Slashdot Mirror
RMS writes to Tim O'Reilly about Amazon
Anonymous writes, "RMS sent
this letter to Tim yesterday. His stand is that Amazon "fired the first shot", so they can't say they are only being defensive. The Amazon boycott stands, of course. " This is an extension of the recent Bezos-O'Reilly conversation.
You have an extremely simplistic view of a company's responsibility to its shareholders.
A CEO has a responsibility to increase shareholder value. That does not translate into a requirement to sue anyone who can be sued.
In fact, if enforcing the patent loses more revenue in lost sales due to annoyed customers than it gains in royalties or competitive advantage, the shareholders could just as reasonably sue Amazon because it tried to enforce the patent.
Furthermore (IANAL), a company is not required to prosecute all violations of a patent, unlike a trademark. Refusing to prosecute a specific infringement does not prevent Amazon from prosecuting later infringements.
The problem is that 6-9 months will be a further cause in the deterioration of software quality.
You thought things were rushed now, try getting some software out in 3 months so that you have 6 months to profit from the patent before the 9 month deadline.
you're thinking of christian country....
> It's purely subjective.
;-)
> Therefore you are wrong.
If time is purely subjective, then time is by definition what I think it is, and thus I am right. Are you telling me that I do not know what I think that time is?
Semantics. Phunphunphun
--Dan
Today's NYT magazine has an article 'Patently Absurd' by well-known science writer James Gleick :)
First page illustration has this fake patent 'Procedure for simultaneously walking and chewing gum'
hilarious.
-ak
reference: NYT magazine - (registration reqd.)
I assume you mean "Look how long it's taken the HURD to approach usability", there have been a number of commercially successul mach-based unices. It's been used in MkLinux, it formed the core of OSF/1, which was deployed by DEC, HP, and IBM....
Did anyone happen to read this post before the story fell off the front page? It's excellent. Nice defense of RMS.
Did you actually read the letter? He doesn't expect Amazon to give up their patents, just assure that they won't use them offensively. I agree that sometimes RMS has some radical ideas, but this is a realistic, level-headed solution to end the boycott.
Because the bad guys have 'em, and use 'em, the good guys have to have 'em, too. The trouble is, if you pull yours out and use it first, you're now a bad guy.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
>Not only that, but he seems to think he invented Linux (see the stupid GNU/Linux issue). Go figure.
RMS is pritty much the grandfather of the whole movement. He started the GNU half of Linux (or has he calls it GNU/Linux) I have a whole counter rant where I argue the correct name is 'Linux' Not GNU/Linux...
Anyway... Linux is the kernel the rest is GNU.
Being realistic Linux evolved.. Linus made the kernel and he is responsable for that but RMS made GNU and that was a vital component to making Linux work.
ESR, Bruce and even CmdrTaco contributed SOME code to Linux.
On the other hand... RMS is NOT the spokesperson. He hates that but it's true. BP and ESR dose FAR more busness level contact. RMS dosn't give marching orders.. it is up to us to kinda ignore him when he gets over the top. However this time he is on the ball....
If he ever gose really totally psyco I'm sure ESR, BP and other Linux advocates [Like Emmit and CmdrTaco] will have a few things to say...
I don't actually exist.
To correct a minor point; no, the X developers has never agreed to make X a part of the GNU system, and GNU has never agreed that X should be a GNU project. But yes, we like to use X because it serves the purpose well enough that there is no need to write a replacement.
If I remember correctly (this was some time back now -- maybe it's time to give the Amazon story it's own subdirectory on the GNU webserver? It seems to become a lengthy debate), RMS did post an authors comment to one or more of the GNU books urging people to boycott Amazon, but those were silently dropped by Amazon.
The relationship between BSD and GNU has always interested me. I think part of the problem is indeed the incompatibilities between the GPL and the BSD. The BSD is not incompatible with the GPL license, but the GPL is incompatible with the BSD. Let me explain this; BSD people work very hard to eliminate GPL code from their systems because they don't want the GPL to "infect" their systems. But GNU people freely uses BSD code because it doesn't "infect" our GPLed programs.
This obviously causes some friction because some BSD developers (certainly not all) think that GNU is "stealing" code from them. Surprisingly, when you think about it, they advocate the BSD license for just this very reason; so that people -can- take the code and do whatever they wish with it.
What happened almost to X11? I suspect that ignorance about exactly things like these is what makes people dismiss FS as a luny. Many newcomers like me do not know the history. So tell me please.
I really can't agree with this entirely. Yes, I think that RMS is a bit radical. However, I also think that there absolutely must be someone out there who takes the stances that RMS does on issues.
Free (as in speech) software is quietly coming under seige, in my opinion. For example, you have Red Hat. These guys have a firm commitment that all the software they work on be released in a completely free way. At the same time, they just started shipping their "enterprise" version of Linux, which is basically the OS with Oracle 8i bundled in and easy to install. So you have one of the most "free" Linux compaines out there shipping a product which is designed to appeal to companies because it includes a massive, proprietary app. This kind of gentle errosion is happening all over the place. Except with people like RMS.
So beyond all of his contributions in terms of coding, I think it's really important that people like RMS are willing to stand up and shout about their ideals, so that we don't all forget the mindset that brought us so far. We need to be careful not to loose site of these things as the business presence rushes in.
Free software isn't a popularity contest, it's about quality of code and *principles*. Period. If RMS has opinions that you don't like, and you think he should be prevented from saying them then GO LIVE SOMEPLACE WHERE FREE SPEECH IS NOT ALLOWED. Sheesh - how many of these fools who think software has to please everybody do we have to tolerate? If you can't see that microsofts one size fits all policy is flawed then stay with it, pal.
RMS is not a member of the Open Source movement. He founded the Free Software "movement" and has never changed his mind about that. I think that's his right. The reason he gets the attention he does is that the Linux project, whilst not explicily founded with the same goals, has always been based on GCC and released under the GPL. Linus said he was fine with the term GNU/Linux.
Given all this, people who want to use all this great software but ditch the "tiresome" (my paraphrase) politics have MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT.
"Go figure"
How come I can only read a very little % of Comments?
:)
The appalling state of the education system?
Okay, not being very helpful, sorry
Whether the "1-click" technology is either basic or obvious does not matter here. The patent was granted, regardless of whether you or I agree with it, it was.
Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, whether or not the patent was granted it is not valid if it is obvious.
But my point has little to do with the validity of the patent.
Okay....
If you can honestly tell me that you believe B&N did not see Amazon doing it and then used the same technique at their site, then there is nothing more I can argue.
They did by all appearances copy marketing / sales techniques fro Amazon. Since Amazon seems to be achieving some success with those techniques this seems like a good idea. No problem so far...
It seems relatively clear to me that what B&N did was try to copy Amazon and in doing so used a technology patented by Amazon. And that is wrong.
This is where I lose your thread.. what is it that you think is wrong? company A sets up in business, they start using marketing and sales techniques that apparently appeal to consumers and address a need in the market. Company B sees this, thinks "Good idea" and copies these techniques. This is what they're supposed to do, it's competition, it's what's supposed to happen. What is your problem? You're worried that businesses might all start adopting approaches that the consumers like?
Unless your concern is that they're breaching a patent (and you meant "wrong" as a simile for "illegal")... but you explicitly said that the validity of the patent was irrelevant to your point.. so what is your point?
that's like saying that killing someone isn't illegal until i am caught
No, that's the point. In both cases the court is being asked to make a decision about past events.
In the patent case, the court is being asked to decide whether the patent was valid and whether B&N infringed upon it.
