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.
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
----
That should be (Score:5, Funny)!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
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.
Not quite. It will prove prior art, if documented properly. I mean, it's the same as just having logbooks detailing your work from the period, except that you get it notarized before putting it in the envelope and then have the registered mail logs to prove the date it was mailed.
Then if you need proof of prior art, you've got it.
But, the problem with patents is that simultaneous (provable) independant invention doesn't invalidate the patent, like it should. (If two people can come up with it at the same time, how worthy of protection as unique, can the idea possibly be?)
Anyways, this method isn't a specific defense against anything patent related, but can really help, because it makes what is otherwise an easily fakeable log book into fairly convincing evidence.
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.
Why do you think that no-one else would have started a compiler project if RMS hadn't?
Come to think of it, why do you think that no-one else woudl have started a compiler project even if RMS had? You can get lcc from here or bcc from here.
Granted, I belive that gcc is a better compiler than bcc or lcc, but that's mainly because it is the most popular, and much work has been put into improving it by various parties. If gcc had not existed, and say bcc had been the standard compiler most people chose, then I'm sure that it's code generation & the number of targets would be as good as gcc's.
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.