Slashdot Mirror
Jeff Bezos' Open Letter On Patents
Several people, including Tim O'Reilly, the progenitor of this Amazon Letter Patent Discussion wrote to point out that Jeff Bezos has written an open letter on patents. It's a pretty cogent and intelligent letter which gives a defense of their patents, but also calls for software patent reform. Tim has written a follow-up letter already.
you're wasting time first poster . . . you need to read the art. first. then comment, quite an interesting read on the first half
2^3 * 31 * 647
Contact your senators. Contact their staff - these are the folks who appprove appointments. Make sure that patent office and patent commissioner appointments are not a rubber-stamp process. 'nuff said!
Bezos, as I've said before, is a reasonable man. Just because he won't bow down and kiss your geeky little feet is no reason to spit in his eye. He's done his best to do right by the community, and he deserves for the community to return the favor.
In fact, I'd go so far as to that anybody who remains opposed to Bezos after this resolution of the matter is endangering our tribe, and should be treated with the utmost harshness. It's time we started dealing out some justince among ourselves. The anti-Bezos faction is about due for a serious kicking, just to show them what's what.
This is the real world, guys. Cut the crap and toe the line. You got some important symbolic concessions, however practically insignificant they may be. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Call it a day and quit while you're ahead.
The point that Bezos makes that I do disagree with is that the Patent Office is doing ok with the regulations and the resources that they have. Even given that they don't have much, they seem to be doing a pretty poor job, IMHO.
The Daily Build
It seems to me, that he's really too scared to pull the patent. He knows it's a bad patent, and he has made some (very good) suggestions on what to do about the patent office, but it all just says "Do what I say, not what I do". He knows it's a bad patent but is just too scared to do an about face and admit that he was wrong.
Plus Amazon has spent a lot of money saying they are right, and to change face and say they were wrong would be a total waste of the money.
It seems to me that the old folks running the patent office and the copyright office are well behind the times. Digital processes available today require the copyright office to have the antique laws and information brought up to today's standards, yet not have the laws written by the same people that want the copyrights. The same goes for patents. New technology is spinning patent rights on its ear, and patents need to have it's rules and thinking updated by knowledgeable folks. The old way of awarding patents will not work in the virtual world.
"First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
- Doctor Who
Watching a bus-load of patent lawyers plunge off a cliff.
With five empty seats.
I got a good feeling from reading this letter. Both at how much sway Tim O'Reily has, and at how much possible sway Jeff Bezos could have. The whole patent issue could be made much better because Amazon was called to the carpet on their One-click patent. Despite how upset I've been about this issue, I'm willing to give Jeff the time to get working on this and will back him and Tim up on this.
Bravo, Jeff. Good job.
As a tech savvy developer, I've had numerous ideas for Internet services that could be very profitable and beneficial to companies and individuals, but that weren't practical to implement. Why? Because although the idea was to offer an innovative service, without protection from competition, if there's not a hugely significant technical barrier to entry, there would be nothing to stop the giant "real world" companies whom I would be competing against from stomping me with their brand identity or somebody like AOL or Microsoft stomping me with tying agreements and sweetheart deals in other market segments to attract customers.
Given that I'd be crushed, I won't invest the sweat. But those big companies aren't thinking of the ideas on their own, and the public suffers from not having these services available. I'm sure many of us have had ideas like this. It's very similar to what happened to Netscape. They were lucky, though, and nobody realized what was going on until they had a great brand identity. Nowadays, although the Internet is far from tapped out on great ideas, there's such intense scrutiny that nothing goes unnoticed long enough to get a chance to grow with out some protection.
Although it looks like patents are being mostly used by big companies to bully little guys around, with a "fast patents" process they could actually help encourage diversity and the growth of new small players on the business Internet.
you bald headed weasel.
thank you.
wow, change. Jeff wants to do something. Time say's "great, but can't you do more?"
Jeff is very well spoken. He is one of the best spoken CEO's that I have listened to to date. There was just something that made me uneasy about the article that I can't put my finger on. Maybe it was just the sudden shift with the pat on the back that says "you're right, we didn't do this quite right, so run along now and we'll make sure that it gets taken care of."
Tim OTOH doesn't really seem interested in compromising. He's excited to go to Washington and lobby, but he doesn't quite seem convinced that change is enough.
The whole bit with Business method patents is abso freaking EVIL. I need to run down and file my patent on selling fruit from a cart near the corner of busy intersections...
chris
--grr more workday lost to thinking about stuff on slashdot, must be time for a cigarette.
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
No, Amazon needs to be able to show to investors a list of assets. Normally, companies put "profits" down as one of those assets, but in the internet world profits are as alien as WarEZ d00dz getting a date. So, they have to make do with assets like "public goodwill" "brand image" and, of course, patents. After all, patents "prove" that you have a technological edge over your competition.
Hey, I work for an Internet startup, and I know the pressures that exist there. Our investors want us to patent our software all the time. I'd much rather open-source it. Result: deadlock. But Bezos doesn't have that luxury, so he has to make statements like this.
Just my $.02
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Can your IM do this?
Tim's letter basically says that he now recognizes that the Amazon patents to represent innovative and unique claims (please read his letter to see why), however he still believes all software patents are bad.
I disagree with Tim. The main problem I have with software patents is a) the obviousness of some of them, and b) the 17 year time span. I think the if they lasted 3 years that would be acceptable. It would also help open-source by encouraging people to open up their truly innovative algorythms.
Jeff Bezos and Amazon are a company big enough to cause change, and since the represent the industry (as opposed to whiners saying "I deserver this."), I think patent reform could be just around the corner. If Amazon starts acting on these ideas, I will no longer participate in the boycott.
--Eric Guenterberg
mavpion@badspammers.usa.net
(I usually post from home where my browser's cookie is set)
Not to be a nitpick, but with all of his ramblings about 3-5 years, business patents & software patents vs regular patents, etc... I would have been quite impressed if he'd said that regardless of the outcome of his talks with congressment, Amazon would unilaterally allow anyone (me, you, barnes & noble) access to their patents 3-5 years after the date they were filed or maybe awarded.
That would have been so honorable... Instead, I'm not sure exactly what he was telling us... Like, if he goes to congress and they say no, they're going to let patents last for 20 years, does that mean he's going to hold onto affiliate programs and one-click ordering for the duration of time, or what?
Just in case somebody wants to patent "cookies": Have a look at the NFS RFC's. Just saw that today!
Is anyone building a Prior Art database anywhere?
Although part of me still wishes Amazon had completely stepped down from it's decision to patent one click shopping, I'm glad to see that someone out there is talking about rational reform.
I believe one thing is true; if Amazon had just decided not to enforce its patents, not a whole lot would have changed. It's possible that this may be a first step towards a better situation.
I still think that Amazon's patent should not be valid in the first place. On the other hand, it is inevitable that stupid patents will be granted, and it is unlikely that all software patents will be eliminated. At least the proposed changes would help the situation immensely.
I see a couple problems with "fast patents".
1) A large company is going to be able to capitalize on a new idea faster than a startup. By the time the average startup gets moving, a 2-5 year patent would be half gone.
2) These days, it usually takes years for the patent to be issued in the first place.
The cake is a pie
Practically speaking, I agree that the argument for having these kinds of patents is valid in the world of commerce that the internet has become. However, the point of having patents is to give an incentive to the public to invent things. The idea behind patents is that 1)we want a great deal of innovation comming from the people of our country so 2)we tell them that if they invent something good, they can rest assured that they'll get some money for it if someone else wants to use it. This works fine in the world up until now, what with markets based purely on diminishing resources. But the internet doesn't work that way (or at least not that I've seen). If you come up with something new, it can't be used up if someone else decides they want to use it too. It's information, the proverbial and legendary bottomless mug o' beer. Bottom line, because of this phenomenon, people seem to come up with numerous innovations for the internet daily and without need for monetary incentives. So, although the corporate world has decided to tread on this ground and make it their own forcing us to abide by their ideals and rules, I feel it is important, still, to recognize that devices of the business world (like patents) are unnecessary and unwanted.
Just some quick comments....