In your hypothetical killing case, the court would be asked to decide whether or not you killed the person and whether or not your doing so was illegal.
The patent is valid, or invalid all along. You are guilty, or not guilty, of murder all along. this status does not change when the court makes its decision. That's the point. The court will be determining whether the patent was ever legally valid, not saying it used to be but won't be from now on.
It is now the court's job to decide if the patent is valid. Until the court decides otherwise, the patent is valid and infringement is illegal. Hence the injunction against B&N.
NO, absolutely not. It is up to the court to determine whether the patent is valid and thus whether breaching it is illegal. If the court finds that the patent is invalid then they will be establishing that what B&N did was not (at any point) illegal. If the court finds that the patent is valid then they will be establishing that what B&N did was (from the begining) illegal. It is NOT a matter of it being illegal until the court determines otherwise, one side or the other is right and the court is charged with determining which it is. B&N presumably believe that it is they that are right, I certainly do.
I think you're failing to understand what he's saying. RMS does'nt like software patents at all. Given that they exist, however, he can see why people would want to hold them as a defence against other people suing them for infringement of other patents. That's not to say that the existence of software patents is a necessary evil, just that for as long as they exits it makes sense to hold some as a defence against others (i.e. holding them toprotect yourself may be a necessary evil given that others ma be able to attck you with theirs). Abolish them all together and this defence is obviously no longer required.
Why the heck would anyone actually buy RMS's ``books'' when
they are just primnouts of the info files that
are available with every software package??
serioulsy, I was looking into the inernal gcc
docs and coughed up $50 for the gcc manual from RMS, and was sorely disappointed because it was just a verbatim printout of the gcc info manual..
I wound up giving it 2/5 stars (not on amazon)
Have you read what he's written? He's not against making money from writing software - quite the contrary, he makes an explicit point of allowing and encouraging it (and certainly, there are many people making money from writing GPLed software). He's against the proprietarization of software. There's a big difference. BSD derivatives can be made proprietary, i.e., freedom to distribute source can be reserved to some person or group. Linux (and other GPL software) derivatives cannot.
Liam Healy
B&N didn't do anything wrong, they just used a basic, obvious e-commerce technique. Amazon on the other hand attempted to use unfair methods to damage their competition.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Then you can do what Amazon is doing. But be aware that this is not defensive behaviour; You are trying to stop other people from using your idea, not protect yourself from being sued.
The word 'safeguard' here applies to safeguarding against lawsuits, not safeguarding the patents. Since company A is not being sued in case 1b, it is not safeguarding, it is taking the offensive.
RMS is a radical, and Open Source would not be where it is without out him. RMS is the revolutionary and Linus and ESR are making what was once revolutionary mainstream. Their is room for both.
The points RMS made are valid.
I for one support what Tim@ORA is doing and RMS in saying "Amazon
and other software patent holders should abjure the use of patents for
aggression, and adopt a no-first-use policy."
Why all this stuff about RMS and license arguments? The point is that RMS has many strings to his bow, and one is that he is a veteran campaigner against software patents - which is what this is all about. The fact is, he has been drawing attention to this problem for years. I first heard about the possibility of patenting software at a talk he gave in London ~ 1989-90. Now Tim O'reilly seems to be doing some very useful work dialoguing with Bezos. Cool! But as I understand it, its RMS who actually spoke out and advocated the boycot of Amazon. And that's cool too. that's what campaigners are. People who demand changes and ask people to do things rather than just sit around watching history float past them. I figure it's in his capacity as a campaigner and advocate of the boycot that RMS and his letter should be interesting. And I think that's pretty clear and reasonable. Emphasize that a) Amazon don't just have a patent but are using it to sue a rival. Something that was pretty glossed over in the preceding dialogue between Bezos and O'Reilly. Then b) state that while he welcomes someone of Bezos statue calling for reform, that is not sufficient to let Amazon off the hook. That's O'Reilly's position as well. What's wrong with that?
they lose money on purpose. that way they pay less taxes. accounting decisions can dictate wheter you see what looks like a profit or a loss. all the money they lose is money they spent setting up infrastructure. do you really believe they lose money selling books? and somebody cant just start a business and put them out of business, they are the 'brand' name that is out there. certainly theyre not going to dominate for all time, but they hold a unique advantage which, if they press now, theyll be really well off. so they are. but what they are doing (the patent stuff) is unethical. they arent idiots. just bastards
> Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets.
I will swallow your "fiduciary duty" horseshit just as soon as I get through choking down Adolf Eichmann's "I vas just followink orders!"
Don't hold your breath waiting, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Without boycotts and media muck-raking, corporations are, indeed, obligated to perform whatever atrocities are necessary in order to maximize profit and future profit for their shareholders. This is why it is extremely important that we continue the boycott en masse. It is one of the few ways that we can collectively speak out against behavior that we see as wrong. This is why some of us boycotted companies like Nike or Nestle who caused suffering in the third world. If you feel a company is acting irresponsibly, you must avoid its products.
Of course, there is more than just negative reinforcement. I am protesting the present computer patent law system; I have no real grudge against Amazon. If Bezos promptly does the right thing, I will not only resume buying from Amazon, but I will visit their site even more frequently, to more than make up for my current boycott. By rewarding good companies while we punish irresponsible ones, we make our actions speak that much louder.
As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Defensive patents are mainly used for one thing which makes them defensive patents. They are used to make sure you can always use your technology, so that no one else can take it from you. That's it. Trying to prevent other people from using them is when it stops being 'defensive' and starts being offensive.
It's a definition. This doesn't match. Period.
that replay i can't read so e-mail me at webmaster@mp3gallery.N0spame.com
I posted a long reply to this, which somehow <A href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/1<nobr>2<wbr></wbr></nobr> /0917223&cid=115">ended up</A> in the wrong thread.
I posted a reply to this, but it ended up in the <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/1<nobr>2<wbr></wbr></nobr> /0917223&cid=108">wrong thread</a>.
I replied to this, but it ended up in the wrong thread 8-(.
Whether it is theoretically feasible to replace bits of the GNU system with others does not have anything to do with whether or not it is the GNU system. For example, it might be possible to adapt some BSD libc to work with Linux, or to write a new one for scratch. But why bother when there is GNU libc already? Similarly for GNU fileutils, gcc, binutils and many more that I have probably forgotten.
I think it is rather telling of the differences in philosophy between the GNU folks and various others that RMS & Co. started out by creating the basic tools that you needed in order to be even able to create an operating system, such as a text editor and a compiler toolchain. These are tools that practically everybody in the free software movement uses, even those that otherwise have no relation to the GNU project at all.
I witnessed this 'assault' as well. The whole thread started with someone quoting an article (from Wired, I think) which stated that RMS had tried to, quote, sabotage, unquote the work of Symbolics, a software company which made a proprietary product based on work originating in the AI lab at MIT, where RMS worked. This 'sabotage' amounted to creating free equivalents of Symbolics' proprietary programs--the very same activity that, even today, most of the free software/open source work consists off. In any case, RMS mailed the list and said 'not really, sabotage (by the sound of it) is a serious crime and I've never done it' at which point Brett Glass (who, by the sound of it has got some sort of axe to grind concerning RMS and can be found spouting largely unsubstantial diatribes against copyleft in general and RMS in particular anywhere you care to look, try dejanews or just search Slashdot) accused him off being spiteful, vindictive, anti-commercial, trying to destroy the livelihood of programmers everywhere, and more to the point a saboteur). At this point RMS sent one more message stating that Glass' mail was full of complete bollocks (only much more politely--RMS is a perfect example of online civility, IMHO) and that those who really wanted to know about the event should read the book 'Hackers' by Steven (sp?) Levy, which I recommend as well. Anyone else who cares to have a look can just do a deja search.
