Slashdot Mirror
Bezos Responds to Tim O'Reilly's Open Letter
Dredd13 writes, "On his site, Tim O'Reilly recounts the conversation he had with Jeff Bezos, of Amazon, in regards to the "overwhelming positive response" to Tim's open letter to the community about one-click shopping. Makes for a good read. "
I never really understood what the big uproar was about this patent, we all know there have been stupider ones out there. I remember the first time I saw the 1-click thing, it was really cool and I'd never seen it before in years of net shopping (that doesn't mean they were the first, it was just the first I'd seen). Sure it might be somewhat obvious in hindsight but what isn't? What casts a shadow over Amazon's intent with the 1-click patent is their recent patent on affiliate programs. I was a member of the CDNow affiliate program before Amazon had anything resembling an affiliate system. Bezos would be very hard pressed to explain the patenting of affiliate programs in the same way he explained the 1-click patent and it makes me even more suspicious of their motives.
This, not 'a patent pool', is what people should be working towards. In order for it to actually benefit society, there needs to be a mechanism (ideally an Internet one) where people can submit ideas and inventions, have them filed as public disclosure (perhaps at the FSF's expense, or whoever wants to fund the relatively cheap process), and make them easily searchable not only by rich corporations but also by individuals.
Doing this would empower people to innovate and invent things, knowing that if they were good at it, not only would their ideas be protected from hostile patent attacks (by which I mean a company going and patenting the thing and then later filing a suit claiming original ownership), but they would be able to build a reputation as an innovative, inventive person: something which, as a service, is more valuable than simply the products of the invention process. This requires not only formal disclosure but _public_ disclosure: not only the resource for filing things with the patent office, but also the access to the public, the interest level of 'Oh look- an open inventions site! Let's go dig through the piles of stuff and see what's there!'.
Given sufficiently brilliant work available at such a site, there would be several results, all beneficial:
- Multiple companies would pounce on particularly good ideas and begin making them realities- but would be compelled to compete on price and quality rather than exclusivity, thus propping up the sagging freemarket economy
- Individuals could build small business on the same stuff, needing only an ability to market on a local level or produce a variation on the theme that is too specialised for the big company
- Consumers could choose among any of these sources for the resulting products, including the option to go do it themselves with full access to the general information about the thing
- Inventors of something good enough to produce all this activity would be newsworthy by virtue of the unusual approach to invention ownership: plus, the site itself would track popularity of its pages and contributors. Quickly, a gift economy would develop as described by ESR in his writings- with status directly mapping to a degree of fame and influence unavailable to inventors laboring in seclusion in corporate anonymity.
- As a result of that, the most talented inventors would be as in demand as top programmers and sysadmins: not by virtue of intellectual property they owned, but by virtue of their capacity to produce innovations and inventions. This could be treated either as the traditional "I see you can do this, so please develop something exclusively for me to patent for $BIGNUM", or in a more FSF-y way of "I see you can do this, so please develop something that I get to see first for $MEDIUMNUM, at which point you can publically disclose it and I'll have a headstart on running with it, plus I get to tailor it to my needs from the outset".
Please, no more talk of open source patent pools. There's a much better way.This doesn't justify Amazon, however: Amazon doesn't want a free market either. They, too, want to be in a position where there's no choice anymore. Unlike B&N, rather than seize control of the distribution channels, they are trying to seize control of e-commerce intellectual property. That's just as bad, only in a totally different sphere.
B&N couldn't patent it because Amazon would have prior art. Patents have to be original work.
Sheesh!
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
And his objection to the boycott is based, weirdly enough, on the value of the service that Amazon provides. That's missing the point of a boycott: 'boycotting' companies with inferior products or services isn't boycotting, it's just shopping. When you choose not to give a company its business because of the moral and social aspects of their business practices even though they may have the best service in the market, thenyou have a boycott. Why is Tim opposed to boycotts as part of a multifaceted strategy against harmful business practices?
Why is everyone so hostile against Microsoft for putting smaller software companies out of business?
