Slashdot Mirror

For example, the second part of the block could include information for providing the complete address of an another block which would be selected by the operation of a selected key of the keyboard.

Does it meant that only the lynx users are affected?:)

--- No sig.

This invention relates to an information handling system in which information is derived from a computer at a remote point and transmitted via the public telephone network to terminal apparatus. The invention also includes the terminal apparatus itself.

Anyway, they would have to claim that the "phone lines" are the Net's backbone, the "central server" is anyone with Apache running, and the "terminal apparatus" is the browser.

Here's some more that makes it sound distincntly unWWW-like:

It has been proposed to provide for domestic and/or business consumers a simplified form of computer terminal by means of which information stored in a computer can be obtained from it via the public telephone network. The form of the terminal is different from a conventional computer terminal, both in the simplicity of its operation and in the form of its display.
...
the screen in the form of a sequence of progressively more detailed indices by means of which an operator is enabled to key-in to a key pad provided for the terminal numbers identifying a particular page of information which he requires. Since the system is to be operated by unskilled operators it is important that the key required be of self-evident nature and inevitably this will restrict the nature of facilities which the computer can provide.

Difficulties arise in such a system, however, because of the need to ensure the simplicity of operation of the terminal, bearing in mind the likelihood that the significance of particular keying inputs may need to be varied in dependence on the data being displayed.

It is an object of the present invention to alleviate the above difficulty.

I really hope we can get some US patent reform. Does anyone know of a decent movement to let our US representatives know how silly this has all become? I mean, everyone smells money in the "digital goldrush", and so they do inane thingsd like attempt patent enforcements like this. But everyone forgets that the only people to make a lasting living off the California Goldrush 1800's were the guys selling food and equipment to the miners (ever wonder where Levi's Jeans came from?). Everyone would be much better off letting the WWW do what it wants while concentrating on becoming the one that facillitates those goals.

This whole thing blows.

-B

I hope this guy meets one of these patented babies instead of me, because when I'm done using this patented device, he'll need some patented cutting edge medical tools! Afterall, there is no UNDO operation for people like me getting medival on your patent-pending ass! And when I'm done, I'll read VOGON POETRY to you!

I hope this guy meets one of these patented babies instead of me, because when I'm done using this patented device, he'll need some patented cutting edge medical tools! Afterall, there is no UNDO operation for people like me getting medival on your patent-pending ass! And when I'm done, I'll read VOGON POETRY to you!

I hope this guy meets one of these patented babies instead of me, because when I'm done using this patented device, he'll need some patented cutting edge medical tools! Afterall, there is no UNDO operation for people like me getting medival on your patent-pending ass! And when I'm done, I'll read VOGON POETRY to you!

I hope this guy meets one of these patented babies instead of me, because when I'm done using this patented device, he'll need some patented cutting edge medical tools! Afterall, there is no UNDO operation for people like me getting medival on your patent-pending ass! And when I'm done, I'll read VOGON POETRY to you!

It seems like the guy had a very specific use of these links, coresponding to function keys and modems. The use of a modem is implied in all manners, with only references to using the 'telephone network'. In fact, the term 'modem' is used 18 times, while the term 'telephone network' is used 7 times. However, the idea of a data network or a LAN is completely missed under this patent.

Hence, only ISP's might be liable to the usage of this patent. IE, people using a 'modem' as it was in those days, MOdulation-DEModulation. Those of us on ISDN, cable, ADSL, and com-grade services are not affected. `8r)

Don't patents expire after a certain amount of time? I know if they go after a company like AOL, they will be caught up in court until the patent expires. and if it expires from when it was first filed, it's already been 20 years.

It'd be pretty funny to have someone say 'You cannot use a modem any more to access the internet' forcing everyone to upgrade to another type of high speed connection though. that wouldn't be a bad thing for our society, IMHO. Cheap, easy frame relay drops for everyone!

--
Gonzo Granzeau

ok, apparently this is the patent. Two things that bother me:

1) It is a patent regarding terminals. Specifically, links to what they refer to as "blocks". "Blocks" that can control things such as the color on a terminal. I'm assuming that doesn't mean filesystem blocks.. so what exactly is it referring to?