1. Software is different. Yes it is.
2. 3-5 year patents. OK if that's how he feels then when his patents become that old he should drop them. He can seek damages for sstuff B&N did before his patent expired, but he really should give them up when he thinks others should.
3. Retroactive lifespan. I don't think this would work. People applied for a patent expecting it to last 17 years. Now it doesn't? I think that would be kinda unfair. Yes the patents are probably also unfair. This would be akin to selling someone a 36" tv for $50, then giving them a 16" tv.
4. Early Comments. This would be sticky. And I really think the USPTO would have problems. Along with those who would be applying for the patent. If my patent application is rejected, then I can still develop it in secret. However, that secret would be out of the bag in this case. I think a better idea would be for the USPTO to hire more computer minded people. I'm not sure who is reveiwing these patents now, but I somewhat doubt they're using all the tools available to them before they approve a patent.
-cpd
PS: No updates on GNU's Boycott Amazon page yet...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
some months ago? They did the traditional crap:
1) Bezos as everyman.
They show Bezos hanging out with the people filling orders. I bet Bezos probably took a shower after that shoot, the snobby bastard that he is.
2) Bezos as Mr. Fun
They shot Bezos rolling around the floor in some stupid bubble contraption. I recall Bezos laughing hysterically, in a disturbing,inappropiate manner. You know, the forced "Hey, look at me have fun" kind of laugh. It turned my stomach.
3) Bezos as Captain of Industry
They showed Bezos in some meetings making forceful, yet knowledgable suggestions to a bunch of underlings who obsequiously nod their approval at every opportunity.
All in all I have a feeling that Bezos will go down as the biggest fraud in the history of business. B&N will pick the carcass that used to be Amazon.
-- Hemos, too lazy to log in.
Weren't these innovative ideas for their time?
To me, these are exact parallels to Amazon's 1-click patent, only Amazon managed to get a patent.
I can't believe that, he avoids the questions altogether. Couldn't really expect anything more from such a little man.
sdf
Well, I am truly surprised at Jeff's answer after the verbal whipping he got online, especially on /. It almost seems too good to be true, a company that wants tocut down on its own priviledges.
Maybe it's another popularity trick- of course the online community will cheer up when a "high-profile" company proposes easing the situation of software patents.
Last, The 3-5 years proposal is still a proposal on HAVING software patents. I think trademarks are generally reasonable in the computer industry, but software patents (same for business models) does not seem right.
The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but we will meanwhile agree to meet them
On the troll scale of 0 - 10, I'm afraid I can only give it a six.
Thanks for playing!
if were going to go through all the troubble of narowing them down, we minuswell get rid if them all together. You know, whiping the boy 25% as much as you whiped him the week before is still just plain ole bad. a step in the right direction, but still bad.
A new acquaintance and I brought up this subject recently, when Tim's first Open Letter came out. Here's his point:
Yeah, we saw something about that, but you have to realize, the examiner of
the application had something like 8-12 hours to research the application,
perhaps write a rejection, answer the attorney's arguments and decide
whether information found in their research suggested that someone do what
the application claims to be novel or inventive (no one had suggested doing
it). As former patent examiners of 10 years (my wife and I), I can safely
say that none of the examiners have enough time than to give a patent the
"presumption of validity" that the law says it has. I doubt there was any
"abuse" of the patent office by Amazon, only abuse of the patent examiners
and the public by the Patent Office.
Perhaps the people in charge of the office, setting the policy, and making the schedule should be blamed, rather than those poor saps doing the work. We bitch about examiner ineptitude, but maybe the problem lies with those appointed bureaucrats that CAN be affected by negative politics. Start writing those letters!
What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?
Now I get it! He got the recognition for his future accomplishments ;-)
Wrong, grasshopper. Amazon has a preliminary injunction against B&N. As others have pointed out, this means the judge thinks Amazon will prevail at trial. Even with their vast resources, B&N couldn't find any prior art which called the 1-click patent into question.
So, while you may disagree with the current patent system, Amazon's legal position with respect to their 1-click patent is very strong.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
Thanks for the letter. It is refreshing to see that someone understands the issues and is willing to work to fix the system.
That said, I will continue to shop elsewhere until such time that you put your money, or should I say patents, where you mouth is.
In order to show that you are really serious about this I propose that you do one or both of the following.
Suggestion number one, announce that you will not enforce the one click patent. You can keep and enforce any other patents. This is the most high profile patent you have, and will send a strong message to everyone involved that you really mean what you say about reform.
Alternatively, you can announce that you will only enforce your business method and software patents for 3 to 5 years (you choose). You don't even have to do it retroactively. Put up a web page showing the patents you hold and the date you will let them expire. Again this will send a clear message that you are serious about this.
For the second option I suggest that you invite others to follow your lead. In addition to a prior art database there could also be a database of voluntary patent expiration dates.
Thanks again Jeff, and I look forward to your taking action.
Steve M
http://www.userfri endly.org/cartoons/archives/99oct/uf001180.gif
Can't help but get a giggle out of this cartoon...
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
>He knows it's a bad patent but is just too scared to do an about face and admit that he was wrong.
Wrong, grasshopper. Amazon has a preliminary injunction against B&N.
How is this wrong? Just because Amazon is legally right doesn't mean that they are really right. I think the original poster meant that Jeff should know that 1-click is a patent which is wrong in principle and should not be enforced. I don't know if I exactly agree with that, but I wouldn't call it wrong based on what a judge says.
My other
I think Jeff has done a remarkable thing. I am quite impressed with his seemingly genuine desire to right a wrong, and to take responsibility for something that he is in a position to affect.
I will support him however I might in his attempts at patent reform, and I applaud all of our community for pushing amazon on this issue... I don't think he would've about-faced like this if we hadn't gotten so outraged, and I applaud Tim for pushing him over the top.
<b>HOWEVER</b> it's not enough. I hate to say it, but it's just not enough. Jeff has committed to fixing a bad situation, but it's more akin to "oh, nobody else should do this but it's ok for us to do it". Bull. I think we should continue to hold his toes to the fire until he agrees to stop using his (admittedly) ridiculous patents offensively against <i>any</i> competitor. If he's truly contrite and truly committed, he should live by those principles instead of just trying to enforce those principles on everyone else.
If Jeff does have the guts to make a total about-face and admit that Amazon was wrong in the first place, I think he has the potential to get a HUGE amount of support from this community. He could end up scrambling out of this deep pile of shit he fell in and still smell like a rose, and he could then be held up as an example of "corporate ethics" to everyone else. I think he has the potential to really gather a lot of momentum and a lot of support, he just needs to close the loop.
None of that takes away from the fact that his open letter was full of good ideas that deserve lots of consideration and support, but his open letter doesn't take away from the fact that his company is still abusing the current patent system either.
-- Gary F.
moron
Sure. I got my copy at B&N. Software patents are evil, dude, no matter how thin you slice your leeching window. What you are doing is stopping the very conversation you defend. Sounds like the Cluetrain's making a stop@amazon.com, but they're not taking delivery.
Pity.
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
Great. Maybe that's what it was designed to do.
Just because Bezos is a normal, intelligent, coherent letter writer who doesn't live up to the non-essential characteristics of the "evil patent monopolist/ capitalist" that some have portrayed him as doesn't mean that the problem is still there. All he's saying is, "it's a bad system, but I didn't make the rules and I'd like to change them". True. Yet while it's nice that he's saying that he's going to try to attempt to begin to initiate some sort of reform he's still doing a Bad Thing now. Just because he's not a monster (in fact he's a hacker just like you and Tim) doesn't mean that there isn't a problem now.
--Crush
We've seen candidates talk up their position as Washington reformers (notably McCain) but next to nothing on reforming the patent system. And for all of their talk of plans and accomplishments in fostering technological innovation, encouraging economic growth and free market competition none seem to have a clue as to how the patent system, as it exists, is having a chilling on those same issues. Why?
We the public at large do not see this as a problem until it has a significant impact on our collective pocket-books. With nobody out there in the election process effectively articulating this as an issue that does effect our pocket-books it will remain at the back-end of the electorate's collective consciousness just when it should be an area of focus.
I have great faith in fools. Self confidence, my friends call it.