My understanding is that they simply can't compete--sad, but it's not Microsoft's fault. They simply do the same thing more efficiently.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Which is why, if I don't buy from Amazon, I definitely won't buy from B&N.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Barnes & Noble has never liked the idea that an on-line concern might, theoretically, do to it what B&N itself does to the little independent bookstores wherever it puts in a shiny new B&N franchise. They'd be very happy if they could put Amazon out of business, and have been trying to throw whatever monkeywrench they can into Amazon's plans ever since it first came to their attention. Not to mention, as I've noted elsewhere, ripping off pretty much the entire look and feel of Amazon's site for their own.
I dislike the necessity of having to use patents defensively. But I'm finding it harder and harder to blame Jeff Bezos for protecting himself and his firm using means that others would use to try to bring him down if he didn't.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
It occurs to me that in addition to boycotting Amazon.com, you can send them a more immediate message by disabling 1-Click ordering in your Amazon.com account.
To turn off 1-Click ordering, go to Amazon.com's web site, click on the "Your Account" button, then click on "Access or change your 1-Click settings", then click on the "Turn off 1-Click ordering" button. If the button says "Turn on 1-Click ordering", just leave it that way.
I just did this. It felt good. :-)
--Roger
If he didnt patent it, B&N or another competeter might have and used it against him. and been a lot more nasty to everyone else... Remember the LZW patent...
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
I've never bought anything from their online store, but B&N's campus bookstore arm is quite evil. My school recently released control of its bookstore to B&N. What happened? Textbook shortages, longer lines, and -- worst of all -- much higher prices. Not only did we lose our 10% discount, B&N actually increased prices by another 5% or so if my comparisson shopping is correct.
And now... now they are building a superstore north of campus, in the middle of friggin nowhere relative to the campus proper and the residence halls. At the very least, it's a several block hike. You may say, "big deal... I can actually get some excercise" but we're talking the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Most people buy their books for the spring semester when they come back after break, first week or second week in January. Last year, 1999, the temps were about -30 without the wind chill and substantially colder. Don't believe me? Check out Jan uary 13, 1999 in North Dakota.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
I appreciate what Tim is doing, trying to bring his position to bear in this matter. And I certainly hope that he and Jeff are able to work out a situation where Amazon can give assurances to the little guys, while protecting themselves from the big guys.
As good as these talks are to this particular instance, they are just a band-aid to the greater problem, which is the US Patent Office's general cluelessness in dealing with software and new technology patents. It seems that any real reform has to be done on that level, or else the "worst case" that Tim talks about -- the big tech companies who try to use patents to crush smaller companies -- will happen, it's only a matter of time.
BTW: Say it's not so! Say Tim isn't one of those people who talk on their cell phones in the middle of restaurants!
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
This is bullshit. All the hardcore pseudo-capitalists who disclaim social responsibility can go to hell, as far as I am concerned. Whatever your economics 100 professer may have spewed, this is an unescapable fact. Corporations are responsible for acting in the best interests of their shareholders withing the boundaries set by laws, the government, and ethical behavior. It is (or should be) the responsibility of the government to set and enforce those boundaries in a manner which is optimial for the citizens at large.
That is why the patent system exists in the first place -- As Jeff and Tim agreed, it should prevent corporations from using their money and power to take the innovations of a smaller company or individual and smoother them with superior marketing etc, thus preventing further innovation by said small company.
Unfortunately, it has come to the point where large companies use patents and cross-licensing to prevent small startups to innovate without stepping on the patents of the "big boys".
It is somewhat refreshing seeing a relatively small company using patents to defend itself against larger corporations, the problem is that neither the 1-click or the affiliate programs are (or should be) patentable. Patents are supposed to prevent technical innovations, *not* marketing strategies. Amazons greatest, and fundamental innovations are all marketing, none techinical. The patent process never has, nor was intended to, protect such things, and is not intended to.
The real telling fact of these is that neither of them would be considered interesting, much less patentable offline. They are equivelant to patenting banner ads--people have been putting ads on every available surface for years now, there is no reason that putting them on a web-page should be patentable.
Basically, neither of those patents should have ever been allowed to be granted, and the USPO should be taking as much flak for this as Amazon.
As I was reading this article I began to realize that I'd been extreme. Bezos does make some good points; and Amazon has so far done nothing worse than sue Barnes and Noble, who are definitely guilty of copying Amazon's site (tacky, at best), as well as pulling a "You've Got Mail" and putting lots of small independent bookstores out of business. Amazon on the other hand has done neither of these things. And in certain areas, they really have innovated.