2) It was filed August 15, 1980. How is it possible for this to apply to something that didn't exist yet? I mean, the patent covers a link that controls things like color on a terminal. Hyperlinks consist of addresses to other computers. Hyperlinks don't control the browser at all, they just allow a computer to connect to another. HTML controls what the browser displays.

So what's the deal?

Here's a link to the patent.

Jeff

I want to sign the first legally binding Last will and testament online. Too late -- a will was the first document signed under the Utah DigSig Act ...but what will the notary public's do? They will demand large fees from you to pay for their licensing "this bad bad biz process patent">

Check this out.

In terms of allowing obvious patents, this one is about the most absurd one I've yet to find.

-- GWF

Prioritized queues of advertising and content data are generated by a queue builder and sent to an on-line queue manager. A computer mediated communications network provides content and subscriber data to the queue builder and receives content segment play lists from the on-line queue manager. An exposure accounting module calculates and stores information about the number of exposures of targeted material received by subscribers and generates billing information. An information warehouse manager is employed to receive data from advertisers' data bases and third party sources as well as from the computer mediated communications network.

And then there's the Dr. Mario patent, which I'm proud to break. I did, however, build a failsafe in that game: change two lines of C code and you get a different, non-infringing game that's just as fun.

You can't use plastic wrap to preserve human heads, but ChunkyGoodness noted that Chet Fleming has US Patent number 4666425 for keeping them alive.

Actually, this particular one is oddly relevant to Slashdot.

I had several opportunities to page through a book Mr. Fleming wrote, titled IIRC 'If We Can Keep A Severed Head Alive...' at the local Savers secondhand store. (Of course, I'm kicking myself now for not getting it; a conversation piece like that doesn't come around too often.)

The thing that is interesting (and perhaps infuriating, depending on how plausible you find the device described by the patent) is that Fleming hates the idea of any such procedure happening. He is quick to point out that the technology to keep a severed head alive may have... abuses (anyone who's seen 'The Head That Wouldn't Die' knows where he's coming from.) That's why he applied for (and received!) a patent so broadly defined that anyone trying to keep a severed head alive would have to get permission to use his patent... permission which he intends to deny. Yes, that's right... he applied for this patent, and had it granted to him, for the purpose of obstructing medical research. (Albeit in a field far more heavily populated by movie scientists than real ones.)

# 5,265,888

Try #5,265,8 88 they have also patented the network version of the kiosk. Still, not a real description of any invention, just, "hey, we could do this on net!"

I suspect a patent exists for just about everything I've ever programmed

Tell me about it. I wrote Vitamins, a clone of Nintendo's Dr. Mario game (download cross-platform GPL'd source and Win32 binary here), only to find out Dr. Mario is patented . But I'm leaving it up; let the bastards sue me :-)

5,963,916 - Network apparatus and method for preview of music products and compilation of market data (pertains to www.worldwidemusic.com)

From their webpage:
Intouch owns copyrights in its database of musical selections, including rights to the entire compilation and the edit points for the specific tracks.
Intouch is also the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,237,157 and 5,963,916 directed to interactive music sampling combined with a subscriber code. Intouch has also filed a continuation in part application directed to online sampling. Intouch believes that web sites allowing customers to sample music after logging on will be covered by U.S. patent 5,963,916

5,963,916 - Network apparatus and method for preview of music products and compilation of market data (pertains to www.worldwidemusic.com)

From their webpage:
Intouch owns copyrights in its database of musical selections, including rights to the entire compilation and the edit points for the specific tracks.
Intouch is also the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,237,157 and 5,963,916 directed to interactive music sampling combined with a subscriber code. Intouch has also filed a continuation in part application directed to online sampling. Intouch believes that web sites allowing customers to sample music after logging on will be covered by U.S. patent 5,963,916

#1. Read the story at advogato if you haven't already.

#2. Cordwainer Byrd from the "law firm" representing Andover has an email address from bbmma.com. A simple check at Network Solutions reveals the domain name is still available.

#3. The patent #'s in question(45,487,338,209 and 46,773,228,287) looked a little suspect to me so I checked them out at the patent office. Nope, no patents.

#4. It gets better. PR Newswire"(whoever they are, their website only has an IP address, not a qualified domain name) refers to a different patent, #5,876,324. I won't spoil this part for you. Just follow the link.

