1)
And it's better for the consumer, now there are two companies with an easy-to-use system for purchasing on-line.
If you are trying to defend Amazon.com's millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours of work, remember that the system that they implemented is a simple lookup to a database. It's an idea that is not even theirs and it's been around for years.
It's not amazon that is under attack here it's the Patent Office's haphazard granting of stupid patents. It has to stop.
Re:This could be easy to get around. (Score:1)
\begin{sarcasm}
Gee, didn't Gore patent n-click Internet browsing (since he invented the Internet)?
Wait, isn't there a patent for n-click Computer Usage, owned by the inventor of the Mouse? Did somebody say "prior art"? but doesn't the poor guy have a right to defend his online position and his business plan?!?!
\end{sarcasm}
(Disclaimer: I have no political motives other than to spin humor at the expense of politicians.)
You know there is a problem with their logic (Score:3)
Re: != != == (Score:1)
Study programming syntax a little bit before you go and make such rash criticisms.
Re:Pfft.. (Score:1)
I remember that back in January, amazon.co.uk were not registered with the Data Protection Act 1998 (updates 1984) (UK) which would have meant that doing any of the above would have been illegal under UK law. Does anyone know whether they are registered yet under the DPA? If not, then surely B&N could get their own back...
I think that in this case B&N will win out if people send examples of prior art to Barnes and Nobles lawyers. If no-one tells them, then I doubt that they will have fun finding said examples. It is not enough to got "I did this blah years ago" on Slashdot, you know!
Not that they are nasty, I am sure.
//TODO: Create a tech-oriented justice system (Score:1)
This Amazon case is a perfect example. Every one of us understands that the Amazon patent is shady, at best. If I was the judge, I'd declare the patent null and void, and rip into the Patent Office. But I know. A real judge? He sees a patent, sees evidence of B&N violating said patent, and obviously issues a preliminary injunction.
Now, I've got faith in our judges and justice system. It's populated by remarkably clever people. Judges will study, research, and learn - mcuh as Judge Jackson did in the Microsoft case. The problem lies in the fact that this makes the wheels of justice move even slower than before.
The gov't needs some type of tech-smart judge.
and the patent office needs to get a clue.
Neither will happen, but it's nice to wish.
Let's Boycott Amazon... (Score:1)
ttyl
Farrell
E-mail B&N (Score:5)
Not again... (Score:1)
Re:Why I'm not going to be buying from Amazon anym (Score:1)
Re:Whatever (Score:1)
Amazon should never been granted a patent because there are almost certainly examples of prior use and the idea is also an obvious application of other technologies. The fact that the patent was granted shows the shortcomings of the patent office. This is further made evident by the fact that, so far, the patent is being upheld.
Amazon isn't trying to protect their investment in their "technology", they're trying to use the legal system to beat down their competition with ludicrous patents. It's like a writer of murder mysteries trying to sue other murder mystery writers for using his patented "frame the daughter for the the brother's crime" plot twist, just so that he can take their books off the market.
If you owned Amazon, you'd be desperate too (Score:2)
Too bad for them, but bookseller Barnes and Noble is also selling books on the web. Barnes and Noble is already a profitable company with a large market share. Why should Amazon best them on the web? Because they're first?
In a world where the competition is one click away, Amazon needs reasons to compell web-surfers to stay on their site. How about if the shopping experience is marginally smoother?
This patent may be silly, but man, it's all they got to show for their $26 billion USD market capitalization. That's worth a vicious court battle.
Re:This is the good US... (Score:1)
I would imagine that in other countries, companies that do this just don't have as many resources to back up absurd patent claims.
I used to like amazon too.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Re:How much of a problem? (Score:2)
The problem is that the patent isn't for a piece of code or something. The patent is essentially for a method. Store the customer info in a DB, then have a button on each item to make an "instant buy" type of thing. That's it. Anything that does that in any way at all is covered by the patent.
Honestly, the technology used by places like amazon and buy.com aren't really that good. All they seem to do is store your ip. That's just great if you happen to order something from a public computer. It saves your info for anyone else to use.
Actually, they use cookies. Anyway, you can set your account not to use permanent cookies on most sites (I don't know about Amazon)...
And if you ever use a public computer to purchase something, thereby entering your CC info, you are an idiot. Nearly every public computer I've ever used, I've found a keyboard sniffer installed by some enterprising young cracker on it.
The sad thing is how many people don't seem to realize what can happen if they save private information on public machines. In the computer lab at school, so many people use programs like Eudora and Outlook Express to check their school mail accounts and leave their account info saved locally. They don't seem to realize that anyone who logs in at the same machine can access their mail account.
