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. "
Actually, you need both. You need to keep up the
Boycott of Amazon so that they feel the public
pressure and are operating under the premise that
they have to do something to change the situation.
On the other hand you need to have someone whom
they trust and whom we trust and have that person
talk to them in a truly constructive way. And I
cannot say how much I respect Tim for taking up
this task and creating a useful and sensible
conversation with Bezos and with us (at least with
me - I feel included).
© Copyright 1999 Kristian Köhntopp
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.
To address thy first point: what exactly is wrong with taking a good ol' boy approach to things? You'll note that O'Reilly has Bezos actually talking to him, as opposed to those who merely send hatemail. You use what works. Besides, this is one of the reasons that we have CEOs and managers; much of what they do is negotiate with each other. It's politics; it's their job.
On your second point, he is doing it not so much because Amazon provides a valuable service (B&N is oftentimes cheaper), but because Amazon is, in every other respect, a top-notch quality company. He respects them; they respect him. You don't get very much respect by boycotting and refusing to talk. You simply get press. O'Reilly wants to get things done, not get on the evening news (although that's always fun too...).
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.