Happy april fools day! Good one, slashdot & advogato. I for one am glad there's a day where you can take things not so seriously.

Early on Friday I received the following email:
From: Cordwainer Byrd cbyrd@bbmma.com
To: Rusty rusty@kuro5hin.org
Subject: Notice of Copyright and Patent Infringement

$ whois bbmma.com
Query: bbmma.com
Registry: whois.networksolutions.com
Results: Unable to find any information for your query!

You could also go and look up U.S. Patent 45,487,338,209 in the patent database here

Results of Search in 1976-2000 db for:45,487,338,209
PN/45,487,338,209: 0 patents.
No patents have matched your query

That's the joy of April Fool's day. That's the funny part, not the "joke" itself, but rather the stick-up-your-ass serious responses things like this get from people such as yourself.

Joke's on you, torpor. April Fool.

Yes, Bezos is very eloquent in explaining his side of things. Thats how someone gets to be the head of a huge company with a huge stock market valuation while losing money hand over fist. The other side is pretty simple as well. Computers are machines that were developed to be infinitely configurable machines (the ultimate lego set, if you will.) Software configures the basic logic gates of the computer into some sort of form to perform an action. Software patents simply prohibit you from being able to configure your computer in a pattern of logic that it was designed to do. (If someone else has already built a yellow duck out of legos, then you aren't allowed to.)

IBM's site seems to be down at the moment, but you can use the USPTO's site. Indeed, very frightening.

The primary purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to disclose their invention. Software authors have often resorted to schemes such as encryption, restrictive license agreements and similar strategies to prevent their competitors from being able to copy the technologies they develop. KEEPING TECHNOLOGY SECRETS IF [sic] FUNDAMENTALLY BAD FOR PROGRESS.

Report Card:
Understanding of the subject: B
Understanding real-world implications: F

Although it is possible to argue the first point (and to argue that the purpose of patents is to protect innnovators), I basically agree with you on the purpose of patents. However, software patents do not lead to disclosure of "technology secrets." Let's take a look at a few examples:

The Amazon.com one-click patent
The Amazon.com affiliate program patent
The Priceline business-method patent

Read these patents. Are any innovations disclosed? I've read all three, and I didn't see any disclosure of any technology secrets. What I saw were very broad descriptions of things that already existed in the physical world, or broad descriptions of things so obvious that calling them innovations demeans the term innovation.

Alright class, repeat after me: If something exists in the physical world, and you describe it occurring over the Internet, it does not mean that it is innovation, and almost certainly does not mean that it needs the protection of a patent.

The primary purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to disclose their invention. Software authors have often resorted to schemes such as encryption, restrictive license agreements and similar strategies to prevent their competitors from being able to copy the technologies they develop. KEEPING TECHNOLOGY SECRETS IF [sic] FUNDAMENTALLY BAD FOR PROGRESS.

Report Card:
Understanding of the subject: B
Understanding real-world implications: F

Although it is possible to argue the first point (and to argue that the purpose of patents is to protect innnovators), I basically agree with you on the purpose of patents. However, software patents do not lead to disclosure of "technology secrets." Let's take a look at a few examples:

The Amazon.com one-click patent
The Amazon.com affiliate program patent
The Priceline business-method patent

Read these patents. Are any innovations disclosed? I've read all three, and I didn't see any disclosure of any technology secrets. What I saw were very broad descriptions of things that already existed in the physical world, or broad descriptions of things so obvious that calling them innovations demeans the term innovation.

Alright class, repeat after me: If something exists in the physical world, and you describe it occurring over the Internet, it does not mean that it is innovation, and almost certainly does not mean that it needs the protection of a patent.

The primary purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to disclose their invention. Software authors have often resorted to schemes such as encryption, restrictive license agreements and similar strategies to prevent their competitors from being able to copy the technologies they develop. KEEPING TECHNOLOGY SECRETS IF [sic] FUNDAMENTALLY BAD FOR PROGRESS.