This is why you remove stupid programs like these and force the user to do it your way.
Back at school, so many people were leaving their account info around, that finally, they disabled SMTP/POP3 access from the labs. Blocked those IP ranges. Suddenly, those people using eudora at 50 terminals had to telnet into the main system like they were supposed to do in the first place. Those people using their own personal systems were not in those IP ranges, and were not blocked. Later they switched to IMAP and some standard program that always asked for username/password in the public labs, along with hardware-based locking of the drives from changes.
A good sysadmin will do things like that to make it happen the right way. I mean yes, freedom of choice; yes, each user knows different programs.. But when 50 people complain to you that the email they just sent was on some random users account because they didn't change the mail program setting before they sent the e-mail, and replies are going every which way.. Well, I think you'd see the benefits of making the user do what you damn well want them to do.
Of course, at some place like a library you don't have that sysadmin. You just have a standard PC with a phone cord plugged in.
In my opinion, a company that cares about the people ordering from them would make them log in and produce the information from that. It's slightly less convenient, but it's also more secure.
What, and upset all the customers who use their computers from home, who never have anyone else access the system? Sounds like a bad solution to me. Upset the masses to protect the few who don't know any better? No. Bad idea.
---
Re:Don't spend money at Amazon.com (Score:1)
thanks,
- Dale
Stifling innovation? (Score:3)
Mapquest was (I believe) the first online map engine. Mapblast came along, it does the same sort of thing, but it's a superior product. (don't argue with me about the previous if I'm wrong, I'm just trying to make a point.) If mapquest had patented the idea of having a map online (I don't really know if they have or not), we would be stuck with crappy Mapquest until the patent ran out, or until someone came along with enough money to start a new business *and* license the patent, which could be a long time.
When the business strategy is nearly the product, (you can buy the same book ten different places on the web, so you use the easiest one) only allowing the original inventors to use a strategy stifles innovation. It's like the first bookstore that thought to put a coffeeshop in it would sue every other one that did it. You could argue for something like that, but traditionally that hasn't been patent fodder.
Bookselling online is obviously different from an online service (like the map businesses), but I think the analogy extends. I think the bookseller with the best prices and best marketing strategy (not the best totally original strategy, just the best strategy) should be able to be the best bookseller, not the bookseller with the best patents.
p.s. if think that if Amazon were smart, they would have just found a way to license their software to all the other booksellers that were slow to come online. It would have really fattened their profits (if they have even started making them yet).
Re:This is the good US... (Score:1)
Buy from competitors, send your receipts. (Score:1)
They're well aware that their patent is ludicrous. They're just playing dumb and trying to screw their competitors, using an overburdened and behind the curve government agency as their shield. Let them know that you know this, and because of it you're spending your dollars elsewhere.
Re:Why I'm not going to be buying from Amazon anym (Score:1)
This isn't about money, however. I've been buying from Amazon because it was convenient, and I didn't have to spend time looking. My time is valuable, too.
take over (Score:1)
hmmm... sound familiar?
their own way or amazons? (Score:1)
Re:Let's Boycott Amazon... (Score:2)
This is the proof ... (Score:1)
Re:Hi People (Score:1)
Re:Why I'm not going to be buying from Amazon anym (Score:1)
You and I aren't alone here. I think a lot of software developers (not just
Re:Don't spend money at Amazon.com (Score:1)
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Slashdot & amazon (Score:2)
Now open
This is kinda scary (Score:1)
I'm developing an online shopping system for someone, and, of course, am trying to reduce the number of clicks it takes to do what someone wants.
I have never bought anything using Amazon or Barnes and Noble, but I might end up getting sued for independently coming up with a way of doing things that's too similar to their way of doing things.
I have a friend who worked for a company doing reverse engineering at some point. My recollection is that it was legal under certain strict circumstances. The people doing the reverse engineering had to make sure they didn't know anything about the device they were reverse-engineering, and that when they were done, all they did is write reports, which other people then used to create a device using the same technology.
Would something like that protect me in this case? I can't be violating their IP because I don't know anything about it?
Re:Whatever (Score:1)
However, this particular "technology" isn't worth protection. It's not innovative. It's obvious.
The next thing you know, somebody's going to patent putting the checkout counters in a department store near the exit.
--
Re:Oh no (Score:1)
Thank you for continued patronage and the question.