I've received several hundred e-mail messages on the subject of our 1-Click ordering patent. Ninety-nine percent of them were polite and helpful. To the other one percent -- thanks for the passion and color! ...
:-) A month is no time at all in business terms for a bigger company to steal your idea and take it to the market while you're still involved in the patent process. This is a great idea for software patents though.
I also read the first four hundred or so responses to Tim's summary of our conversation -- these too were helpful.
First of all thanks to all the people who either emailed Amazon or posted on Tim's website our voice was heard. Who says mass protests don't work (as long as they are constructive).
Unlike with trademark law, where you must continuously enforce your trademark or risk losing it, patent law allows you to enforce a patent on a case-by-case basis, only when there are important business reasons for doing so.
I stated before in earlier posts here and here the competition between Barnes & Noble and Amazon has lead both companies to do unsavory things (B&N moreso) but this was the first time a fight between both companies threatened an entire industry (actually B&N may have become a book industry monopoly if not for Amazon so maybe that isn't completely true) . I strongly beleive that when Jeff Bezos was acquiring this patent he saw it merely as a way to get back at B&N for all the things they had done (such as copying every Amazon innovation as quickly as possible).
But I do think we can help. As a company with some high-profile software patents, we're in a credible position to call for meaningful (perhaps even radical) patent reform. In fact, we may be uniquely positioned to do this.
This is where he starts sounding like one of us. I wholeheartedly agree with this observation and cannot thank Tim 'O reilly and all those who sent emails and posted on Tim's page enough for clearly elucidating why the patent was so wrong and convincing Jeff Bezos' of this.
Much (much, much, much) remains to be worked out, but here's an outline of what I have in mind: 1. That the patent laws should recognize that business method and software patents are fundamentally different than other kinds of patents.
Even though this seems like a no-brainer it's going to be difficult to push this through. Lots of companies exist solely because of business model patents and would fight tooth and nail (i.e. lobby and throw money around) to make sure this doesn't come to pass. I'm sure the priceline CEO will be pretty nervous and pissed off after reading this.
2. That business method and software patents should have a much shorter lifespan than the current 17 years -- I would propose 3 to 5 years.
Yep, the priceline.com CEO would be really agitated reading this.
This isn't like drug companies, which need long patent windows because of clinical testing, or like complicated physical processes, where you might have to tool up and build factories.
Comments like this are why I believe every CEO and industry leader should read slashdot, if they did the world (at least the software industry) would trult be a better place. I'm glad Jeff Bezos finally realized what we have been saying on Slashdot about how ridiculous the current length of software patents is...imagine there are still valid patents on Atari & Intellivision games and innovations.
3. That when the law changes, this new lifespan should take effect retroactively so that we don't have to wait 17 years for the current patents to enter the public domain.
I hadn't even thought of this but it's a great idea. No more priceline.com monopoly, no more Dell patents on building to order lasting forever, and no more patents on electronic programming guides (a square grid with the names of programs in it) lasting longer than the job expectancy of the board of directors and CEO of the company.
4. That for business method and software patents there be a short (maybe 1 month?) public comment period before the patent number is issued.
Waaay to short, it'd never fly. this is where Jeff starts sounding like an AC on slashdot and proposing extreme measures.
This To this end, I've already contacted the offices of several Members of Congress from the committees with primary responsibility for patents to ask if they would be willing to meet with me on this issue
...
I've also invited Tim O'Reilly to attend any such meetings with me. Thanks Tim you've done us a great service. Nothing like getting Time's man of the year on our side to get congress to sit up and notice that something is wrong with the USPTO.
thank you.
is this manifesto alleging that the open format is a conspiracy of the government. The article is written by an anonymous pseudonym of Jub Jub and frequently references two "government sources" known as Hollywood and Motorcycle Greggo who claim Al Gore was a former associate of Linus.
Read more at this link
Hello,
This is an official Monkey Response 2000 to the response of the response to the anti-patent community's response. I have came to the conclusion that Jeff Bezos is actually a monkey. Yes. He is one of our kind. I hate to admit it when one of us gets out and wreaks cruel and unusual punishment to all of us by listening to what this poor monkey has to say.
So with this letter i want to apologize for letting our bezos-monkey out of his cage. Ill try not to let it happen again. Poor monkey. I really feel sorry for him. He IS much smarter than us slashdot troll monkeys. I mean he DID invent clicking and hyperlinking right? How can we lowly slashdot monkey gods compete with that? (but of course all monkeys are gods and be treated as such, dont forget that) In closing, support the abolition of severe monkey beatings today! NO MORE MONKEY BUSINESS! the realm of the 12 monkeys is SOON at hand!
(c)Mastah_Monkey
nice signature.
Boy Jeff, you sure used a lot of words to say that you weren't cancelling the patents. I need a book *right now*. Guess what. I'm going to purchase it from B&N. Long live this boycott!
Being as cynical as possible does not make you look intelligent and wise.
--
Abandoning his patents completely leaves him at the mercy of other folks with patents. So here's what I think he should do. Make an open offer to anyone and everyone: agree not to enforce your business method/internet patents against me, and I shall do likewise. Then the patents are still of value as a preventative measure, but he has little incentive to use them offensively.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
If a group or organization files no patents and seeks no such protection mechanisms, shouldn't they be entitled not to have other groups come after them on such a basis?
If I go after a company for patents I hold, I should expect the same to happen to me. If I don't, I shouldn't be forced to play like that.
Same thing applies to the time period. If a company owns a twenty-year patent, they should only be entitled to enforce that against a company that also holds a twenty-year patent. Given some thought, you could find a nice balance using this approach. You could have a matrix of rules that decide when a suit is possible, like a company with fifty, seventeen-year patents should not be allowed to sue a company with two, one-year patents. Problem solved!
Moderators, where's my five for this post?
Dismissing plausible but unpleasant alternatives as merely cynical without addressing their substantive points counts as an ad hominem attack. MattMann points out that Bezos is a sophisticated, intelligent being and that there is a slim chance that Amazon on it's own (even with O'Reilly's help) will have the muscle to effect change in the PTO. So what we're left with is an agreement that life is unfair, but that's business.
I know that what I am about to say has been said before, but I feel compelled as a future patent lawyer to put my two cents in. A fundamental distinction must be made between software and business method patents. This is the one critical concept that Jeff Bezos and others overlook in this discussion. Bezos, at almost every point in his open letter, groups the two patents as if they cover identical subject matter. This is not the case.
Software patents are important because they govern the ownership and usage of actual bits of code, rather than a vague idea of what a computer program should do or how a business should behave. The business method patents, on the other hand, purport to lay ownership to a behavior or idea rather than the actual method itself.
I would not take issue with amazon.com patenting the actual code required to execute their particular implemention of a one-click style program, assuming that there is no prior art. On the other hand, it would seem that the patent in question covers simply the idea of the one-click program. Not a good idea. First, even if the business method patent was valid, there is substantial prior art among the catalog and mail order companies. Second, the idea that a business or a person can own a behavior or vague idea is at best flawed, and at worst morally reprehensible. Imagine if Ford attempted to patent selling cars. Admitedly, this is an extreme example, but not by much.
The patent law does not need to be reformed, necessarily, but some modicum of intelligence needs to be applied in order to determine which patents are good and which are not.
Why are we so committed to liking these bastards?
FACT: Amazon sued over a trivially stupid patent.
That's all there is to it. They spam, they lie, they get bogus patents, and, despite anything they've said, they have *SUED* people for "infringing" on those patents.
What's with the huge emotional investment in finding a way to pretend Amazon isn't really evil? The fact is, they did exactly what we've all said we hate. They've invented new ways (purchase circles) to reveal personal information. They've filed for patents they knew were bogus, they've sued people, and then they've pretended it was a "purely defensive" patent. Sorry, but suing someone isn't "purely defensive".
People are so happy that this is resolved. What's resolved? You've verified that if, every few months, thousands of you write them letters, they will cut down on abusive practices, give you a blatantly false explanation of why they did them in the first place, and then go right ahead and find another thing to screw up.
Face it, they're playing you. They *KNOW* we're all big on "e-commerce" and we want them to succeed, and that means we'll keep watching them like hawks and feel like somehow we should have to put up with this.