Report Card:
Understanding of the subject: B
Understanding real-world implications: F

Although it is possible to argue the first point (and to argue that the purpose of patents is to protect innnovators), I basically agree with you on the purpose of patents. However, software patents do not lead to disclosure of "technology secrets." Let's take a look at a few examples:

The Amazon.com one-click patent
The Amazon.com affiliate program patent
The Priceline business-method patent

Read these patents. Are any innovations disclosed? I've read all three, and I didn't see any disclosure of any technology secrets. What I saw were very broad descriptions of things that already existed in the physical world, or broad descriptions of things so obvious that calling them innovations demeans the term innovation.

Alright class, repeat after me: If something exists in the physical world, and you describe it occurring over the Internet, it does not mean that it is innovation, and almost certainly does not mean that it needs the protection of a patent.

The RLE compression patent to which Gailly refers is "4056828: Run length encoding and decoding methods and means", filed by - you guessed it - Xerox. The full patent can be found here at IBM's Patent Server, or here at the US Patent and Trademark Office. The good news is that, as far as I know, this patent has expired because it's over 23 years old.

FYI: the "cat toy" patent referred to is here:
Patent 5,443,036: Method of exercising a cat

What does anybody know where ELF format stands at in the GNU GPL scheme of things. This little
abstract from a patent by Ricoh Corp seems sort of promising. :)

...
The ICARUS ELF file format uses processor-dependent features of ELF to provide relocation of bitstream addresses used within program text, and to provide relocation and linking of bitstreams into segments that can be loaded at run-time within dedicated bitstream memory. ICARUS ELF thus extends standard ELF to facilitate storage of bitstreams defining FPGA configurations along with the executable code that runs on the FPGA-defined hardware.

ICARUS ELF adds to standard ELF by providing new data types, sections, symbol types, and relocation types for ISA bitstreams.
...

Here is the full patent, It sounds kind of neat.

Compiling system and method for reconfigurable computing

It essentially patents off-line web browsing.

http://164.195 .100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF &d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1& f=G&l=50&s1='5,978,807'.WKU.&OS=PN/5,978,807&RS=PN /5,978,807

Well, the NSA applied for a
patent , for a device... or mechanism, that takes conversations, and basically summarizes the topics of those coversations. Now, the significance of this is that they can basically use highly advanced speech recogition software(are you saying the NSA wouldn't be able to attain/develop such a thing!?!... much more developed than any commercial software) to catalog coversations, use this device that has been patented to summarize the topic of the conversation, and if it has anything to do with bomb, terrorism, or any other keywords, then it would notify the proper authorities.

Of course, my whole view on the NSA-Echelon situation is... my life is pretty boring... so if the NSA wants to spy on me and others to prevent terrorism, so be it.

Oh, and by the way, the website i found the link for the patent is ACLU's Echelonwatch.... i still think there should be a ACLUWatch though =).

you can check out the patent text for patent 6,029,141 here. boycott amazon.

I've seen one person come up with some better one ... a few days ago someone posted the anology of books being published in a secret language so that you had to take it to a translator to have it read to you. Then somebody publishes the translation key to the secret language (CSS) so that you can read you book yourself whenever you wish.

This one seemed to be pretty good especially when somebody else brought up the analogy with the secret language and latin where it was considered blasphy to read the bible unless you were a member of the clurgy in the middle ages.

Another note: This may not help us with the NY case, but may very well help us with the one in california. If you follow this link you will discover that Cirrus Logic has patented a circuit implementing the CSS algorithm and thus making it public, and no-longer a trade secret.

I don't know if this patent would effect a software decoder or not ... I don't think so, but IANAL so that may not be the case. If the California case is based on the keys being trade secret (even though they are on every DVD) then this may not get us directly out of hot water, but I have an idea that may work...

Since there are only 64K actual decoding keys, and there probably is a signature in the MPEG2 frames that could be keyed off of
1. I would think it would be possible to brute force the decryption keys for a disk down to a manageable number without using the key information stored on the DVD.
2. You could setup a database on the net like CDDB that your open source DVD player could get the key for playing the disk from.
Then once the key was found an individual would not have to manually sift though the possible keys to play their disk, but if they were the first one to run accross a disk they could submit it to the database for everybody else to use.