You must be brain damaged (Score:1)
The M$ business model ..... (Score:1)
Please help me understand (Score:1)
Re:Why I'm not going to be buying from Amazon anym (Score:1)
Amazon just lost another customer (Score:2)
But they aren't smart ... (Score:3)
Then again, since their success isn't measured in actual profit, but rather in "percieved mindshare" inflating the stock price, they would prefer eliminating competitors to mearly making money off of them.
BTW, I totally agree that this patent mess is a Very Bad Thing(c). Moreover, I don't understand how or why these "concept" patents are granted in the first place. It's one thing to copyright the phrase "One click shopping" but it's another thing to patent the concept of not requiring a login to make an online purchase. It's equivalent to McDonalds not being content with copyrighting "SuperSize" and instead patenting the concept of offering food in a greater quantity for an small additional fee.
Re:Don't spend money at Amazon.com (Score:1)
I cannot afford boycotting O'Reily (where else can I get books?), but at least I'd like to show my concern.
This is a Negative Karma Magnet® post.
--
Amazon Asks For Trouble? (Score:1)
Hell, even a posting to the internet would do. Some nerd along the line probably thought it worth mentioning in some newsgroup that activating stored billing/shipping information automatically might be a good idea because, after all, we can write these wonderful things called "computer programs" and it is worth writing them because they can do repetative, mundane things automatically.
But really, isn't this missing the point? Amazon is damaging a world-wide infrastructure with their sleazy conduct. They should pay damages to all those who have suffered inconvenience as a result of their abuse of the patent laws.
For example, Amazon has made themselves so repugnant that I cannot visit their web site. So where do I go to buy things on the web without all the hassle?
Most of the people who shop on the web have time that is worth a reasonable amount of money.
I wonder if it is feasible for all the Barnes and Noble customers (and all the other web shoppers) who are now inconvenienced by the Amazon anarchists, hiding behind their legalisms, to file a class action law suit against Amazon?
Re:Let us know where you sent it (Score:1)
Re:preliminary injunction != major finding of fact (Score:3)
crucial in business. So even if Amazon's patent is found to be
unworkable in law, they still got the lead on Barnes & Noble through
this maneuvre.
It's an old strategy in anti-trust law: company invokes
an anti-dumping lawsuit against a foreign competitor, gets injunction.
Case eventually reaches trial after lots of delaying tactics, evidence
shows foreign competitor's prices were profitable. Case dropped
plaintiff ordered to pay costs which were a small price to pay for the
market advantage achieved by the whole legal fiasco.
Re:Whatever (Score:1)
Yes, those companies have a real bad problem, because theyre just stock hype and so much hot air. They have virutally nothing except a brand. Yes, a lot of stockholders will get burned as they realize they will never make money to justify stock price because any teenager in a garage could do what they do and competition will be fierce. Too bad for them. It still isnt patentable.
Hey, I actually thought about something close to the web before it existed. I spend several hours on it. Think I should do an IPO and patent the web? After all, I deserve some profit from those hours.
Re:Slow programmers? (Score:4)
25 manhours Implementing the system
25 manhours Debugging the new system
118 manhours Time (Jeff Bezos) spent on the golf course thinking about Amazon
480 manhours Touchy-feely focus group to evaluate the emotion evoked by the square button.
162 manhours Spent preparing Powerpoints to illustrate the new feature to Marketing
416 manhours Marketing has stuck their collective heads in their collective arses.
14 manhours (Bezos) Got blazingly drunk at a bar, spent the night in the drunk tank
480 manhours Marketing, who didn't like the Powerpoints, orders another 'focus group' They request chimpanzees this time, citing them as smarter than most AOL users.
90 manhours Marketing likes the new focus group results, takes the afternoon off to visit a strip club.
2 manhours (Bezos) Fired the entire Marketing department, and replaced them with the chimpanzees.
20 apehours The chimps have a meeting over brunch to discuss patenting their new business model.
100 manhours Time billed by patent laywer for an afternoon visit from the chimps.
275 manhours Time billed by patent attorney whilst in the Bahamas on vacation.
600 manhours The lawyer spends an evening drafting the patent documents. Goes back to the Bahamas, taking a friend with him.
50 manhours Time spent by the laywers secretary completing the patent documentation, filing them, calling the Patent Office, etc. The only real work in the patent process occured in this step.
170 apehours Patent was approved! (Bezos) Called a press conference, shmoozed the media, and had the marketing chimps call and harass our competitors.