You can't trust someone that needs to be slapped down this often for abuses. Go back a few years and watch the Amazon people staunchly defending their right to send email to people who never asked for it. Watch them slowly cave in to pressure, a lot of it applied by their upstream, who have *DISCONNECTED* companies who sent that many unsolicited messages, even to "customers".
Amazon will continue testing your limits to see what they can get away with. As long as you keep pretending it's all okay if they back down occasionally, they'll keep pushing.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
4. That for business method and software patents there be a short (maybe 1 month?) public comment period before the patent number is issued. This would give the Internet community the opportunity to provide prior art references to the patent examiners at a time when it could really help. (Thanks to my friend Brewster Kahle for this suggestion.)
and
On a related issue, to further try to help with the prior art problem, I've also agreed to help fund a prior art database. This was Tim's idea, and I'm grateful for it. Tim is poking around to find the right people to run with that project.
Now be real, has anyone here not heard these items repeatedly out of many people? I swear to god, as much as I think Tim is a really cool guy if I hear him called "the inventor of the prior art database", I'm going to barf.
And that's the problem. Patents don't go to inventors or innovators. They go to the first rich person with enough lawyers. That's where the patent office went wrong.
In a related humor note, I'm considering getting a trademark just so I can deal with ICANN. It may be worth it at this rate. The new rules indicate to me that if they ever do create .per or .sum TLDs anyone who's hasn't trademarked their name is screwed.
-----
No Zen is good zen
I think it doesn't matter whether or not Beozozozzz is going to *do* the right thing, but that he has hit on the point of what is the right thing to fix.
Jeff has given us the opportunity to fix what's broken at the point at which it is broken. If he and Tim can get some actual reform happening at the source of the problem, the future will be much brighter.
I do have a suggestion though. I think that the patent laws for cyberspace stuff should be extraordinarilly limited. This is what I would propose for INet patents:
1) patents last a short 2 or 3 years.
2) patents are to be used defensively only.
An important extension to my second point is that, if patents can only be used defensively, they can only be used against the patent holders competitors. In other words, Amazon's patent could only be used against someone like B&N, other online booksellers. But all other types of industries and sales and markets and services should be allowed to use the technology. So if I'm an online retail computer store, and I want to one-click my way to heaven, I should be allowed to do so, because I'm not competing with Amazon. Restrict the patent to the competition on a business, and this leads into my third point for what an internet patent should be:
3) Publish the methodology and completely open it to the public, and to other non-competing businesses.
That way, we are all happy. Companies have incentive to innovate and patent, and other areas of tech and econ and internet benefit from the openness.
J Derek Wilson
I've never faulted Amazon for obtaining the patents -- many companies have even stupider patents for defensive purposes only...For that situation, I blame the USPTO. But for Amazon to keep suing Barnes and Noble while fighting for patent reform is, well, patently absurd. Pun intended.
This guy gets it, and yet he doesn't get it.
The "fast patents" idea is good to start. I still don't believe software should be patentable at all, but this is good as a stepping-stone to that end. Unfortunately, the idea about making the patents retroactive isn't a good idea, simply because it cannot be done (any retroactive law is by definition unconstitutional).
The one-month review period is a great idea, though I'd extend it to two months at least. The only problem is that we need a forum for this sort of thing. Slashdot won't do for that purpose; the patent office needs to set it up and run it (they're the ones who'll be using it, anyway).
Frankly, barring the fast patent idea, I'd make patents a "use it or lose it" deal. The idea is that if you do not use anything containing a given patent for some period of time (3 years?), and at the end of those three years you have not announced a release date for something using that patent (which must be within one year), then the patent expires immediately. The idea behind this is to keep corporations from sitting on patents (that is, buying up patents for various processes and then never using them; the oil industry especially has done this for years with patents concerning alternative energy sources). This one would apply to patents in general, not simply software. The rationale behind it is that patents were designed so that a person or corporation could make money off of innovations. If they no longer make money from the innovations (or never did at all), they should not be allowed to hold the patent that they are not using.
Ideas? Opinions? Angry rants?
This goes back to what Bezos was saying; Amazon.com initiated one-click but once Barnes&Noble saw how they implemented it they stole it right away. Even the major players can get stomped on on the internet!
what to do, what to do...
How about these?
a) Disallow patents for user interfaces. The whole point of a patent is to encourage inventors to share ideas that they would otherwise keep secret. Since you can't possibly keep a user interface secret without rendering it useless, there's nothing to be gained by granting a patent for one.
b) Allow a grace period between sudmission and publication of the patent, to give others a chance to independently invent the product. For example, the process might go as follows:
1) Inventor submits patent application. It's not even necessary for the patent office to examine the application at this point, the inventor could just send in a digitally signed hash of the patent.
2) After a length of time of the inventor's choosing, he instructs the patent office to examine and publish the application. If the idea is still original, the inventor gets his patent, for a length of time equal to the time he waited. If not, the patent is null and void. This way, good ideas automatically get longer patents than bad ones.
I believe that the greatest difficult with the patent system is not so much the assertion of valid patents, but the risk of bullying with patents that are invalid. Particularly in the software arts, it has become increasingly common for a patent to issue in the face of substantially invalidating prior art that not considered by the examiner.
The difficulty is that even with invalidating art in hand, the standard of proof by "clear and convincing evidence," is virtually impossible to meet in practice before a jury. Given the complexity of the law alone, and informed that if they waver in any sense as to their convictions, they must find for the plaintiff, your average juror will invariably find the patent valid, regardless of the facts of any particular case.
This makes it practically impossible for a small or mid-sized business to defend a case based upon prior art invalidity, and commercially infeasible for a well-heeled company to do so, unless the subject matter is core or critical to its business.
My suggestion is that when invalidating prior art was not considered by the PTO, and raises a substantial new question of patentability, then the clear and convincing standard be relaxed to the more common "preponderance of the evidence" standard. In all other cases, the present "clear and convincing" standard would apply.
This would continue to protect sound patents. However, when new and invalidating prior art raising issues not considered during examination is found, the art will raise a significant and meaningful deterrent against the bullying practices that have now become so common in the industry.
A Barnes and Nobles or an Amazon can realistically expect to see a case through its appeal. A small or mid-sized business may barely be able to afford to bring a case through trial. This proposal makes it possible to obtain a just result when bad patents are asserted, while continuing to provide proper protections for patentees asserting sound patents.
There is one aspect of this that we have forgotten about (although Bezos indirectly hints at it in his latter) : lobbyist.
No doubt, if this plan for shorter software patents gets off the ground, major players such as IBM will begin to lobby heavily in their behalf. We're going to have to respond at some point with a little lobbying of our own.
This might be one bit of overhead that's worth the investment now. (Better than having to ask a lawyer 24/7, "Can I do this?" "Can I do this?").
This open letter is well worded and contains a number of fine points. However, these nice words do not address the meat of the matter:
Amazon has been granted a patent for using cookie-based authentication. This is not original! Amazon has abused this patent and improperly stifled innovation on the internet by aggressively suing their competition who also use cookies for authentication.
Jeff goes on and on about saying how the patent system should be changed, but he ignores his own company's role in the patent abuse. Jeff says that he is forced to do this because of an obligation to his shareholders.
I will continue to boycott Amazon.com and urge others to do so until Amazon stops their patent abuse. Maybe if enough people know that actions count, not words, the "shareholders" will weigh the bad press against the benefits of suing B&N, and back off.
It's that simple. Don't make a nice speech- drop the suit.
I dislike the implication that Bezos is merely a spokesman for the shareholders and can't effectively lead amazon's patent policies. Does one become a "Man of the Year" for being an executive servant?
actually, i'm suprised that slashdot didn't do this story
- bridgette
you better open your eyes to the real world. It appears that the other poster has more of a clue than you. That's not surprising, though. I've read some of your posts. You're pretty much an idiot.
This indicates that Jeff and his copywriters understand their target audience, and that someone there is a quite able politician. This should be kept in mind, for good or ill.