Somebody also posted that the studios have a right to require you to use players that they bless ... I just read though all the accompaning documentation for my dozen or so DVDs and no place do I see where there is a statement of any of the following:
1. that I can only use licenced players
2. that reverse engineering is not allowed
3. I'm not allowed to make copies for personal use
4. That the disks use or contain Trade Secret or patented information
There are notes that the works are copyrighted and that I'm not allowed to make Illeagal copies, and that public performance or re-distribution is not allowed without permission from the copyright holder.

Just FWIW...

- subsolar

The thing to read in patents is the Claims. Getting a patent is a bit like homesteading a piece of territory used to be: you stake your "Claim", and if nobody else has got it first then its yours.

Imagine how homesteading might have worked if there were no size limits and no need to "prove" the claim (in the sense of exploiting it all). You can stake your claim by putting four pegs in the ground: the perimiter defined by those pegs is your claim. However the claim is only valid if nobody else has put any of their pegs in that area first.

Patent claims work like a series of (mostly) concentric peg claims. Claim 1 pegs out the whole of Arkensas, but you don't really expect to get that one. Claim 2 pegs out the whole of Hazzard County, and you don't really expect to get that one either. Claim 3 pegs out 50 square miles, and you might get that one if you are lucky. Claims 4-6 are the most likely looking homesteads within claim 3, and claim 4 is where you actually start expecting to defend your property.

So, look at the claims on the patent, and figure out which ones are just restatements of prior art. For example in the DVD content scrambling patent, claim 1 pretty much describes any PRNG. Claim 2 probably covers a lot of cryptographic PRNGs (its not my field), and claims 7 and 8 cover the use of a PRNG number stream XORed with the data. So those claims would be covered by prior art and the MPAA is unlikely to contest them. They will concentrate on the later, more specific claims, such as the precise pattern of XORs in the PRNG.

So if I were writing a DVD descrambler routine I would try to come up with an algorithm which evaded the detailed claims, and forget about claims 1, 2, 7 & 8, and any others with textbook prior art. If you could show a standard textbook as prior art then I would expect the suit to be declared vexatious. But IANAL, of course.

I had a look at Gemstar's patent list, and it includes this beauty: Apparatus and methods for using compressed codes for monitoring television program viewing.

I knew this had probably been done, but I never really gave it much thought. How scary; your Gemstar-licensed set-top box can report your specific, comprehensive viewing habits, not just pay-per-view or other targeted bits. Probably feeds right into Experian's marketing database and has Ron Popeil merchandise delivered to your door if you linger too long on his infomercials.

But on the bright side, all this patent madness encourages a more healthy lifestyle. How? There are almost a dozen CRTs in my house. Only one does not have a keyboard in front of it, and it doesn't get turned on much. And I cancelled cable service a while back because (a) 99% of all video content is rehashed, unoriginal, uninteresting, unartistic crap, and (b) I won't support an industry that wants to insinuate itself as a controlling influence in my life. It doesn't take a patented monitoring or menu system to tell that my cable connection is permanently off. If I want to watch something on the SciFi channel, I have to (*gasp*) leave the house, (*akk!!*) expose myself to sunshine, and (no!!!) socialize with friends. J

over which TiVo is being sued: Electronic Program Guides

BTW, I have patented a means of navigating through a printed document by including a synopsis of chapter headings collected in the initial pages of the document, with references to the page number upon which the chapter begins tabulated alongside the aforesaid headings. Interested parties should contact my counsel regarding licensing fees.

Gemstart owns a lot patents. One of them is a customized television programming guide whch can be used to control the vcr - similar to TiVo. But there are many other units out there with similar functionality, why not go after them? It seems Gemstart owns every patent which would involve indirect recording of television programming. Is this even that big a market? Looks like they are trying to sue other companies due to lack of customer interest in their products.

Gemstart owns a lot patents. One of them is a customized television programming guide whch can be used to control the vcr - similar to TiVo. But there are many other units out there with similar functionality, why not go after them? It seems Gemstart owns every patent which would involve indirect recording of television programming. Is this even that big a market? Looks like they are trying to sue other companies due to lack of customer interest in their products.

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but the patent explains the process quite well. I'm still trying to get the images to work though.