-------------------------------
To
Amazon just lost another customer (Score:2)
Alright, this is probably going to be an unpopular post on a open-source haven like
The best protection from competition is to give great service to customers, offer great products at a good price. In other words, do what is best for the customer - people will pay money for that. When a company competes by hindering the operations of competitors it is doing something that is undeniably bad for society as a whole. In otherwords, it's a bad corporate citizen.
Not to mention that the patent in question is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a patent examiner and the judge and never should have been granted in the first place; this action should never have gotten to the point of an injunction.
I'd like to get on my little soapbox right now and say to Amazon: I'm a customer, I've bought books from you, but I never will buy from you again until you toss this stupid patent.
It's more than the number of clicks (Score:3)
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes (Score:3)
impulse buying (Score:2)
I don't think I'll stop shopping at amazon though, their prices are simply too good on a lot of books. Pretty much any company that is large enough tries these kind of B.S. lawsuits all the time. Barnes and Noble isn't any better than amazon. If I were a Good Person I'd probably shop at a locally owned bookstore and be happy about spending a few extra bucks.
Did somebody say "prior art"? (Score:2)
Friend of the court (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This is just competitors sniping at each other,no? (Score:2)
d
Does anybody remember the "press release war" these two had, when B&N acquired somebody, so then Amazon posted a press release stating "We're afraid of you becoming a monopoly and we hope there's room in the industry for the little independent booksellers". So then, B&N posted another press release in response stating "Don't whine, Jeff, everybody knows that Amazon has got more revenue than all of us bigboys combined. Little independent indeed." So then Amazon responded back in a press release with "Oh." (Or something like that, I wish I could remember the exact details)
Re:This is the good US... (Score:2)
On Tuesdays "Oddly enough" news on Excite, it was reported a company somewhere in Asia tried to patent curry, the spice. Excite seems to be down right now (? is it my firewall or something? I can get to every other site i visit except Excite today). But when it comes back, go to the Oddly enough, click one of the features, and it'll probably be in the right hand column as older news...
So it's not just Americans that have a monopoly on stupid patents, if that's any reassurance
Re:preliminary injunction != major finding of fact (Score:2)
However, if I'm not wrong, it's still the judge that grants the preliminary injunction, and that is a bad sign. Any judge with sense would simply have held Amazon in contempt of court for attempting to make a mockery of the patent system in this way.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:If you owned Amazon, you'd be desperate too (Score:2)
But isn't the whole one-click thing contrary to that? Back when I used to shop at Amazon, I had to disable the one-click thing because it was inconvenient (and maybe a little scary) to not get to look over my "shopping cart" before committing to an order. The last thing I want is to accidently buy a bunch of books that I was just browsing.
This whole one-click thing is anti-consumer, not a way to get/keep customers. I believe it is intended to get existing customers to accidently buy more books during the short time that they are Amazon customers. I guess their thinking is that people will get tired of Amazon's shenanigans (privacy problems, spam, deteriorating web site quality, etc), so there's no harm in trying to milk and alienate customers that were just going to leave anyway.
Anyone who bought Amazon stock thinking that the store will get more profitable in the future needs to get their head examined. Amazon's behavior makes it look like they have a short-term hit-and-run business plan.
---
lawyer: close, but no cigar (Score:2)
While there is no final finding of fact, one of the conditions of the preliminary injunction is that the plaintiff show a substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing in the case.
Irreparable harm is another consideration, but this surprises me here--damages to amazon from the patent violation can be compensated later with money; they don't seem irreparable. However, damages to B&N would seem irreparable (how do you figure out the lost business?)
Dammit... (Score:2)
At the same time, this dispute just cost me the last of my respect for Amazon. I don't intend to shop there again until they decide to stop this silly abuse of a patent system that could really use a total overhaul anyway.
Where am I supposed to get books online now? Granted, there are more than a few very nice bookstores in my area (including a very nice Border's) but what do I do when I can't find what I need there? This is an honest question; if anyone knows of other good online booksellers I'd love to hear about them.
Re:preliminary injunction != major finding of fact (Score:3)
No, he's not. Stop thinking like a lawyer, and think like an ordinary person (ie, someone who has no stomach for lies in the legal system). B&N had something (the use of a particular piece of code); a judge took it away. What you seem to be saying is that B&N may be innocent of wrongdoing, but that it's OK to take something away from them. If B&N did nothing wrong, then they should lose nothing.
Or more likely.... (Score:2)
The bad part is that it's just as likely B&N will simply make their ordering system a "two-click" setup than fight with Amazon over a patent issue.