Nonetheless I'm going to withhold my judgment for a while yet. I haven't bought anything from Amazon since the 1-Click patent; and I don't intend to until there appears to be some resolution to this.
BUT KEEP THIS IN MIND: So far Amazon has NOT sued ANYONE except B&N over the patent. It's not like the eToys business; they're not running over any little guys. Maybe we all just have a problem with the theory of what Amazon is doing; but they don't seem to actually have DONE anything wrong. Regardless of whether the patent is valid or not, that by itself should not be enough to condemn a company.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
He used that patent offensively, not defensively. (And as far as was mentioned, B&N wasn't throwing Amazon any legal punches before Amazon did).
Read my earlier post about the punches that B&N has thrown Amazon or even better do a search for Amazon, B&N and the words lawsuit or sue and you'll be rather surprised to see the amount of blows that have been thrown by both parties. The rivalry between both companies is similar to the irrational hatreds that run deep within the Sun and Microsoft camps. The reason few geeks know about is that it's been mainly news for the book industry and few else.
If I had seen a serious statement as to WHY they were taking action against Barnes and Noble, what their opinions and beliefs were, and if they had presented a case on why Barnes and Noble were wrong in doing what they did in the manner in which they did it, I might well have been boycotting B&N now instead of Amazon. Lord knows I loved Amazon when they first came online. But I have lost my faith in them, and at this point Jeff Bezos needs to do something to restore that faith.
And here's where I'm out of luck. It's not an issue of cost, it's a matter of customer service. In my opinion, Amazon's site has always been and will always be much more informative than their competitors. That's why I would shop there, even if it cost an extra buck or two. I did not mind paying for that service. But I cannot condone a corporation who appears to be building a monopoly through lawsuits.
If Amazon wants to impress me, it can create a small non profit organization whose sole purpose is to patent and hold the patents for the things required for the internet. This organization will be based upon the concept that it will NEVER use these to initiate a lawsuit against another company. (They can be used as evidence in a countersuit for all I care.) This organization will handle and hold patents for all companies who are serious about patenting for defensive purposes only. Any companies patenting outside of this organization can be assumed to be patenting for agressive purposes.
Do it Jeff, and you'll have me as a customer forever.
-----
No Zen is good zen
That's not the idea behind patents. The patent system was created to insure against trade secrets dying with their inventors. Classic example: Antonio Stradivari's violin making techniques. That's why "obvious" ideas aren't patentable, they will inevitably occur again to someone else. It's different with copyrights, there's nothing in the law stating that a copyrighted text should not be obvious. All it needs to be is original, i.e. never having been written before.
Probably the "one-click" idea is obvious, so this patent should never have been granted, but courts exist to decide about such things. The only problem is how to make sure that judges and juries understand the application of laws in a context where technology evolves so fast. Perhaps we sould compare "one-click" with other uncontested patents in the past. What about the paper clip, for instance. This seems a pretty obvious thing, to bend a piece of wire to hold together sheets of paper. If the paper clip was accepted as a valid patent, then I think the one-click patent is just as valid, if no one did it before Amazon.
I'm not joining this boycott. I have bought from Amazon since all mess this started. I don't think Richard M Stallmann is such a god that I should blindly follow his lynch mob.
The first sentence is true: Amazon announced record losses in the fourth quarter of 1999. The second sentence, however, is apparently false: Amazon claims that it is now making money on books alone; the losses come from expanding into other products (CDs, videos, etc.).
On a related topic.... Note that Amazon's profiting on books just might justify the view that losses taken to build market share can turn into profits later on.