Does that constitue 'assault'? I don't think so. RMS simply responded--briefly and to the point--to a very insulting personal attack made in a public forum.
An interesting sideshow to the main event was Theo de Raadt, who ordered RMS off the list using phrases such as "bugger off" and "go away, Satan". I have absolutely no other problems with Theo whatsoever; if he wants to dislike the GPL then that's his god-given right. But I really do think that this sort of behaviour is neither appropriate, excusable or more to the point good for open source/free software. If RMS had been in the habit of acting like a computer thug a la Theo, we would never have been where we are today. Have you ever thought about that?
You bet. RMS dislikes proprietary software, pretty strongly in fact. This is hardly a secret, and software such as GCC would not have existed without it.
Bzzt! Wrong. Copyleft and the GPL is attempt to create an alternative; to make it possible to use computers without having to give up the right to help your neighbour. I do believe that RMS has in fact gone as far as criticizing others (eg. the creators of the X Window system) for caring "more about users than about freedom". If RMS' sole concern was to grab as many users as possible and then put all proprietary software vendors out of business, do you think he would have bothered?
Once again, wrong. Of all the licenses out there, the new BSD (or more correctly X style) license has got to be one of his favourites. He prefers copyleft licenses, but BSD is much better than most of the alternatives.
Funny you should mention ego--RMS and the FSF has taken a lot of flak lately for arguing that everyone should use the name GNU/Linux rather than Linux. If RMS and the FSF had simply taken the BSD road and required everyone who uses their software to stroke his ego, do you think he would have had to argue? He could simply threaten you with a lawsuit instead. Yes, I am refering to the "obnoxious advertising clause" here. The original UBC one has been removed, but there are plenty of others who have added their names to the list. In all fairness, there are many who have not, but I still find it strange that this sort of mandated ego-stroking is never questioned.
Damned right.
Not really. There were some folks who wanted to create a Debian port running on a FreeBSD kernel. Nothing much ever came out of it; at least I haven't seen it mentioned on the debian mailing lists in the last couple of months or so.
Hey, but the info files are good, man. I haven't seen the gcc one, but I have the emacs one in my possession--all six hundred pages of it. It's brilliant, and beautifully printed. In general, the FSF only sells hardcopies of those manuals which are in a fairly complete state. A lot of time and effort went into those files; referring to them as 'just printouts' like that is rather disrespectful of that time and effort.
You can't have been looking very hard into these things when you did, the fact that all of these manuals are available in electronic format, some even on the GNU website, is quite well published.
I don't think it makes sense to give the book a bad score just because it's also available online.
This point in particular is one of the most annoying ones frequently made by anti-GNU revisionist. Much has been said about open source and the power of 'gotta scratch that itch' development. However, there are some problems which 'scratch the itch'-motivation do not solve very easily. No one would write a C compiler just to scratch an itch with the old one, at least not except for in the most severe of circumstances. GCC exists because RMS realised that it (or something like it) had to.
If it were not for GCC, the best we would have had today would have been some mediocre free compiler, with a up-gunned 'professional' edition which you would have to use for anything but the simplest of development.
I don't agree with your premises or your conclusion, but I do agree with the advise given to newbies in general: go out there and familiarise yourself with the history of free software/open source. Tour www.gnu.org and www.*bsd.org. There is lots of information there. (Note to new readers: I did note write the comment that DQuinn is replying to.)
In my experience, most newbies are of the 'wow it's cool to run all this stuff for free, but couldn't someone tell RMS to stop shouting GNU/Linux 'cos everyone knows that the Linux os was written by scratch by Linus & co'. But then again, my perspective is probably different.
Do you think you could post that email here (unless it's private) or at least forward it to me (gs234.at.you.know.what.goes.here.cam.ac.uk) if you're afraid of spamming Slashdot?
It this email is the one I think it is, it is the recent opensd.tech/sabotage spectacle. I have to say that I disagree; RMS never tried to push his opinions there, he simply defended himself against some rather nasty, personal accusations. I think that he (and anyone else) has got the right to defend themselves against that sort of stuff.
--
Big Gaute (not to be confused with LG)
"There was a time when a guy who died at forty was revered as the toughest
and most doggedly ancient son of a bitch in Cow Ass Clearing, Shitoleshire,
Engalond, back in the year dot." - Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan #25
Unfortunately that measure has been made, Amazon SUED B&N for patent infringement on thier 1-click patent, in which a preliminary injunction has been issued for B&N to cease and desist using "1-click technology". This shows Amazon's willingness to aggressively use their patents.
I actually think RMS's response shows quite a bit of compromise, he states that he understands why Amazon needs its patents (although doesn't like it) and only wants them to discontinue the agressive use of them against competitors.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
OTOH, you gotta give props to RMS for his work founding the FSF and his contributions to it. How far along would be be w/o GCC?
Of course, GNU/Linux is a stretch -- I've never heard someone say they use Adobe/MacOS or Lotus-OS/2...
--
E2 IN2 IE?
No, my friend, you miss the point. Nowhere in the GPL it says that I should buy RMS's silly politics when I use GPLed software.
A friend pointed out the other night that the best way to protest Amazon.com is to buy from them, rather than boycott. They are losing money on every sale, after all. If we buy enough books, we'll suck the bastards dry!
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
Sorry if it's unpleasant, but that's the way it is.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL
bp
"If I removed everything here that I thought was pointless, there would be like two messages here."
woxy.com - Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll
So having these patents safeguards against lawsuits, but not your valuable intellectual property being ripped off. Small comfort. Oh well.
I guess I can't help thinking how things would be different if some small company had been granted patents and is now suing, say, Microsoft, for patent infringement.
I understand all the points being made, but the answers (or lack of) aren't very satisfactory. If you've made real innovations in software, and you're not willing to give it away (or allow competitors to copy it), what recourse do you have?
> Amazon is abusing the patent system by primarily using patents as a weapon against competitors as opposed to a way to actually safegaurd their innovations.
If your competitors are blatantly copying your innovations, I don't understand how you would "safeguard your innovations" using patents without "firing the first shot".
Case 1a: company A has patents on company B's innovations, sues Company B for patent infringement. This is "using patents as a weapon against competitors".
Case 1b: company A has patents on its own innovations, sees competitor B copying them, A sues B. If I read RMS right, this would also be "using patents as a weapon against competitors", since A fired the first shot.
Case 2: company A has patents on its own innovations, competitor B sues A for patent infringement of B, A counter-sues with its own patent portfolio, they settle. This could be "using patents to safeguard innovations".
Case 3: company A has patents on its own innovations, sees competitor B copying them, but does nothing (not firing the first shot).
In case 3, how did A "safeguard its innovations"? If it doesn't sue, it seems to me that it has allowed B to blatantly copy its innovations. If it sues, then it could be argued that it fired the first shot, and that it's using the patents as a weapon. (case 3 = case 1b).
What can company A do in case 3 without suing?
In one corner we have people like RMS, who wants to take credit for anything and everything; and in the other corner we have the "armchair hackers" who seem to run around all day and threaten our friends like Corel with lawsuits because they went to the bathroom and didn't release the toilet paper under the GPL.
Then there are the mean people who are always being mean to everyone and everything they don't like, calling them names, and categorizing them. Why can't we all just get along?