Quit being so gullible and accepting of the marketing bullshit. If you're rooting for Amazon, I'll have no respect for you. Right now millions of stomach's are turning after reading all the bleeding heart Amazonian support that's being spewed around here. yuck. *puke*
This discussion on IP (not the TCP kind :-) has me wondering. The argument for patents is that limitted protection encourages innovation. Who is going to spend some arbritrary number of years slaving away to invent something that anyone can steal? Now I can see this applying to individual inventor/innovators, but how many current major products come from such people (I can count the ones that I can think of on the fingers of one foot). The simple fact is that most invention and innovation Today comes from corporations. Indeed, even the individual will usually approach a venture capitalist, form a corporation and take off from there.
.com companies and consumer goods. Perhaps we would be best served if patents simply did not exist in these areas.
So what would happen if corporations didn't have the limited protection of the patent system? Would they all, or most, or even many, just stop investing in innovation or invention? I think not. It's a mean, ugly marketplace out there, and these days those who do not offer constant innovation wither and die. I think patents are irrelevant to the rate of corporate innovation, which is just about all commercial innovation. This may not be true for pharmaceutical companies, but it is certainly true for software,
Note that I personally doubt that we could get that to fly, politically, but that may be the actual optimal situation, at least in theory, if we want to encourage innovation.
Any counter opinions or additional thoughts (with reasons, please)?
In my experience, Amazon's interface and customer service are vastly superior to any competitor's. For quite a while I ordered books exclusively through them even though I was aware of lower prices elsewhere because Amazon was easy to deal with and trustworthy. I've never received spam from them (I think it's very reasonable for a company to let me know if they're offering a discount on something in which I've expressed interest), and I'm willing to believe that the people at Amazon did not (and apparently still do not) consider their patents to be "completely bogus".
I want to believe that Amazon is really a "good guy" because I desperately want to be able to use their service with a clear conscience. I've spent a few months now ordering books from various other distributors, and I have been unsatisfied with all of them in one way or another. In any event, I find that I still visit amazon.com before any book purchase in order to read the customer reviews there.
The only thing I've ever found distasteful about Amazon is their agressive use of the One-Click patent. Were they to drop their lawsuit against B&N, I'd be back in a heartbeat. Amazon is not playing on my interest in seeing e-commerce succeed because I really don't have that much interest in it--that's not my area.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
There are five major points in Bozo's supposed "great outcome" letter which Amazon will only be promoting but not *doing* any time soon:
1. Software patents are fudamentally different than other kinds of patents. (Just like Tim O'Rielly, I'm glad to here the CEO of Amazon publicily announce this "revolation.")
2. Software patents should have a 3 to 5 year life span. (This is a definate case of: we admit it's broken but will use it as-is until it changes. There is nothing stopping Amazon from openning up their patents after 5 years but Amazon has provided no promises of doing so. All they have provided is that they will push for a retroactive law that will cover their patents if it is passed. They are pritty much saying that they will make them open in a timely fashion if everyone else does the same, until then it is business as usual. There is no great outcome to happen today. Amazon is not presenting themselves as a roll model, just an advocator of something they aren't willing to do themselves until it is forced upon them. As I said before, IBM and other companies are already more open with use of their patents, will Amazon be in 3 to 5 years regardless of what goverment does?)
3. The law should be retroactive. (As I stated above, they are willing to do thing once they are able to convice goverment to force it upon them. Companies like IBM will continue to be a better roll model for present day patent enforcement than Amazon will ever be if goverment doesn't pass Amazon's proposed changes.)
4. There should be a short 1 month public comment period before the patent is issued to allow the Internet community to submit prior art references. (Again, Amazon says there that things should be done by Goverment that they aren't willing to set themselves as a roll model for. There is nothing under the current system to stop Amazon from publically announcing their patents 1 month beforehand but Amazon shows no sign of doing this. And what the hell is supposed to be done in 1 month? The LPF has pointed out that some countries have a 1 year public evalutation period! Even if the Internet does submit prior art proofs withen the one month period, does the US Patent Office have the resources to evaluate the validaty of the submittions in one month? If formulating a valid prior art submittion takes three weeks, will the US Patent Office have resources to evalutate it in 1 week??)
5. Patent Office and examiners are doing a good job considering the resources at their disposal. Amazon has agreed to help fund a prior art database. (He never really carries on point 1 into the next logical step that the defination of "prior art" needs to change in terms of the software industry. In the case of other industries such as chemical engineering, mixing basic chemical A (which as the property to be a strong cleaning agent) and basic chemical B (which also has similar properites to A by itself) will produce a chemical C which might have the property of being poisonous thus killing you or might produce an even better cleaning agent. In the computer world, this does not tend to be the case. Mixing the concept of algorithm A and algorithm B will usually produce an algorithm C that contains the functionality of A and B. Since the property of chemical C is non-trival, a trade journal is more likely to publish about it than they are about trival algorithm C. Hence, in the computer industry itself, the existence of prior art A and prior art B, it makes sense that C is prior art while remaining unpublished. If it was something similar in another industry, it probably would have been published. Yet, even when the patent office has prior art A and prior art B available to them, they still grant trival concept C which is nothing more than the combination. To claim that it is unfair to criticize this practice is to miss the most problematic issue with the US Patent Office. Also, as long as the current defination of prior art exists, a prior art database can only serve to help large companies gain more patents that are nothing more than trival prior art combinations.)
In short, there is no great outcome. Amazon has only committed to complaining to goverment with the same arguements that we already stated to goverment. Amazon will be doing nothing today and Jeff Bozo admits that being obtomistic there probably will be nothing accomplished for 2 years or more! In the mean time Amazon is *NOT* willing to be a roll model for the industry and will continue to be more forceful with their patent enforcement than several other companies in the same industry are.
This is a "just following orders" defense accept they are going on to say that they will complain about following them. While their own behavior doesn't change, they claim they will lobby to change the entire industry. I takes this to be: "if we walk the walk and talk the talk then you should stop boycotting us, right?" While Jeff Bozo claims to recognize that the customer is gaining more power, he still treats us like idiots by **doing nothing** other than becoming yet another lobbiest of goverment restating the same tired complaints. Isn't the defination of being a *leader* in industry to actually *do* things before they get forced upon you by goverment?
That's the most wheels off comment I've ever seen on Slashdot. Are you, perchance, in Dallas, Big Sky Country, or the Town of the Cow?
Stay hard.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
hell, I don't buy from amazon anyway, never have, I just don't like their website...and they sell too much damn stuff, books, cds, dvds, videos, used sports equipment...at least bn only sells a few things. forget this patent issue, I like bn.com better anyway, it's got a nice layout and isn't so bloated with crap that it takes be years to find what I'm looking for...and I don't even buy from them THAT much, usually just walk the two blocks to a bookstore, saves me having to wait a day+ to get what I want...if it's in stock. or the library (ohhh! free books!) but they usually lack in the computer area. Anyway, my point is, you don't need a reason to not buy from amazon, just don't, they suck..and it's not just because they're a big monolithic company bent on world domination (yea...right)
No, this won't work. The only companies that will be able to afford long-term patents will be the big companies (e.g. the amazon.com's). Since the cost of a patent is unrelated to the size of the company, the little companies will have to pay a greater percentage of their money towards patents than a big company will. The percentage for smaller companies will rise much faster than for big companies if the cost of a patent doubles every consecutive year.
void recursion (void)
{
recursion();
}
while(1) printf ("infinite loop");
if (true) printf ("Stupid sig quote");
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
This is how I read the recent events surrounding this Amazon 1click patent thing.
1) Amazon Patents 1-Click shopping
2) Internet Community goes berserk over what is perceived as a 'broad and all encompassing' patent. Boycotts are called, Jeff Bezos gets flamed big time.
3) Amazon hides behind their PR and legal staff, and don't really respond to the flames
4) Amazon patents their Associate system
5) More flames from the internet community
6) Amazon hides behind behind their PR and legal staff
7) Tim O'Reilly gets involved, and openly publishes a VERY informative and well thought out letter.
8) Jeff Bezos comes out from behind his PR and legal staff, and starts a dialogue.
9) These two start a lengthy, and informative discussion. Jeff Bezos denounces the current patent system, and supports 'Fast Patents'. The Internet community gets a little more educated regarding the whole situation. Evidence suggests that the patents are not 'all encompassing', but narrow in scope. Evidence also suggests that the patents were made as a 'defensive' measure, not to prevent competition.