Regardless of who did it first, the trend leading to this patent was set long ago and has been continuing for some time. This is simply the first time the implications extend outside the book world. Why is it Amazon doesn't use the New York Times bestseller list on their site? It's not because of it not representing what Amazon sells, but because of a cease and desist order sent to Amazon and Borders last June (notice any prominent bookstores missing? Selective enforcement, you might say.)that resulted in the list being removed. Or look at the discounts on bestsellers - Amazon ups theirs, BN follows suit. Both Jeff Bezos and Leonard Riggio, CEO of Big and Nasty, seem so concerned over their fight with each other and other online competitors that they lack any judgement concerning the implications of their actions. There is more publicity over this issue than previous ones simply because they've moved out of the industry. The pattern for this behavior was set a long time ago. Bezos' lack of foresight should not be surprising since his company not only has never shown a profit, but has no plan to do so in the near future. But what is the best way to stop it? Since the procedure for getting a patent isn't going to be improved any time soon and people aren't going to stop buying books online the only thing that we can do is pay closer attention to what is being patented and hope that more prominent figures like Tim O'Reilly take a stand on similar issues. Or let them patent it, and then come up with something better ourselves.
Build the mountain. Then climb it if you're bored.
He uses Netscape as an example. He says that maybe if Netscape had patented some of its ideas they wouldn't have fallen and been acquired by AOL (the king megacorp on the internet). The problem with this is that if Netscape had patented all its technology it would have hindered the growth of the Internet. If all the web browsing technology was owned by Netscape, Netscape would be the only browser around. This is sort of a bad example because the entity helped most by Netscape's not patenting the technology was Microsoft, for whom none of us have any great love.
But setting aside arguments about IE's incorporation into Windows and all that stuff, and looking at IE as a product, I think in the long run we are much better off with Netscape not having patented its technology. Companies need competition in order to keep making new, better products. In the end, the main benefactor of competition is usually the consumer. Prices are driven down and product quality is driven up.
Now, the death of Netscape was sad, and it was due mostly to the fact that their playing field wasn't level (when the competing product is included on every computer for free it does tend to kill your own product). But imagine that IE was made by a company that wasn't MS, and their only product was IE. I think Netscape would still be alive and kicking, and with each one trying to one-up the other, we would be the ones to reap the benefits of this contest. This is not a new idea, this is what all industries do. The problem here was that MS had such an enormous advantage.
Assuming that if Netscape had "filed a few patents" it would not have been swallowed, I don't think this is any kind of a good goal in itself. Filing for patents as a way to keep out competition is great for the filer of the patents, but it sucks for consumers. IE 3 sucked, I didn't like IE 4 much either, but I sure like IE 5 (and, even better, IE 4.5 on Mac). Before IE, I had only one choice: Netscape. The ability for consumers to choose what product to buy or use is the basis for all the antitrust legislation we have. Filing patents to stifle competition runs directly counter to that idea. And while Amazon should be rewarded for its innovations in ecommerce, this is not one of them, and they have really gone about it in the wrong way. The way to maintain marketshare is to one-up your competitor. If they are afraid of B&N, too bad. They must adapt or die, and not patent frivolous things in an attempt to fence off technology.
I would be sad to see Amazon go, but I think the market should decide who the winner is. Using patents to keep out competitors still seems like a very underhanded and dirty trick to me, and in the end it will most likely be the consumers who lose out.
_________________
rooooar
Jeff B: listen you little geek, post a total suck-up letter on your website, or I'm not selling your books.
Tim O: Oh, now I see your point about the intellectual property stuff, it's downright +1 Insightful. But what will I say?
Jeff B: Make it up, I don't care, just get it done.
Tim O: Yes, master.
[click] [bzzz][beep][last message repeated 9 times]
Tim O: RMS? Could you help me out with a letter I'm writing to the ... um er... EFF? What should I say about patents and stuff.
RMS: Dear EFF, Patents [voice rising] are [voice rising] very [shreiking] bad. Information wants to be free. It's a free speech issue.[/talking][/shrieking]
Tim O: thanks dude, good enough! [click]
[tap tap tap] s/good/bad/ [oops] s/good/bad/g [tap tap tap] s/[shrill]/[soothing]/g [oops] s/[shrill]/[soothing]/gi
RCPT TO:Jeff B
My Dearest Friend, How's this?
[connection lost before line could be traced]
Echelon is unable to determine identity of parties.
Barnes and Noble would have patented it and may have been much worse than Amazon. After all Barnes and Noble sued Amazon the day after barnesandnoble.com went online because it claimed Amazon was not "Earth's biggest bookstore" as the Amazon slogan said.