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html. X11R6.4 was licensed restrictively, requiring a per-user fee as I recall. It was only when XFree86 decided not to adopt R6.4 and stay with R6.3 instead that The Open Group reversed its decision and returned to the original (i.e. the current license),
I don't see the FSF and RMS as being religious leaders in the patent area. But that is what they seem to focus on. I think that the FSF's job is to make free software that helps the planet but I don't think that they should be telling amazon how to run a business and what they should be doing about business practices and patents. I think that we should worry about ourselves and our software and let companies like amazon do what they want---if someone opposes their practices, they should legally settle it by fixing the government and not by trying to boycott the company. Does anyone agree with me or am I the only person that doesn't know what the FSF's true purpose is?
Seriously, I think RMS is bad for the Open Source movement
Yes! Richard has some serious issues. I had the privilage (?) to see him assault the tech list at openbsd.org a while back. It was confirmed to me that Richard has some serious grudges against the corporate software world, and the GPL is a direct attempt to destroy that world. He disagrees with the BSD licensing scheme since it doesn't try to obliterate the idea of making money from writing software.
His ego, victim complex, and irrational "manifest destiny" can do no good for the open-source community. I once followed him, but then learned better.
Certainly unfortunate.
Cheers,
DQ
os.system("perl -e 'print \"My first Python Script.\"'")
But what makes you think if you get sued by your shareholders, you'd lose? What makes Amazon think the 1-click patent holds up? Everyone is jumping the gun here. There is need to employ judgement here, to see whether a case has merits or not. To have some faith in the judiciary process.
This is precisely what RMS is doing. You can't argue against that by citing fears. Show me why the 1-click patent is worth patenting. Don't try to justify the actions of cowards!
-ryan
"Any way you look at it, all the information that a person accumulates in a lifetime is just a drop in the bucket."
I cannot agree with you and RMS that Amazon is offensive rather than defensive concerning their "1-click" technology. As I see it Amazon is using their patent to defend against competitor's (specifically B&N) stealing Amazon's own innovations. Why isn't B&N copying Amazon's technology "firing the first shot."
The validity of the patent does not matter. That the patent was granted does. This means that B&N infringed Amazon's patent. That is what is wrong. It is now the court's job to decide if the patent is valid. Until the court decides otherwise, the patent is valid and infringement is illegal. Hence the injunction against B&N.
If software patents are a necessary evil, and yet Amazon's use of them as a basis for a suit to defend against B&N using Amazon's technologies against them is wrong, then can you tell me why they are "necessary?" It seems to me that this is the only way to use software patents: to keep people (in this case corporate competitors) from stealing your innovations. And why isn't B&N the aggressor here? Wasn't their theft of Amazon's "1-click" technology the "first shot?"
what i mean by the "validity of the patent does not matter" is that whether it should have even been granted or whether it does, in fact, hold up in court do not matter. only it's current state does and that is that is as a valid patent.
Whether the "1-click" technology is either basic or obvious does not matter here. The patent was granted, regardless of whether you or I agree with it, it was. But my point has little to do with the validity of the patent. If you can honestly tell me that you believe B&N did not see Amazon doing it and then used the same technique at their site, then there is nothing more I can argue. It seems relatively clear to me that what B&N did was try to copy Amazon and in doing so used a technology patented by Amazon. And that is wrong.
that's like saying that killing someone isn't illegal until i am caught
eason.ie - not necessarily the best, but the rate against sterling is very good these days. You could also try waterstones.co.uk or whsmith.co.uk.
WTF? (Score:-1)
:P
Is this some kind of anti first post tactic?
I admit that alot of first posters are *trying* for first post, but it seems unfair to assume that hes a troll. Especially considering that ACs probably don't care about karma
In fact, I'll probably get marked down for saying this.
Give a guy a break.
Personally, I think this discussion is bad for the Slashdot community. Sure this may be an interesting issue, but does each comment a party makes really necessitate an entire article? Seems a bit overkill. Everything we have to say has probably been said in the first article.
http://www.bibliofind.com
-- Patience - A minor form of despair disguised as a virtue.
.... shouldn't the thread be about ; .... ...
Look what a bunch of dorks the American Law is Unpheld By?
or
Wow! That American Law Sure Is Crap
"It's expensive, stupid, last only seconds - but makes your mouth hurt for days - it's BEE IN A BALLOON" - Kibo 3/1/95
If you couldn't make money writing software, only communists would write software.
Topher
No, you deserve to be hanging from your neck until dead. I'm sick of paying my taxes to feed this worthless scum. I say kill 'em all and make room for people who can be reformed.
If we, as a society, get tough on crime (that's crime, now, not mere violations of idiotic law that do no harm to others), perhaps those contemplating attempts at depriving others of their life, liberty, or property might have second thoughts.
Topher
Your distaste for the GPL is obvious. What is not apparent is your logic. Could you please explain the basis of your opinion? My knowledge of the GPL leads me to believe that it guarrantees freedom for everyone involved. If you know (or believe) differently, I'd like to see your perspective.
I am also interested in this "MPL" that you believe to be more "morally acceptable." Please post a link to the text of this license.
Thanks,
Topher
It's a free country. Everyone has the right to sound like an idiot.
I believe that those losing civil suits they initiated should suffer the burden of their target's legal costs. This would relieve some of the pressure on our overburdened judicial system by eliminating some of the more frivolous lawsuits.
I believe that death penalty appeals should be given a priority, so that their cases can be seen again quickly, to overturn the conviction if new evidence has come to light, or to speed the elimination of this burden on society.
I believe in cutting a lotof legislative fat by enacting a constitutional amendment to require a time limit on current and future legislation, maximum of five years. This I mentioned in a previous post.
We need to stop allowing the government to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves. We need to take the responsibly, and kick those porky bureaucrats out of office. Vote for someone who believes in your ability to govern yourself. For a list of those candidates, visit the Libertarian Party home page.
Demand Liberty!
Topher
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle
I was almost tempted to post a review of some of his books (and to give it five stars). Something like, this book is the definitive guide to emacs, blah, blah, blah, Oh, and by the way, the author (RMS) says to boycott this company! Don't buy this book from Amazon because the author is telling you this! No, no, no, don't one click, aaaahhhh!
The Amazon Gestapo would probably delete that type of review.
Amazon has always been a company that amazed me. First, I was blown away by the concept of ordering books over the internet. Then I was shocked that a company could lose the same order three times in a row. (after which I switched to B&N) Finally, I'm impressed that a company which has shown no proof that it will eventually be profitable is valued at 22 billion dollars. Amazon brags that it lost less money than normal less quarter. Gee, guys, that's terrific! You're losing less money! I supppose that one could argue that they're going to become the Walmart of the internet, but the great thing about the internet is that somebody can always start a competing business. It's much easier to put up an internet site than to buy a store the size of a warehouse. Business strategies from Real Life (tm) are not necessarily portable.
So what does this have to do with patents? Amazon needs to use its patents aggresively to kill its competition. It can't simply sit back and wait for someone to sue it first; the existence of other eBusinesses stands in the way of Amazon's goal of becoming the one stop place for everything on the internet. If there are other merchants around, Amazon can never jack up its prices and start making money. Which means that all of the time they spent selling items at a lost to kill smaller businesses was wasted. (the money too) So expecting to see a kinder, gentler Amazon may be a little naive. Personally, my view is that business men are like politicians. They're all liars and our job is to pick the best of a bad bunch.