Does anyone see a trend? I see two groups who, after initially clashing, start to come together and understand each other. Only good can come out of this. If only other companies can learn from this.
This kind of this only happens on the Internet. Isnt it cool?
Jailbrekr.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
This does nothing to adress the trivial patents they have filed on "1-Click" and "Affiliate Partners". These are not technological inventions, they are trivial tweaks of business practices. I will maintain my boycott unless enforcement of these patents ceases.
-josh
Well, if you support spamming of the whois list, by all means. Bezos seems to have taken a pretty enlightened and open approach to this whole converstaion, which is cause for hope, considering the actions of other companies lately in response to criticism (like Symantec, for instance). If you're going to troll, do your research first. This was barely worthy of Usenet, much less /.
I am really having a hard time sinking my teeth into your argument. I am not sure that we could ever agree, so I will lay out my ideas more clearly, instead of just the one line finish to comment.
Your argument would seem to be that if I come up with a better way of reaching my potential customers then I should be granted a patent to prevent anyone else from reaching their potential customers in the same way for 17 years without paying me a royalty. Of course this becomes more compeling if I can use it against my competitors, but remember that a patent is exclusive against anyone, not just competitors.
First a flippant argument (just to bring things into some perspective). We must immediatley block all http traffic on the Internet until each site has proven that they have payed royalties to Tim Berners-Lee for their use HTTP and HTML that he invented in 1992 and should therefore have an exclusive license to until 2009. Yes I have oversimplified and focused on Tim, I am extracting the essence to focus on the argument.
The exclusive HTTP patent would fit into the qualifications for a business method patent that Mr. O'Reilly outlined: It's a unique new way of doing business, and it is codified (literally in C!).
More on target, if I realize that giving people kickbacks for them linking to my website increases the amount of people that link to my website, is that truly innovative?
No:
1. linking is integral to the web.
2. Kickbacks go farther back than money itself. Using money to stimulate behavior patterns is a very well understood science.
3. Because I've automated it? Ok, I have created a unique peice of code that deserves copyright protection (as does all code, automatically). All I have done is what computers do, simplified and automated the repetitive task of tracking and tabulating my kickbacks. Wow are third world despots going to love the Internet!
You do come back to something more agreeable "few years of protection". I can see this and I am swayed by Jeff's argument for 1-click technology, but not the associates program.
How can we possibly justify awarded a Patent to somebody that computerized the Amway marketing model?
Maybe the real difference here is in how we fundamentaly view computers. IMHO a computer is a tool. A tool to accomplish a task, no different no a telephone, a shovel, or a business card.
do people really deserve exclusive licenses to apply standard marketing and sales techniques to new tools? Is telemarketing really that revolutionary or is it just applying door to door salesmen to telephones?
enjoy,
chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
Please people, are you against all patents?
I think the only flaw of patents, if they are used to create a barrier to entry (ie: monopolies).
They have been good to many inventors around the world. Software patents, being mostly a barrier to entry (why is gimp not as good as it could be with print media, patents), are wrong.
But, I really don't care if business patents create barriers of entry to for that area. The days of mom and pop stores are closing, as middlemen get squeezed in all industries. To succeed, you must differentiate yourself in another way. Is fatbrain out of business cause of this patent? Do we really want to defend B&N who likes to hide 2600 magz?
Please.. Think about your opinion of patents, and try to evaluate this patent. This is not a software patent, so I don't mind it. How do you feel?
whether it is user enabled or not, security hazard or not, my point was that it had been thought of before, I dare say, thousands of times. that's what makes it non-patentable which is the topic of the thread. if you weren't so snotty, I wouldn't close by saying: nitwit.
oh, so you know why I believe what I believe? Look who is talking about throwing unfounded accusations around! Hypocrisy is fine in my book, but one should refrain from illustrating it in the same sentence as an accusation :)
Here's a better explanation just to clarify:
I am pro-patent, pro-trademark, pro-copyright, pro-property rights, pro-free market, pro capitalist... heck, I'm even pro-corporatist, to use that stupid neologism that's been floating around Slashdot. But I'm anti-bullshit. I like my capitalism straight up.
What you detected in my original post was not cynicism, it was disgust. I want the cynics to call Amazon on the bullshit so that I can be the one to defend intellectual property theory. But instead, apparently because we get to call them Tim and Jeff, everybody's turned into a pussycat. O'Reilly offered in his own public statements to help Amazon craft a response that would be publicly palatable. Then, matchy-matchy letters are published on the two websites the same day... they admit to long phone calls. You don't have to be a cynic to call that carefully crafted. I didn't have to make up their collusion.
And are you assuming that Bezos publishes letters like that without having his lawyers and PR people help? Such a course would risk a blunder and a huge shareholder lawsuit. And I know that not because I'm a cynic, but because I've actually studied corporate law at the graduate level. I suppose that makes me more academically successful than you so we should look askance at any objections you might have (your view, not mine).
The process that the patent describes was obvious to a practitioner. So what if they were the first to think of it? So what if Barnes & Noble copied them? Copying good ideas is not against the rules. Why don't Bezos and O'Reilly discuss the obviousness aspect? Because they are stupid? I don't think so. I think I'm being complimentary when I "accuse" them of being smart enough to think of it, and smart enough to leave it out of the discussion. And I'm smart enough not to let them.
Dear Patent Office, Barnes and Noble had a one-click-to-order-system, that fed into a one-click-to-confirm. They dropped the click to confirm. How can stopping doing something be considered patentable?
And furthermore, in a point that's been previously made, what computers do abstractly, and GUIs make more obvious to dumb users (the TB's of the world) is they allow real things to be virtualized. As soon as computers were invented we started getting metaphors for real life. They are all obvious to practitioners of the art. This one-click system is simply the "put it on my tab" system made virtual, just as the shopping cart metaphor before it. They are all obvious if you have a couple of synapses to rub together.
The purpose of patents, as stated in Article 1, Section 8 is, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
their respective writings and discoveries."
I bring this up because the original text has two implications for the Amazon model. First, like it or not, patents exist and are regulated by the congress. If you want to end patents and copyrights, you must amend the constitution. Failing that, any law about the nature of a particular patent or type of patent can be repealed later.
Why isn't the tech community pushing for the repeal of this clause? Part of it is their native lack of interest in politics (and lack of political savvy), and the other part is that it's not profitable for this community. They can enrich themselves by allowing patents to continue. They just object to particular *kinds* of patent, namely, the ones they were too slow or too dim to think of first. We want to encourage profit, but only our own. When we aren't getting our fair share of the dot.com pie, we scream about enriching lawyers, unfair monopolies, and other straw men. No one is saying, "ooh, good idea. Wish I'd thought of that. Oh, well, back to the drawing board." When the tech community begins saying things like that, I will believe them when they preach about openness, innovation, and sharing ideas.
The second implication of the original text is that as a power delegated to the congress, patent law is malleable. This seems to be the tack taken by most on this issue. If only we tinker with it enough, we'll all get our fair share of the dot.com pie.
Sorry, folks, there ain't no dot.com pie. Amazon's attempt to patent the one-click model does not somehow subtract from the wealth of ideas not yet discovered. They have not deprived others of other innovations. To think that a few changes in patent law will reduce the recriminations or profits from litigation is, literally, insane. No reform has yet put the lawyers out of business, or made technology error free or cost-free.
There is no entry barrier for an internet company. Amazon's patent is an attempt to create one. If you want to keep the internet free of barriers, you must amend the constitution to abolish patents. If you want to remodel the barriers that patents create to benefit yourself, hire a lobbyist. Let's not hear any more about how corporations are trying to own the future. They are the future; if you don't like it, start your own company and compete. No one is keeping you from getting the same patent protection for an equally good idea.
I'm going to continue my boycott of Amazon, after having read Jeff Bezos's comments.
What Jeff Bezos has proposed is a series of very good ideas on the subject of patent law reform, and I personally am going to write every politician I can find and spread the word about Bezos's proposals. I think they are quite sound.