What's more likely is that Amazon and B&N will settle out of court and B&N (and any other big corp) will pay Amazon some money (also known as contributing to the Amazon Frivolous Predatory Lawsuit Fund, probably costing them much less than it would cost them to fight the patent in court) and get a license to use the 1-click method for all time. Then B&N (and/or any other big corp) gets to use the 1-click method and Amazon gets to beat the competition to death with a stupid patent without facing anyone with deep enough pockets to successfully challenge it. Ain't the system great?
Off-topic rant: customer service idiocy (Score:2)
So do my personal boycotts mean anything to UPS, or (sliding back towards topic) amzazon.com, or Microsoft, or (leaving topic again) Proctor and Gamble? Maybe not. But I'm going to mention my boycotts to friends, family, and co-workers. I'm going to put my reasons for boycotting up on my web site. If every unsatisfied customer can cause 20 people to take their business elsewhere (impossible a few years ago, but with the web now...who knows?) it just might have an impact.
hope (Score:2)
ream amazon.com.
I am thinking about sending back my amazon.com
coffee cup, saying "thank you for the nice gift, but I have a fundamental disagreement with your
business strategy and can no longer stomach being
your billboard, regards, your former customer, yadda"
Re:Bad, Bad, Bad (Not!) (Score:2)
Unfortunately, publicly traded corporations are legally bound to make the most profit that they can through legal methods for their shareholders. If they aren't breaking the law, and if their action is more likely to produce increased profits rather than a loss for whatever reason, they would be hard-pressed to justify to their shareholders why they didn't do it.
And if pulling sleazy legal shit like this is likely to produce a firestorm of consumer resentment, then they owe it to their shareholders to knock off the legal shit.
So boycott Amazon. Why is this such a hard concept for people to get?
Re:lawyer: close, but no cigar (Score:2)
It seems to me that the loss of business to Amazon could be seen as an irreparable harm if the injunction weren't enforced.
It still seems like a lousy decision, in my untrained opinion, since the original patent is so obviously flawed.
--
Re:Bad, Bad, Bad (Score:2)
--
Are you buzzword compliant? (Score:2)
Which buzzword irks you the most?
--
Re:Corporate Weenus Vocabulary (Score:2)
enterprise
intranet
enabling
nth generation (where n = 3 to 7 depending on industry)
best of breed
featureful
--
Re:boycot. (Score:2)
--
Re:Slashdot & amazon (Score:2)
Re:Bad, Bad, Bad (Score:2)
Disagree - P.I. in patent case is very significant (Score:2)
A preliminary injunction can only be obtained after making a substantial showing of likelihood on the merits. In the present case, it is highly likely that a hearing was held, and some evidence presented in addition to argument.
As a practical matter, the readers should understand that it is usually very difficult to obtain a preliminary injunction in a patent case -- far more difficult than with Copyright, Trademark or trade secrets.
In part, this is because even the flimsiest showing of invalidity can undercut the "substantial likelihood of success," notwithstanding the presumption of validity afforded a patent at trial. Ordinarily, technical arguments of invalidity are useless, except to make a record for the Federal Circuit. However, at a P.I., these arguments are golden sources of "no substantial likelihood."
Secondly, a defendant can usually blow a cloud of smoke concerning the claim construction of the patent in question -- particularly for software patents -- even for the broadest sounding claims.
Finally, it is often the case that a showing of irreparable harm is effectively countered with the argument that money damages can be adequate, or with a balancing of harms argument; particularly when balancing the injunction against the costs of pulling a significant commercial website.
As a practical matter, getting P.I. in a patent case is a legal slam-dunk -- a rare and significant accomplishment. Amazon's attorneys did very well for their client yesterday. Obtaining P.I. in a patent case tends to change the entire tenor of the proceedings. This case may well settle soon.
Re:lawyer: close, but no cigar (Score:2)
hawk, esq.
Re:Bad, Bad, Bad (Not!) (Score:2)
You only need to be sucessful with a few boycotts like this before corporations will start thinking about getting less trigger happy with the lawyers. In my opinion, this will be eaisier than convincing the US government to fix the patent laws.
Re:Bad, Bad, Bad (Not!) (Score:2)
that boycotts can be effective even with
relatively small percentages of people
respecting the boycott.
The nice thing about the free market as a
"democracy with dollar votes" is that
proportional representation is built-in.
A consumer revolt that reaches 5% of the
market cuts that companies income by 5%.
Whereas a politcial revolt that only gets 5%
of the votes is likely to leave the same
weasels in power, feeling no immediate
penalty.
(I almost said "profit" rather than "income"
above. Then I remembered we were talking
about Amazon.)