While, yes, it is bundled with gnu tools, I cannot think of any that couldn't be replaced (with non gnu free software at that). The GNU tools are not essential to Linux any more than a particular window manager is essential to X.
Well, yes, they theoretically could be replaced, but so could the Linux kernel. In fact, it might take more time to write a complete replacement of gcc from scratch then it would to write a kernel work-alike from scratch...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yeah: all potential patents are publicly peer-reviewed prior to issuance to ensure that they really are worthy of the status of a patent.
Some will argue here that doing so would mean that the idea couldn't be used as a trade secret should it fail to achieve patent status. And they would be correct. But a patent represents a monopoly on an idea and should thus be issued rarely. If someone wants to go for the gold and attempt to get a patent, they should risk something in the process. What more appropriate thing to risk than the idea itself?
Public peer-review prior to patent issuance would have two effects: it would cause people to attempt to patent only those things that they truly thought were worthy of a patent (i.e., likely to be patentable) and it would cause bogus patent attempts (there will always be people stupid enough to attempt to patent the obvious, even in such a system) to be shot down quickly.
I see this as the fastest and easiest way to reform the patent system.
--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
try www.noamazon.com
It is a list of internet shops.
-ak
First, considering RMS's stands on these issues, I was surprised at how reasonable his essay sounded - it strikes me that in practical terms, RMS and amazon are not that far apart.
It is my belief that the One-Click patent was created solely as a weapon in Amazon's long-standing legal fight against Barnes & Noble. I'm sure Bezos will never forget the lawsuit B&N filed over the "Earth's Biggest Bookstore" tagline; it could have crushed the online bookseller at a time when it was small, weak and vunerable. Does he want revenge? Of course. Does he deserve it? Probably.
His remarks, before and after this imbroligo, indicate that he does not plan to enforce the patent on any entity other than B&N. As long as he does that, I don't believe he's done anything wrong.
D
----
it is *bundled* with an enormous amount of gnu tools (and that it would not even run without them).
While, yes, it is bundled with gnu tools, I cannot think of any that couldn't be replaced (with non gnu free software at that). The GNU tools are not essential to Linux any more than a particular window manager is essential to X.
That being said, I DO often write it as GNU/Linux (in fact, it appears that way on my resume!), but in casual conversation or writing, I usualy refer to it as Linux for simplicity's sake.
Finkployd
You are right, and I agree with everything you just said. However, the whole reason this was brought up was because someone started by saying that the RMS must think he write linux since he insists on calling it GNU/Linux. I was defending RMS to begin with, in that he has reasons for calling it that.
However, I don't always call it that (neither do most), and the impression that seems to be prevelant (although I assume it's false) is that RMS attacks anyone who doesn't call it GNU/Linux and only does so out of jelousy and spite.
Finkployd
I have to disagree with you there. The tools make the user interface, the kernel makes the OS. Also the Linux Kernel could be replaced, but I don't know about easy. Look how long it's taken Mach to approach usability.
Finkployd
I agree, that patent judges are unsuited to determine the originality of software patents. This job would be much better handled by SW professionals.
I think that a patent period of 6 to 9 months is too short for some SW patents (e.g. a revolutionary new algorithm for multimedia compression).
/Crafack
... Elecance is left to the implementors.
As someone pointed out in annother post. This is a myth. Books by Nolo press also explain how this dosn't work.. I believe it is explained in "Legal care for your software" and/or "Patent it yourself". Of course.. check them out rather than take my word for it :) And they are douptlessly updated majorly in the years sence I have read them.
While the "Poor-Man's copyright" seeks to clame ownership of said item... prior art only seeks to prove no one else dose...
It retains ZERO ownership for yourself...
Basicly all you do is... do it... just that simple. Once it's done and documented in some way that this is when it happend you have prior art.
Then when someone patents it say 5 years later you say "I did it first"... Patent goes away..
Or better yet.. never gets issued...
I don't actually exist.
I've used Countrybookshop and The Internet Bookshop myself.
Lately, though, I've tried to avoid British bookshops because the pound is quite strong compared to EMU currencies - so if you want to save money, you might want to try German bookshops, like Bol.de. The selection isn't that great, though.
Well, this would be true in an ideal system.
But, Amazon was able to patent 1-click even though it's a very logical extension of cookies and GUI design. Streamlining involves asking for less confirmation, especially if it's not fatal (formatting HD or something) and cookies let you know who the user is.
Amazon really shouldn't have been allowed to patent this, it's not a technology, it's a use of an existing technology. Like patenting the use of a car in delivering pizzas.
So, anyways, often a company will patent an idea just so they can show they have the right to use it, because even if they just documented their use of it, another company could still get a temporary restraining order against them which as we've seen in the EToys case (and MPAA, etc) is trivially easy to get and geared just to break the other party by running them out of money. And who cares who would eventually win, if the victim goes bankrupt long before that point?
I'm in this boycott until Amazon promises in writing to *never* use patents except for defensive use, in *any* case. Anything less is just useless posturing. That Bezos cares enough to answer is proof that the boycott is working, a bit at least.
Why not say the shareholders have a right to profit, so Bezos was justified in mugging that nun?
Fuck, you're a moron.
Patenting something that isn't worthy of a patent deserves no protection. Using that fraudulently obtained patent to sue someone else isn't a good thing. (Claiming they 'invented' 1-click ordering is like buying a car, using it to deliver some new product and trying to patent the use of cars to deliver that product.)
All your post proves is that you will believe anything a big company tells you, and that the word communist still scares ignorant people who think they live in a capitalist society. You're just showing your ignorance.
Bezos is required to act in the best *legal* interest of Amazon. Fraudulently obtaining patents is not a legal means. Just because nobody has the money to fight them and prove that not only was the patent invalid, but they knew it was before they applied, doesn't mean that what they did was illegal.
The clue for you is that illegal actions are illegal, even if you don't get caught of convicted.
Corporations aren't required to make a profit at all costs, they're required to make all reasonable attempts to make a profit. (Basically, it's a bit more complex, but not in a way we need to worry about.)
Many corporations are 'green' or 'ethical' and invest in, and buy materials from, humanitarian-friendly concerns. Examples are shoe companies that have third-world factories but that still keep them at first-world safety standards, and that pay the workers a good wage. Contrast this to Nike.
This builds brand loyalty among customers, and brings in new customers fed up at the outrages they hear about in the news, so in the long run, it's more cost effective to buy the more expensive materials.
Similarly, Amazon would be perfectly justified in passing up a bit of potential profit (not patenting things that aren't inventions, or they didn't invent) to build customer loyalty.
What do you think advertising is? It's a big outlay of money that might bring in more customers. Same as charitable donations, they're there to make the employees and customers happy. A loss on the books, but a long-term gain.
Think of delayed gratification (doing something now for a future gain) and enlightened self interest (helping someone else because you know it'll endup helping you later). These are valid strategies and a company employing these, as long as they have a valid reason, will not be in the wrong wrt the shareholders.
(Not that you couldn't sue them in the states, for some stupid thing or another... I should sue microsoft for causing alien visitations... I bet they'd be forced to settle to avoid a long lawsuit. Gotta love the US legal system.)
The problem is the word "innovations".
What do you think Amazon did that was innovative? Use cookies for that they were originally designed, and simply remove a verification dialog box?
Not very impressive.
It's not like that actually invented anything. They just want to patent the use of commonly available tools in certain cases. Like patenting the color green, with respect to computer cases. Or patenting the use of cars/trucks to deliver fozen yogurt, or whatever bullshit a company think they're the first to do, no matter how obvious it is.