But if you ask me, these proposals aren't enough from Bezos. Before I can take him at his word that he's really pushing for these changes, I need to see some proof of action. For example:
So Jeff, if you're reading this, take note: I'm going to keep telling people to boycott Amazon, and I'm going to tell them my new reasons why. But if you turn your words into actions, then I'll buy my books exclusively from Amazon unless they are simply not available there. (Right now, I'm buying from Barnes and Noble). I'll also explain to my friends why they should do this as a part of my word-of-mouth campaign. Call it a "carrot-stick boycott" :).
Finding God in a Dog
While it sounds really nice, how many companies would endorse such thing as a law reform? Do you think any major player in the industry really have that will?
I can already see a bunch of professional lobbists trying to undermine a system that has been a profit source, mainly for lawyers.
I'm pesimistic about the whole issue. I bet 2:1 to the sharks...
Hello! This is to inform you that Fundimental Laws of Reality Corporation has recently aquired the legal rights to Gravitee! (tm).
.001 cent(s) per newton/day. This includes any possessions owned or indirect or direct use of Gravitee! (tm). For example: breathing air that is held down by Gravitee! (tm). FLR Corp. (tm) reserves the right to revoke licences at any time or increase licening fees. You should be aware that these fees are retroactive since the Big Bang.
Space is a harsh and inhospitible void. We at FLR Corp. believe that Gravitee! (tm) is an exciting and innovative solution to floating away into the deadly vacuum of space.
If individuals wish to continue using Gravitee! (tm) for any reason whatsoever you must pay a small and insignificate licencing fee of
There are those individuals that feel that they have the right to use Gravitee! (tm) for free without paying. These people should be aware that they are _breaking the law_ and that continuing to use Gravitee! (tm) without paying is _stealing_ and is no different from mugging small children or old people or the homeless and taking money from them. Since we have a aquired the rights to Gravitee! (tm), including retroactive fees owed, we have lost more than $10000000000000000000000000000000000x10^89 to pirates. Clearly we cannot remain in business hemerageing money at this rate and have taken steps to solve the problem. Individuals unwilling or unable to pay for Gravitee! (tm) will be loaded onto cold-war era retrofitted former ICBMs and rocketed beyond Gravitee! (tm)'s pull.
The future looks bright for FLR Corp. as we are currently securing the patent rights for EhTP! (tm, patent pending) or adenosine triphosphate, which allowed life to evolve on Earth, and SunLite! (tm, patent pending) otherwise know as sunlight, which provides heat and illumination and is the sole source of energy for all life of Earth.
Thank you for your time and have a nice day.
Sincerly,
Fundimental Laws of Reality Corporation (tm)
One-click is actually NOT less secure. It's true that your cookie could be compromised and someone could buy something pretending to be you. However, it will be shipped to your address and you can easily return it. The only way to change your one-click settings is to know your password.
Remember all those people who said that the Amazon boycott is worthless because it won't affect them one bit?
This has shown that they DID have an effect, not as a way to hurt Amazon, but as a way of voicing protest.. enough to really get Amazon's attention.
We expected to make Amazon back down from one issue. We didn't get that, but we got something better: We have, apparently, gotten Amazon to actually COME TO OUR SIDE of the issue. Someone with as much potential clout as Bezos is exactly what we need in this fight.
Now if only we could get someone to reduce copyright lifespans...
This is the single most thoughtful, reasonable and intelligent commentary
I have seen on the current patent crisis -- ever. I can't think of a better
person than bezos to lead the charge for patent reform.
Scott Draeker
President
Loki Software
The main feature of bezOS is that when you click anywhere, it brings up a warning dialog saying "Hey, we patented that!"
No, no, no!!! IANAL, but a software patent isn't on the implementation of it (That is copyright), but on the idea. EG: The UNISYS GIF compression patent - you can implement software that creates Gifs in many languages, some of which weren't even created when the Patent was granted, but you still need to licence the Patent.
It's not the bits you are patenting, it is the alogorithm. It's not exactly "a vague idea of what a computer program should do" - it needs to be more precice than that.
Well.... you're the soon-to-be-lawyer, but wouldn't you use copyright protection for that (as an original work)?
As I followed hyperlink to hyperlink from Mr Bezo's letter, I ended up at an article by Christopher Locke, where I found this gem of a quote:
Well if that isn't a description of SlashDot, I don't know what is!
So now when someone does something better years later they can now claim a patent on it? Sure...
Isn't that more of a copyright thing?
Patents are about protecting ideas, so just because someone didn't do it as well, doesn't mean that Amazon can claim it. It is still prior art. I haven't read the patent yet, so I'm not really sure of its scope.
I don't know, Bezos seems to understand what is going on, but seriously wants that patent. Plus he's trying to play nice guy and get his way at the same time.
I doubt he is ever going to let that patent go.
Has anyone mentioned the Unisys GIF patent to Bezos? Yeah, if Amazon.com ever goes down then I'm sure they will use that patent to the death. Sure they may say things now like "Oh we won't pick on the little guy." but who knows about later? That's what it is about. Not that they won't, but that they can.
are really not funny.
I am sorry, I know nothing of fatbrain's spamming. I just know I have ordered several things from them, I get the same great, prompt service everytime. I tried Amazon, but the prices were to high and the item I wanted wasn't even in stock. I prefer fatbrain over Amazon for shopping, regardless of Amazons other bonehead dealings or troubles.
after all he's running a business in a cut-throat environment
/. and what we think. But perhaps we can help, so then our meager bickerings will not have been in vain.
Yep, that's right.. which brings us back to why we're posting these comments about Mr. Bezos: he patented a system so that he could have a competitive advantage in this cut-throat business he's in. So, in one way, I think the patents are really mean/dumb/unnecessary/etc.. but we can also say, "well, he's just looking out for himself."
And I agree, he's not likely to base his actions on
Insert mind here.
I read Tim O's initial write up summarizing his phone conversation with
Bezo's, and now this follow up statement from the Amazon King. Both
individuals should be applauded for sharing a variety of perspectives on a
complex issue and taking the discussion to the next level.
How many business policies and models have been rewritten, multiple times,
because of the technology introduced by the internet? How much has our
society and online communities changed as the technology we use affects us at
school, work, and at home?
How quickly have our laws changed in the same time frame? How many government
services have been altered as dramatically as on line business strategies?
How many trade and or defense agreements between countries have been
rewritten by the diplomats to allow for the opportunities now available to our
diverse societies because of the internet?
I bet you could count them on one hand.
The patent issue that these gentlemen have attempted to address reflects the
friction of things changing rapidly in one hand, yet standing still in the
other.
The point is not whether we agree or disagree with Bezos. The point has been
made that change is necessary, and that Bezos appears to have filled out the
first piece of blank paper lying on the table with some recommendations. It
is our turn to write our thoughts on the other side.
Kudos to Tim for ringing the bell and initiating a discussion that is
currently focused merely on patents, but is much broader.
Today I purchased a book offered by respected innovator's e-business.
It is doubtful that I will purchase a DVD player anytime soon.
If the patent examiner only has 8-12 hours to research a patent, why do patents cost so much? Or, to put it another way, if patents run about $10,000 with lawyers fees, why doesn't the patent office just jack up their fee to hire enough examiners to look at a patent thoroughly? If they did it well, it would probably be able to reduce the legal fees associated with it, because the patent examiner would be able to assist the company in delineating exactly what they can claim, and clear up ambiguous language, rather than having ultra-expensive lawyers do this.
--Kevin
i feel that the prior art/post office solutions are not being used because of a lack of branding (crisp 'Patent' Vs fuzzy 'prior art') and also lack of institutional/operational support.
...paid for by the patentee. Investigations would include study of relevant Natents as well. All Patent investigations would have to first start as Natents.
...such cases should not arise. if they do then the PTO should also be liable as they do not have an excuse of lack of resources for this...everything is paid for. Also an organized systems of Natents would ensure that nearly all innovations (+frivolous stuff) are Natented...and proving prior art stuff would be easier.
Given some thought these issues can be addressed by USPTO and ease the considerable shortcomings of the present patent system. Lets discuss what/how this new tool (henceforth called Natent) and reformed patents should address the Intellectual Property concerns of all.
