Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Asks Congress to Curb Patent Abusers

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the good-for-the-gander dept.

theodp writes "As Amazon urged Congress to change the law to protect the e-tailler from patent abusers, Rep. Lamar Smith had a question: 'Could not Amazon.com be accused of being a troll for patenting the one-click?' Smith asked, a wry smile on his face." While it's nice to see to see tech companies behind such legislation, it would seem there's some pots calling the kettle black, so to speak.

8 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Lamer Smith calling anybody else a troll? by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Lamar Smith had a question: 'Could not Amazon.com be accused of being a troll for patenting the one-click?' Smith asked, a wry smile on his face."


    So Lamer Smith, the guy who pushed for DMCA2 in April this year, obviously knows there is a problem with this wry comment, but it takes a patent troll like Amazon to push the issue before Congress? The guy shouldn't have such a smug smile on his face.
    1. Re:Lamer Smith calling anybody else a troll? by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't Amazon that pushed this problem into Congress's lap but the fact that they all almost lost their Blackberries over the RIM case.

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  2. Stop me, before I patent again... by hackwrench · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps what Amazon is really saying is that if companies weren't allowed to take out stupid patents, it wouldn't have to take out stupid patents to defend itself.

  3. Re:who cares by jazman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > If you have a "loser pays" technique, then the larger companies are just going to drown the small man into debt.

    Only if you implement it in the most retarded way possible: big company determines what loser pays. Why do Americans always assume that's the only way to implement it?

    In the UK we have loser pays and the courts recognise drowning someone in debt is not the solution, so the judge determines what the loser pays based on the loser's means. This can mean the winner scores a legal victory but still loses out financially, which is an incentive for the big company to settle out of court, which is no bad thing.

  4. Sensible rules by Flying+pig · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Priority is from the date of first application. NOT the claimed date of invention (submarine patents anyone)

    Once a patent is applied for, the applicant has a cooling off period in which to decide whether to go through the whole process or to talk to other people about licensing (this helps small inventors)

    The holder of a patent MUST either manufacture themselves or license manufacturing rights to any second parties on the same terms. The penalties for patent infringement shall be limited to legal costs plus the average current licensing rate for the goods sold to date. (If there are NO goods currently employing the patent, the licensing rate will be zero.)

    Mathematical algorithms, natural laws and anything which has been created by a natural process (e.g. DNA sequences) cannot be patentable.

    It shall not be possible to patent any business process simply because it is carried on in a different medium (e.g. one click is basically walking into shop, handing over money, receiving goods in exchange, and should not be patentable simply because it is computer implemented.)

    Basically, the European patent system before the US and Microsoft started lobbying and threatening in order to try and break it.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  5. Re:A simple fix for patents by penix1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a better, simpler cure:

    1.) Forbid "method patents". This would include software and business methods.
    2.) Forbid "naturally occurring" patents. This would include genome sequences.
    3.) Require a WORKING prototype before issuance.

    Just those 3 would go a long way to eliminating patent trolls.

    B.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  6. Re:Our Tax Dollars At Work, People by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do we protect intellectual property without going absurd?

    Here's a question for you: Is it not a bit absurd, in and of itself, to presume that ideas, a nonrival, infinitely replicatable good, can -ever- be considered or treated as property?

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  7. Patents don't have any meaning by Steeltoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are talking like there are people reading patents for gaining knowledge, instead of fearing lawsuits.

    Try it sometime, I dare you..

    Then we're back to the days when people hide their research to protect it

    Research is rarely patented in the universities. Everybody gains from the shared knowledge, without patents. Patents stifles this process.

    , and development progress grinds to a halt again where every company reinvents the wheel. Lots of unnecessarily wasted resources.

    Everybody is reinventing the wheel already with closed source, and to avoid patent royalities. Now that is waste.

    The cure is open standards, open science, open mathematics, open source, free software, etc.. etc.. Everybody benefits and gains value from open systems. Patents are not open systems, since it is based on fear, extortion and greed, rather than sharing a common good.

    --
    http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/