If Amazon actually *invented* a new *technology* then I could see them patenting it.
They didn't.
They *modified* an exiting *interface* by using already existing technology.
That's not patentable in any sane system, but they pushed it through, and are now on the offensive with it. And we're supposed to think they're the good guys?
On the other hand, RMS called for the boycott, but it would be a lot more valid if he had offered (as Tim did) to sit with Jeff and try to work out a solution that would make everybody happy. It's easy to put someone down, but it's a lot harder to offer viable solutions to the problems at hand.
(Btw, anyone knows a good bookstore in Europe apart from amazon.co.uk? I stopped buying from them -- and they lost a good customer because of their bullying attitude -- but I need to keep buying my books. I tried Bookpool but I ended up paying a lot more. Ideas?) David
Well, unless we're talking about the timeline diverging before his conception, in which case there's an extremely good chance that he would not have existed if patent laws had never come to exist, then of course Thomas Edison would have existed. As you say, he might well not have been the near-legend he is today. Is that a bad thing?
From my point of view, that just means that he wouldn't be credited with inventing so many things that he didn't actually invent. I'm sure he was an intelligent man, and quite probably enthusiastic about invention, but most of his inventions were actually made by people who worked for him. When you get right down to it, he was just a business man in the right place at the right time.
Let's not forget also that the invention he is most famous for - the filament electric lightbulb (other forms of electric lightbulbs like arc lamps already existed) - was already a well understood idea. Everyone knew it could be done, it was just a matter of developing a filament that would survive long enough to make it worth it. As it happens, the carbon-filament solution that Edison's researchers came up with was an identical solution to that of Joseph Swan who had invented the same thing the previous year.
In light of that, I can't think of why it's a good thing that Thomas Edison is a legendary figure today. It actually seems like a bit of a tragedy that so many people who did valuable work have to be overlooked so that we can focus on a single "hero". I usually don't feel so bad about this when the one "hero" is someone who does, in fact, deserve a lot of credit even if they don't deserve all of it. Personally, I think that Edison gets more credit than he deserves.
The same sort of thing happened with Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell. Bell submitted (actually his father in law did it) his patent application before Gray. Later on, Gray sued unsuccessfully, partly because Bell had submitted his patent application without any working model, and partly because it looked a lot as if a lot of Bell's stuff had been more or less copied from Gray's.
It's actually kind of interesting to note that both Bell and Gray (and Edison's group too I think) were all working on the idea of a telegraph multiplexer (multiple messages along the same wire was a holy grail of technology at the time) first and those projects developed into a quest for voice transmission (which had also actually been demonstrated in crude form by an italian named Meucci years earlier). This seems to suggest that they were all more or less copying each others work as they developed their own. In the scientific world, this is a good thing and is expected, although pointless replication of effort can often be avoided through cooperation. However, with patents thrown into the mix, things turn nasty pretty quickly and the idea of scientific community dissolves because all researchers are seen as potential theives rather than kindred spirits. Soon, we get to the point where we are now where groups of scientists and researchers aren't supposed to communicate ideas to one another without an intervening layer of lawyers. And all of this is a good thing?
I understand the "financial motivator" idea behind the patent system. But I find the concept that human curiousity and inventiveness is driven by greed to be completely ridiculous. I also understand the argument that, without patents, certain types of costly research wouldn't bring sufficient returns to justify the research since the company that did the research would be beaten in the marketplace by another company that just copied the product. That argument is somewhat compelling, especially in the pharmeceutical field where research is so expensive. The trouble with that argument though, is that it points to the single evil of not having patents without really weighing it against the evils of having them. Let's not forget that a successful drug product for a pharm company is often an enormous cash cow. Those are sick people paying all that money. I think it's kind of sad that a different model isn't explored.
I'm in favor of tax money being used to fund most research. After all, we all ultimately pay for pretty much all research somehow, we might as well do it directly with fewer middle men. That way, there wouldn't really be a reason for patents on the technologies developed. I know a lot of people have ideological complaints to do with free markets and so forth, but there are large flaws in that model as well. To go back to the pharmecuetical industry, orphan drugs are a good example of the problems with a pure free market. An orphan drug is a drug to treat a disease that doesn't afflict enough people for a treatment to be a big money-maker or even to pay for the research involved. So, the government provides subsidies for such drugs to pharm companies. Now, some people don't like this idea and think that it would be better just to let these people die, but let's not forget that we're talking about a government that will wage quite expensive wars for the sake of maybe a few hundred of its citizens, and is occaisionally willing to spend a fraction of that to save thousands of its citizens. Is there actually anything wrong with that.
Actually, there's quite a lot of government money already spent on research which is then patented by the company or university that does the research. Maybe we would be better off if government money meant that the results belong to all of us rather than the lucky recipients of the funding.
Realistically of course, they're not going to drop the patent system any time soon and decide that scientific research is benificial to all and should be open and free. I hope that it is obvious to just about everyone that the system as it stands now just isn't working well enough, however. Some sort of reform is going to have to come about before things get worse and we have to wait 17 years (ignoring the fact that patents can be renewed) for them to get better.
But in any capatilistic society the customers protect themselves by deciding *not* to buy. That is why we have boycott's. For American's, boycotts were one of the many factors in forming our country.
Boycott's don't happen in communist countries.
So what are you talking about?
The Edison lightbulb patent was eventually denied, because of the evidence of prior art.
There's a very simple alternative to handle a situation like this:
Host your E-Commerce server in Canada (or any other country for that matter).
This will take money out of the US economy, which concerns politicians and lawmakers.
This takes it out of US jurisdiction, which concerns politicians and lawmakers.
This adversely affects US hosting companies, which may or may not include Amazon's own upstream provider, which definately concerns Amazon.
Although this does not address the main issue, it does raise awareness, and forces many more companies into the fray to protect their wallets.
Just a thought
> Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets.
At first I thought you were just another rmsophobe, but you have a point there.
> If they didn't, Bezos and the rest of the Amazon board could and probably would have been sued by their shareholders.
This, though, is absurd. All kinds of companies have patents, which are only used defensively. Their shareholders don't sue them. You could ask me for an example, but I think the burden of proof will lie with you once I point out this fact: legal battles are expensive. And, there's little chance that Amazon will ultimately win. They probably will come out of this worse off than they went in, or if the mind-shattering horror of having to click a second time drives enough of B&N's customers into the arms of Amazon, maybe they'll break even.
Everyone else has already, erm, shredded (or close) your Edison example, so I'd just like to mention that the purpose of patents isn't to "protect" something until every possible trace of profitability in the patented item has been used up, it's to make sure that the idea is released to the public while it's still worth something. I've always understood it as a sort of compromise between the public and the inventor - release the idea to us, and we'll make sure no one else uses it without your permission for a few years.
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
OK, now give us a list: how many of your typical user friends have wanted to use free software but have been scared away by RMS? Of the Linux users I know, some agree with RMS, some don't. The ones who agree (myself among them) might refer to RMS's arguments when explaining why they use free software. The ones who don't have other reasons, but I've never heard them say that RMS was an obstacle in the way of their becoming Linux users.