"To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text, the text that is to be interpreted is written in accordance with this invention using symbols that are exceptionally well separated from each other graphically. These symbols preferably define an orthographic alphabet to reduce the time and effort that is required to learn to write text with them at an acceptably high rate. Furthermore, to accommodate "eyes-free" writing of text and the writing of text in spatially constrained text entry fields, the symbols advantageously are defined by unistrokes (as used herein, a "unistroke" is a single, unbroken stroke)."

And notice the title, expressing what is being patented: "Unistrokes for computerized interpretation of handwriting"

Not any method of computerized handwriting recognition, but only single-stroke characters.

Now, look at the "X" in the Grafiti Character Set.

Aha! Two strokes! That means that Grafiti's not representing the entire alphabet in single-stroke form.

"But", you cry, "a lot of the letters are in single-stroke form!"

Like the letters "I", "O", "U", "S", "C", and "V"? A lot of the Roman alphabet is already expressed in single-stroke form.

So 3Com isn't trying to rip off the idea of a single-stroke alphabet for computerized handwriting recognition, they're just using an obvious approach to generic handwriting recognition.

And generic handwriting recognition is NOT covered by the patent. The patent itself begins, "To relax the graphical constraints on the precision of the handwriting that is required for accurate computerized interpretation of handwritten text..."

Which means that the patent itself cites prior art in general handwriting recognition.

And the patent itself gives specific directions and actual vectors to use to generate the Unistroke alphabet. The result is a bunch of simple squiggles that look kinda "Arabic-ish".

The Grafiti alphabet is immediately recognized as a variant of the Roman alphabet, not designed to be "orthographic", as Unistroke was, but rather to emulate existing stroke patterns as closely as possible while clearly differentiating the characters from one another so the computer can recognize them unambiguously.

Which, IMO, is the obvious solution to the problem.

Now, since shorthand was invented long before Unistroke (as many posters have pointed out), the patent can only protect the specific alphabet mentioned in the patent, and only for purposes of computerized handwriting recognition.

(For a little analogy, this is the equivalent of patenting the "Longbow and Feathered Arrow for Purposes of Hunting Deer", and suing someone who builds an elephant gun, claiming that you have a patent on "all long-range mammal-killing projectile devices". Although that may not be the case with software patents >:^)

This concludes my messy disembowelment of the spurious Xerox claim.

Permission is granted by the author to distribute this message verbatim to the 3Com legal defense team.

(Score: -1, Rambling Lunatic)

Read The Patent before you make your assertions. You can see that it is not vague, it describes graffiti in a very detailed way, including how to implement it. The only thing that I can see that 3com added that was not in the patent was internationalization, and other symbols.

Looking at the patent, one can see that it was filed in January 1997. So it is definately still valid.

patent #5443036

Damn, I guess I've been in violation of the law since '95

Wow ! That's simply amazing. I'd never even heard of G-Lines before, but what they seem to involve is a surface plasma wave on the wire ! In the light of this, even the stupid patent makes sense, i.e. the wave really is "acoustic" in that it's partially an electron-density wave.

And now, I'm off to piss myself laughing at everyone whose "superior" physics knowledge made them dismiss this idea (myself included). The basic idea has already been tried, it's already known to RF engineers, it already works.

Check out the patent and their cheesy promo graphic. They claim that this technique is transformer-transparent. If the signal really does make it through transformers and around sharp corners with little radiative loss, then they could really be onto something. It'll take real-world testing to find out. I'd expect the maser would be expensive. So the crucial factor will be how many maser-transmitter/repeaters are necessary. (maybe one of these high downstream low upstream bandwidth dealies to minimize the # of masers required).

The article about this last weekend contained this link to a patent:

Patent!

Looked different, I'll give it that.



---

Don't know what it means tho...

I agree with most people here that patents are becoming overly silly. But, I don't think a boycott is going to be effective at all, except as a PR tool.

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. - US PTO

All it's going to take is one decent lawsuit to get this patent revoked. Not only would this be considered 'obvious', I'm certain if we all tried we could find a mountain of prior art. (If it can be proven that this was done before, their patent is no good)

I really see nothing in their patent that's even remotely unique or novel. Take a look yourself here

Calling for a boycott isn't going to affect Amazon's bottom line a bit. However, it may get some attention to how silly they're acting. This isn't going to change a single thing until a business or some kind of Web-Business-Association or someone actually tries to get this patent revoked.

Thoughts?