Slashdot Mirror
Bezos Patents Information Exchange
theodp writes "Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was handed a patent Tuesday for Information exchange between users of different web pages. Tough to tell what exactly it might cover ('various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention'), although RSS Newsreaders, TrackBacks, and Google News come to mind. Elements of Bezos' invention may evoke a sense of deja vu in those who used Third Voice or the Annotation Engine."
Clearly, this is an attempt to patent information transfer of an absurdly ordinary kind and we should all run around in circles of indignation without reading the actual patent or having any context whatsoever for the headline, which is as usual inflammatory.
I can't believe he's trying to patent all forms of information transfer on the internet! This is absurd and an example of why IP is wrong or its application corrupt!
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
...the information exchange system provides a client-side component and a server-side component. The client-side component executes on a user's computer, and the server-side component executes on an information exchange computer. The client-side component, which may be a browser plug-in, a proxy server, or other type of program, monitors a user's access to web pages. When a web page is accessed...
Does that not make you want to retch? Legitimizing spyware with patents.
At least one can be fairly confident it won't "plug-in" to things not Windows.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Wikipedia? Yeah I guess so, but I think Bezos has patented the whole idea of the World Wide Web. A bunch of users, with a bunch of content, all linked to each other when some sort of relevant information is available.
Can you say "Prior Art?" We knew you could.
At first glance, this appears to cover any sort of web-based forum, such as Slashdot. At least ones that allow users to post comments vieweable by other users.
/. may be their primary target :-)
Then again,
I'll have to sit down and read over the 3 primary claims again (1,9,16), but I'll bet this thing's got P.A. all over it. Especially since they only cited *2* references, and thiese ideas have been out there for quite a while.
I understand the need to complain about the patents that are issued over software in the US, but let me ask a question. Has anyone thought that articles such as this might later be used as evidence that OSS programmers should have been aware of the existence of the patent, and set them up for the triple damages provision of patent law?
Just a thought.
You say
One of the things I've noticed on these software patents is that they often list the CEO of the company as one of the inventors. While that may be true some of the time, I wonder if Bezos is *really* one of the inventors of this technology under the definitons of US patent law.
It is an important point, becuase NOT having the correct inventors is one of the ways a patent can be ruled invalid or fraudulent (which I forget) in court.
A) one against bn.com 5 years ago.
Patents are defensive as well as offensive, also amazon has it's own notation prior ar
The problem is not with software patents. The problem is that the Patent Office is handing out all sorts of patents left right and center, without checking for prior art or non-obviousness. And there's no way to effectively dispute it without spending millions going to court.
Just because the current system has been abused beyond all recognition does not mean that the concept of software patents is a bad thing.
So if Bezos wants to waste his money on lawyers, good for him.
Bezos has the money to spend on patents. College students in a garage developing Amazon++ don't. The threat of legal action shuts them down. That's why patents shouldn't be granted like that. A suit for anything else would get thrown out as frivolous. Once you have a patent, you have to spend money to get it invalidated. Uncool, and unconstitutional. Instead of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts," it hinders it.
You know the patent is complete bullshit when they start adding in things like:
... then fine.
various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention
Especially when the patent itself is already vague. If you were the first to design and build a piston-driven internal combustion engine, and you want to cover different sized pistons, different numbers of pistons, and different piston formations (V, I, radial, etc)
But when your patent is already vague, ie 'a different method for doing something that tons of people already do' and then you add 'various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention' you're basically asking the patent office to give you the right to rip everyone else off.
You know what I think the patent office needs to do? Suspend granting any more software patents until they can get their ass in shape. Maybe _no_ software patents is the answer, maybe _some_ software patents is the answer, I don't know. All I know is that the current system is complete bullshit, rubbish, etc and needs to be put on hiatus until we can properly figure out what the hell is going on and what constitutes ingenuity in software.
I mean there are so many stupid/unfair/vague software patents out there, does anybody really need to take them seriously? Can't some ambitious lawyers come up with a way to show the absolute ridiculousness of software patents and get the courts to rule them ALL null and void?
Meh.
To an extent, the people locked in the game are almost, but not quite, the victims. You can't reasonably say fsckit I'm not playing the patent game any longer - the others would be onto you like a pack of hungry street dogs attacking a weakened comrade. The USPTO loves the fact that they're processing heaps of patents and generating nice revenue. It makes them look powerful and important. Like the arms race, the only people that won out of it were the arms suppliers - not the recers themselves.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If we want to go back to first principles, start by asking what the purpose of a 'patent' is. Then see if software patents achieve, or are ever likely to achieve that purpose.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Does anyone else see this getting shot down as prior art in court?
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!