But might it help to have people like RMS trying to persuade them that they should care whether or not the source code is available? If you're trying to sell someone on a particular piece of free software, why not mention, among the other advantages it may have, that it is free? It isn't too hard to explain why this would be an advantage, especially today. How many people do you know who
You could argue, perhaps, that open source development methods, or some such magic, insure that open source software will in the long run always be technically superior. Therefore we can just sit back, wait for Open Source to conquer the world, and explain to everyone why this is a Good Thing afterwards. Perhaps this is true, but I'm not so optimistic. Don't forget the advantages enjoyed by purveyors of proprietary software; for example:
Free/open source software will be at a great disadvantage as long as it is impossible to release free/open source software that plays DVD's, that uses standard encryption algorithms, that makes GIF's, that handles popular streaming audio formats, or that drives ecommerce sites. If, in the end, we are able to legally distribute free software that does all these things, then it will be partly because people like RMS have made ordinary computer users aware of political issues.
---Bruce FieldsThe start up capitol (seed money/finacing) required to, for example, make a copy of a Boeing 777 is much greater, and the need for protecting IP much less. The automobile industry is another example of of the high resistance to entry (you need to buy factory space, fill it with machine tools and assemply equipment). Why should software (which has an microscopic barier to entry [Netscape 1.0 was done in 8 months with a dozen programers]) be singled out?
If you're going to propose a shortening of the patent life, I would suggest taking a broader view out side the world of software 6 to 9 months would be laughed out of Detroit.
_________________________
If Amazon is truly intersted in growing the market and facilitating retail e-commerce, they should encourage the adoption of a standard client interface. The easier it is to shop online the more people will shop online. Creating barriers and obstacles to customers runs against Amazon's long-term interests.
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
>Once again, RMS has missed a truly crucial point: Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets.
And what do you think is Amazon's most valuable asset?
I'd say it's its brand. The only reason for their market valuation is that they managed to get their name recognised by more than 60% of americans AND their reputation is excellent.
Now alienating even a fraction of their core consumer base is NOT a smart move and actually disminishes their corporate assets.
So on one hand they gain an immediate advantage over the competition by preventing B&N to use one-click shopping, but on the other hand their all-important image is damaged.
So boycotting Amazon and maybe even more important getting the word out on them and their offensive patent use IS a valid tactic, and one that can make Amazon's management and Amazon's shareholders change their tactic.
Michel
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. (Terry Pratchett)
Are you insane? RMS is responsible for your so called open source movement.
And i wonder where RMS got his god complex from.
Are you serious?? The open source movement was not started by RMS, and would not die without him. There are lots of (arguably) better licenses out there besides the GPL. Have you ever installed a BSD at all?? Yes, there is GCC which is a very important utility. But if it didn't exist under the GPL someone would have written one under another license because they needed it.
Johnny-come-latelys to the open source scene (like you) disgust me by disrespecting the people...
If I were you i'd watch yourself here. Because it's guys like you, the Johnny-come-only-to-the-GNU-world people that are rabid FS advocates and haven't really learned the real history or the current world that make themselves sound rather silly by assuming that GNU is the only player in the free software world. Stop reading the GNU and Linux ads and start learning about other licenses and other areas that write free software.
If you want to talk about disrespect, I have an email from RMS that states quite plainly that he doesn't care at all about etiquette and thinks that his ideas and opinions are wanted by everyone and he can infultrate any list he wants and say whatever he wants, even though the people involved have rejected the ideas he gives out by choosing a different open-source license. That's disrespect!
I used to be in the dark about the state of FS, like yourself. And i used to advocate GNU constantly. Whether he knows it or not it's RMS that actually turned me into a fence sitter that may be leaning towards the BSD side of things and leaving the GNU side of things behind.
I would really like you to expand your knowledge of free software before jumping down someone's throat like that.
Cheers,
DQ
os.system("perl -e 'print \"My first Python Script.\"'")
If anybody can clear these up....
Today's New York Times Magazine has an interesting piece by James Gleick on Amazon, software patents, the whole shebang...
http://freshmeat.net/projects/charities.cron/
3 to 5 years for a software patent is an utterly unreasonable proposal made by amazon. It guarantees whatever "technology" that is patented is obselete by the time the patent expires.
The fast moving software industry cannot be bogged down with patents, most will already agree.
But there is *some* need to protect truly unique ideas.
Instead of 3-5 years, why not let software patents last 6 to 9 months? It's enough to allow the inventors of any "innovations" gain from their idea for a good portion of time before others are allowed to copy it. The user base of this idea will be well established in 6-9 months.
A commitee of software industry personel would oversee all new patents to determine if they are truly *unique* and *original*. Current patent judges are ill-equipted to determine originality of software patents.
That's just one proposal.
Anyone else have ideas on making software patents palatable?
You can be pedantic and quibble about the difference between Open Source and Free Software all you like. You can't have Free Software without it being Open Source.
My point is that that are people that want to use all this great software and ditch the "tiresome" politics of it all, they're called users. You know, those multitudes of people who are currently running Windows98 and who don't hate Microsoft (we can't all be perfect).
The Open Source/Free Software idea has the potential to change every user's experience, from the geeks that work in air-conditioned backrooms with clusters of servers, to the bricks that sit at their workstations and type up memos all day.... but for that to happen, it has to be approachable by users. Unfortunately, as a community, we aren't very approachable. In one corner we have people like RMS, who wants to take credit for anything and everything; and in the other corner we have the "armchair hackers" who seem to run around all day and threaten our friends like Corel with lawsuits because they went to the bathroom and didn't release the toilet paper under the GPL.
We have to understand that there are going to be people who don't care whether the source code is available or not. We have to understand that big name companies jumping into this Free Software love-fest might make a couple mistakes. We shouldn't jump down their throats and scare them off. In order to change the world, we need these people.
RMS is the "schoolyard bully" of Open Source/Free Software. He can't even keep all of us on his side, imagine what he's doing to the non-geeks that look at what we're doing. How many potential friends of Open Source/Free Software do you think he's scared off?
NO CARRIER
If such a law were to come about, just as the gov't decided to "grandfather" such drugs as aspirin as something that had been in existence before the law (whereby every company back when the Food & Drug laws were first passed, claimed they "invented" aspirin), so too should alot of these computer-based techniques (such as Amazon's claim for the cookie) be "grandfathered".   Then you can begin again from that point.
We have seen time and time again, software companies applying for patents for internet technology that has been existence for years.   Something has to stop this practice now and allow everyone to start fresh in a level playing field with patent reviewers who are a bit more knowledgeable about the technology.
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
As of yet I haven't heard of any software patent that seemed like it should have been granted.
However, I do agree that the originators of new ideas do need some protection against others stealing their work. I think the current copyright system which allows for Fair Use and restricts Derivative Works would be a far more palatable tool.
For ideas that are too simple to protect under copyright, keep them a trade secret. Obfuscate code if needed.
Ideas or software which cannot be protected by copyright or by being kept secret, are probably so obvious that they shouldn't be protected anyway.
He obviously deserves to be transformed into a TLA by now. We should be calling him TOR on Slashdot.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
True. So?
Since when do shareholders have a _right_ to profit? They are SPECULATORS. They are allowed to make the wrong decision. I would suggest that holding Amazon stock is the wrong decision based on Amazon's difficulty in turning a profit. I would suggest that the shareholder's right to have Amazon rape the U.S. intellectual property system and basically ruin the future (along with many other abusers) is _less_ than my right as a US citizen to at least have my country not get any _worse_.
Yeesh! What needs to happen is for this big stick to get _taken_ _away_ from the corporations, not for people to sit around finding ways to justify its further use. This argument equates to 'right of a shareholder for profit justifies any act on behalf of the company, and is more important than right of a citizen to not be damaged by acts of a company'. That's a crock!
People have said for years, beginning with Shakespeare, "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers". That's fine, but apparently not enough.
