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. "
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.