Barnes and Noble has been out to crush Amazon the same way it bullied and crushed independent booksellers for at least the past two years. After all B&N was trying to become a true monopolist by buying up book publishers then using that against their competitors. IMHO opinion Amazon got this patent just to protect them against B&N which has showed itself to be a completely ruthless and unscrupulous competitor.
God only knows how much worse things would have been if Barnes and Noble had gotten the patent. That said the patent is still wrong but if the USPTO is going to be stupid enough to grant those patents then Amazon has a right to grab as many as possible to protect themselves from Barnes & Noble.
Here's what I posted on their talkback...
I don't mean to flame here, but I really don't think the summary you provided reflects a very good discussion. On the one hand you had Mr. O'Reilly pretty much arguing by analogy the whole time, and on the other hand you had Mr. Bezos doing the classic used car salesman's pitch of "I'll get back to you on that" and "I'll have to talk to my manager". The "I'll get back to you on that" is accomplished by pushing the problem out to a place where he can make a promise to "try" (i.e. see to what extent he can allow independent developers to use "his invention" without harming his case against B&N) without having to commit immediately. The "I'll have to talk to my manager" allows him to be the good cop and Amazon's patent lawyers to be the bad cop. The upshot is, he still basically represents a big business trying to rake in as much as possible, consequences be damned, and I'm afraid that all that happened here is that Jeff talks a very good talk and told Tim just what he wants to hear. The "I'm just a little guy against giants like Wal-Mart" and "I'm just like Netscape" angles are simply attempts to get on Tim's good side and turn the discussion from "me against you" to "us against them". That is, after all, what a good used car salesman does.
As far as the patentability issue, there should be no compromise: this simply must stop here. Someone in an earlier post said (roughly) that the reason for all the outcry over this is that this one click "innovation" is so simple and obvious that even people who can barely write "hello world" in a programming language are disgusted. And they should be. There is nothing more here than an attempt to use the law as a crowbar, to get any advantage, no matter how tenuous and no matter what its consequences, against Amazon's competitors. For Jeff Bezos to compare his company to Netscape is indeed arresting, but only because it's incredible that someone in the retail business whose company simply uses tools that others (including Netscape) have developed, would have the hubris to compare themselves to Netscape.
Tim says, "The social norms of the Internet and of the Open Source community, which have proven so productive in the development of the Web, need to be recognized, honored, and upheld. The public relations cost of violating those norms needs to be high." Everyone knows that the patent system is totally broken. Not everyone chooses to use it. Those who do, like Amazon, deserve all the flak they receive. The only thing these companies understand is dollars, and the only way to make them behave is to make the consequences of their actions translate into lost revenue.
If Bezos had simply obtained the patent, and kept it in the company's portfolio for defense, then he would have some merit in that point. But he took B&N to court, and stopped them from using the "1-click" system. He used that patent offensively, not defensively. (And as far as was mentioned, B&N wasn't throwing Amazon any legal punches before Amazon did).
Bezos talks a reasonable talk, but his company's doing exactly what he fears others would do to him. Net negative gain, folks.
iSKUNK!
http://www.wired.com/wired/arch ive/7.06/barnes.html
Specifically, they talk about how they implemented most of amazon's functionality, almost feature by feature.
Bezos has a point about not wanting to be "Netscape." Barnes & Nobles is just like Microsoft - they are leveraging their wielding power in the brick and mortar stores (operating systems) and trying to gain a presence online by providing an Amazon clone (web browser).
We should be boycotting B&N, not amazon.
Now, I don't agree with these patents being awarded to anyone. However, I think Bezos realized how stupid the patent laws were and took advantage of them. I agree that if he wouldn't have, someone else would have, and that company would be the target of our flames instead.
The real problem is with the patent office and the laws itself. I think most of on Slashdot agree (or at least it would seem by the response to these things) that the patent laws in the US are very messed up. This is due to big companies lobbying for years to get patent laws that allowed them to screw over competitors. The entire patent system really needs an overhaul for the 21st. century.
Of course, I doubt we'll get it. ^_^
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Of course if you actualy *wanted* to hurt them you could join the affiliate program, link to a specific title (15% commission), buy a best seller with "one click" (30% discount), pocket your 40% net savings, and watch Amazon sink deeper into a sea of red ink.