My thoughts:
Natents:
- a fast cheap internet based service offered by USPTO. Anybody from anywhere in the world can using the Natent website to record (a sort of prior art db) a public and detailed private version of the idea/process/innovation they made. USPTO would do no investigation and just charge a nominal fees for maintaining the accessibility and integrity of this database. While registering a Natent a person could also indicate if the natent is Open...ie anybody can use it (infringe) without threat of challenge from the Natentee provide the innovation is not used in a Patent (sort of GPL??) or non-Open stuff.
(Reformed) Patents:
- a slow expensive tool which would provide the protection of the present patents. The reform would be that these patents would be issued only after EXTENSIVE investigation by USPTO
Benefits:
- To Individuals/Small Corporations:
They would mostly go for Natents. with a Natent they would be assured that they can possibly fend of others from using their innovations. for stopping others they would have to convert their Natent to a Patent or file a suit. since expenses would be involved in either of these actions...they would have to choose their fights. Just a threat of Natents (with potential liabilities) should deter others (especially Big Money) from infringing Natents. ofcourse if the Natent is not worthy to be a patent...anybody could 'infringe' the same and prove it's unworthiness when the Natentee challenges.
- Big Money:
since they would need protection from other Big Monies....would prefer to go for Patents.
How does this address the present shortcomings:
- Frivolous Patents: since a Patent would be issued only after a through investigation
- Expensive Patent process for Small pockets: now they have an option to go for Natents. if Jeff Bezos wanted patents solely for defensive reasons (so that others cannot use them)...Natents should do.
- Investors: if they want to invest in a company for Patents...they are better assured as now these would be 'real' enforceable patents....and USPTO is also liable for the same.
my 0.02 Natents
nikhil
Which then raises the obvious question: are the 1201 anti-circumvention protections copyright-like protection of expression, or patent-like protection of ideas, and if the latter, how are they affected by decisions in MAI v. Peak and Sony v. Connectix?
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Seems to me that the need for "defensive patents" is major part of the problem here. Here is a little idea that might be able to solve part of the problem. Set up a non profit dedicated to holding patents and not enforcing them. This would all any company that holds a patent for defensive purposes to get rid of them, while removing the threat of the company actually using the patent. Thus guaranteeing companies won't change their minds, and transform defensive patents into weapons of corperate war. As an added bonus, the corps could probably claim massive tax deductions for giving their patents to a non profit.
Abstract Dynamics
Do you really think it is fair that Amazon thinks of cool stuff and every single time they have a successful idea B&N steals it? I've had people do similar things to me at work and it makes me furious. B&N has an advantage to the average person (by that I mean the typical non-geek internet user) because they actually have stores so they have name recognition. Couple that with riping of every good idea Amazon has and Amazon doesn't have a chance. The point of patent law is to protect companies who have new ideas from being ripped off by copy cats like B&N and putting the innovators out of business.
That said, I really do think that the time period is too long - even what Bezos suggested. I like 2 years myself. But given the current system I think Bezos would be negligent if he didn't enforce the patent. If I was a stockholder and he dropped the lawsuit I would be pissed. Way to just give away the company.
Maybe you guys like to do work and have it ripped off. I don't. And no matter how obvious you think 1-click is, I don't see any of your guys running Amazon.
What if you worked on something you put time and throught into and I decided that it was cool enough to use in my business and I just took it? You worked on it, you thought of it - your business should benefit, right? But now I copied it and made it status quo. I get as much benefit as you do but you invested more. In my book that is as blatent as stealing money and the law should protect against it. (Granted the law could be better structured.)
Anyone got any innovative business practices from their business they want to give away to everyone else in their industry?
Comments like this are why I believe every CEO and industry leader should read slashdot,
They already do. Where do you think all those trolls come from?
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
1) Abuse and/or break the law
2) Call for reform
3) Repeat if necessary
It's funny how Jeff Bezos tries to make everyone happy by agreeing with everything they say, and then acting in totally opposite ways.
FACT: Amazon got the one-click patent and then SUED Barnes & Noble for violating it, even though Barnes and Noble had the same type of system before Amazon filed for the patent.
This is my belief even though the vast majority of our competitive advantage will continue to come not from patents, but from raising the bar on things like service, price, and selection -- and we will continue to raise that bar.
Then why, Jeff Bezos, is your company trying to hurt competitors via lawsuits over patent infringement, thereby reducing competition and hurting the consumer?
If your actions agreed with your words, I'd support you. As it stands, the boycott is still on, Jeff. I sure as hell don't believe this open letter of yours, because your companies actions speak much, much louder.
Oh, and Tim, about this:
In the case of the Associates patent, what is being patented is not the broad idea of referral marketing, but instead a mechanism that allows individuals on the net to establish a little virtual bookstore on their site, with fulfillment by Amazon, entirely on their own, without having to negotiate a business deal with Amazon. In effect, Amazon created an API that allowed others to use Amazon as a service.
Now I await the lawsuit against vstore.com for violating this patent. What a crock.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
they would have been pretty ingenious.
There has been no resolution to this matter. All that has happened is that Jeff Bezos has shown that he understands the issues and is willing to work to correct the problems. But he still holds the patents and is enforcing them. ... until he does something like [no longer enforcing patents] it's all just talk.
Amen, brother! Keep your guard up people - don't buy from Amazon until you are satisfied with the resolution. . Mr. Bezos is probably the most shrewd business man since Mr. Gates, so keep on your toes.
I laud Mr. Bezos' statement, though, and I think it may be possible to use this to our advantage. (Although I don't agree that business models should receive patents for any reason, his plan is acceptable for now.) Bezos is in a position to get patents reformed quickly, so let's jump on this! I suggest everybody write their congressman/senators and tell them about the O'Reilly/Amazon open letters. FLOOD THEIR MAILBOXES with "Hey good news!" Let them see what the industry thinks.
It just might be possible to reform the patent system soon! Now, for those of you that want all software patents eliminated who may be thinking "this is not satisfactory -- eliminate them all", I suggest you accept whatever you can get (i.e. this), and then try for more further down the road. Baby steps, and its starts by telling Congress "Look what Jeff Bezos said! I think he's right and you should listen! After all, this is Jeff Bezos; he knows what he's talking about!" And Congress will say, "Hey, constituents and business share the same goals, and its got to do with the tech industry!" and well, you know how Congressmen think.
Ooh, I am excited and am printing out the letters now. I suggest everybody do the same!
Set up a UN patent-buying organisation. Each country pays a small propotion of its GDP to it. When a company/individual comes up with a patent, this organisation estimates what the patent is worth and buys it from the inventor. The patent is then licensed to everyone for free. If this hypothetical organisation decides that the patent is not worth buying, or is very specific, the firm can patent it privately (but the UN body has first refusal). OK, there would be a variety of issues to overcome, but what do you think of it as a concept? Shall I patent it? :)
It was nice of Jeff Bezos to publicly respond, but to me, Jay Walker of priceline.com is the Bill Gates of patent abuse. Not only is he trying to enforce a business model patent of "reverse auctions" (Otherwise known as "haggling" - is he going to try and shut down Tijuana street vendors?) but he has set up a company solely to patent various business models etc. in what amounts to an attempted "land grab" of Internet patents. So although Jeff Bezos deserves some criticism for the One Click controversy, IMO Jay Walker is the real villian in this area. Tom Rombouts, Torrance, CA
If software patent law is to be reformed, computer science must point the way.
My article, "Computational Complexity and the Scope of Software Patents," which appeared in a 1998 American Bar Association law journal, proposes a new legal doctrine that would bring computer science into the patentability analysis. Please have a look.
http://democracyweb.com/law
All of you demanding Bezo should act after his words and not enforce the patents have not understood his point. Bezo is asking for the laws to be changed, not for his own behaviour. He does not like the law, but as long as his opponents possess the principal possibility to cudgel him down with patents, he will be the first to do so himself. It is the old "How can I help it? As long as the government does not punish me for poisoning the river because of my perfectly legal lobbying, it simply is the cheapest way of production." excuse. That indeed *necessitates* action by the law. Capitalism needs laws to channel the power of greed into ways not harmful to society. It pushes the burden of conscience from the actors to the legislators, and they better do something about it.