Kill all the shareholders! :P
Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets. Those include patentable ideas.
Further, they also have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to guarantee their corporate value does not get diminished by others.
Put this together, and Amazon did exactly what they are required by law to do: Suing B&N for patent infringement. If they didn't, Bezos and the rest of the Amazon board could and probably would have been sued by their shareholders.
Companies have a legal duty to protect themselves, and the legal system is an excellent example of "the best defense is a good offense".
Of course, in RMS' communist utopia, such things wouldn't exist, but this is the real world...
I think I'll go buy a book from Amazon in RMS' honor.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
How is he acting like an asshole? Can you please explain this to me. His open letter says
Bezos's letter reaffirms Amazon's continuing intention to engage in unrestricted patent warfare, saying that the decision of when and where to attack will be decided by "business reasons". I would gladly join Bezos in supporting a bill to limit software patents to 3 or 5 years, but I believe we must continue to criticize and boycott Amazon until such a bill is actually adopted--or until Amazon makes some other suitable change in its own conduct to justify a change in ours.
I read his open letter thrice and the above paragraph is the only one I saw that could be considered even mildly asshole-like. But what does it say
Amazon is abusing the patent system by primarily using patents as a weapon against competitors as opposed to a way to actually safegaurd their innovations.
He agrees with Jeff Bezo's that the length of software patents should be shortened and will support him in proposing reform.
Just because Amazon says they have changed doesn't mean we should just drop everything. We should wait first to see if their actions are as loud as their words.
/sarcasm >
< sarcasm > Yep, he sounds like a real asshole . <
There seems to be considerable debate about how long software patents should last: should it be 17 years? 5? 3? 6 months?
Perhaps the solution to this debate is some form of variable length patent. When someone applies for the patent, a length would be assigned to it, based on what would truly be helpful to the community. An exceptionally amazing innovation could receive the 10 years it needs to be fully developed and profitable, where as some of the more borderline patents would receive a much shorter time.
Of course, this would have some complications. First, we would be assuming that the patent office would be able to accurately judge the usefulness of a patent, which is quite an assumption in some peoples mind. The patent office would likely end up needing more staff and more technological training to accomplish this.
There is also the problem of appeals. If a patent applicant is not satisfied with the time assigned to them, should they have the right to appeal, thus adding more complication to an already overburdened process?
One click shopping (TM?) is great and all, but I use lynx, and dont click at all. Therefore this patent is useless to me.
Unless of course they specify keyboard clicks as well. Then again, I use a clickless keyboard. How specific is this patent, and how wide are the loopholes?
It's arguable that without RMS, there would be no open source movement. Not to say that he alone was responsible for it, but it probably would never happened without his work along with the work of others.
In today's business world where one's values can be bought and sold, it's nice to see someone who never changes his mind.
As for the GNU/Linux issue, he knows he didn't invent Linux, but Linux cannot exist without the large array of tools he created. I disagree that everyone should call it GNU/Linux mainly because if I use the MS VisualDev to create a program called Goober, I'm not going to refer to it as VisualDev/Goober. However, you have to let the guy have his opinion. Many in the open source community do not agree with RMS, but due to his outstanding contributions to the Open Source community, he IS respected.
Finkployd
I play string-bass in a Christian Blues band, and all the original tunes we write are protected by the "poor-Man's Copyright" -- quite simply, placing an original manuscript/recording in a package, date it, seal it, mail it to yourself, receive it in the mail, notorize it,and then DON'T open it UNTIL/UNLESS someone steals it from you.
Once the offending party meets you in the Deposition Room in a Court of Law, open the package (and notorize a statement claiming the package was untampered and inspected before offending witnesses). The defendant pays all court costs, and you win (you might not receive any punitive damages for "pain and suffereing" -- but then again, you didn't suffer any pain, did you ??) ....
Re-package the manuscript/recording, and include all notorized statements, INCLUDING one more stating the package has been re-sealed without tampering with the contents, and start over, in the event someone tries to pull this stunt on you again ....
It's free, it's painless, it's legal ... and no one gets short any $$ unless they're pulling something that's otherwise protected by Copyright Law ....
"He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
Are you insane? RMS is responsible for your so called open source movement. Without GNUs free tools (approximately 11% of your average linux distro including the free compiler gcc ) and the GPL there would be no Linux (because Linus wouldn't have had a free powerful compiler and no GPL to make sure code was distributed free (as in speech not as in beer).
Johnny-come-latelys to the open source scene (like you) disgust me by disrespecting the people who created and enrich the movement you claim to be a part off. Without RMS with his belief in completely free software inspiring us directly and indirectly (including yourself I'm sure) there would not be an open source movement there would be open source software (that has existed for decades) but it would not be the movement it is today.
That said I believe that even though Amazon fired the first shot they did so probably because they have been embroiled in conflict and various acts of litigation with B&N for a while now and they saw this as firing yet another salvo at B&N without realizing the broader ramifications of their actions. Jeff Bezos' recen t comments seem to confirm this.
We probably should give them the benefit of the doubt (i.e. don't assume they are evil yet) until their future actions prove otherwise.
I would rather function in an environment where the vast majority of incompetently assigned patents are never enforced upon an otherwise free market, rather than suffer a vast number of patents that never should have been validated in the first place be actually enforced.
A three to five year limit on software patents is ludicrous. The problem is not the timespan--the problem is the standard. One Slashdot poster mentions Unisys's patent on a basic linked list. Memepool posted the patent on (and I'm not kidding) using a laser to entertain a cat. Amazon's patent abuses are well documented.
The American software industry cannot be made to live in fear of an agency which has repeatedly argued its own infallibility in assigning patents in the face of widespread evidence to the contrary. The simple fact is that the market, not the courts should decide what providers prosper and what providers fail. Establishing monopolies out of the sheer act of provision is antithetical to everything we've learned about writing quality software, encouraging quality business, or even running a quality society.
The time allotment on a software patent is nothing more than a red herring. If somebody points a gun at me, and threatens to shoot me in the head, I am not going to try to negotiate for a less vital organ to be shot, or perhaps that the bullet could be of a lesser caliber. I'm going to fight, or I'm going to run, but I'm *not* going to stand there and agree that it's OK for me to get shot.
Accepting software patents, no matter how obvious they may be, for "not that long of a time" simply means that the jackpot for the patent claimjumpers has a quicker payoff.
This is the wrong direction to move in. Period. Remember, the status quo is that, for the most part, software patents do not exist. They are only defensively registered. Preventing the need for such a hidden tax is critical.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
And he's right. Amazon is the agreesor. He even agrees that holding software patents is a necessary evil.
O'reilly's messages were long winded marketing double-speak. You know, Amazon and O'reilly need each other. One makes the (damn good) books, the other sells 'em . They are not going to screw one of their sources or distributors too much.
RMS is right. Amazon should state that they will stop using patents as a first-strike weapon. Until then, no coder is safe out there....
RMS is right. I could quibble with his wording, but his basic point is spot-on: the political goal of substantive patent reform requires sustained pressure. A continued boycott campaign - that is, half boycott, half outreach to explain the hows and whys of the boycott - will help Amazon (not just Bezos) focused on following through.
There's no question that the ideals, methods, and social networks of the OS movement have an intense political potential. Some of that expresses itself in derivative ways, for example, by forcing businesses to reexamine their financial assumption, therefore act differently, therefore affecting employee/buyer/vendo, practices - "trickle-down" social impact. But even more important is to find ways to express those ideals, methods, and networks directly beyond the field of software.
A lot of that goes on already, but the more the merrier.