Slashdot Mirror
IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement
A large number of readers wrote in about IBM suing Amazon over commerce patents. The Ars Technica coverage linked is one of the few sources that goes beyond the brief AP or Reuters stories that everyone is running. Here is IBM's press release. Some of the patents in question go back to the 80s and they do seem to pretty much wrap up the idea of online commerce, if they prove valid. IBM says many others are licensing the patents but Amazon won't give them the time of day on the subject.
I guess there's some patent problem on /. too? :)
Looks like the monopoly-conviction-avoiding-patent-hoarding beast that is the true soul of IBM managed to escape for a few moments. I'm sure he will be back in his cage before the new IBM true-believers notice him.
As crazy as this patent insanity gets, I can't help but think of the phrase, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
IBM just wants amazon to let them use the heralded one-click "invention" without royalties. this is their first offer.
My first thought on this was that one of the criteria of granting a patent is that the concept is "non-obvious". And when I saw that one of the patents was "Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue", I thought "that's very obvious!".
Based on the number, it's the earliest one, and the article summary says the patents go back to the '80s. TFA says it was filed in 1990. Was it so non-obvious then? If we think back to the "dawn of the public Internet", and realize this was before the general public was let loose on it, it might seem so.
But, while the Internet was still the domain of geeks, academics, and scientists, and not open to the public, there were still lots of online services like Prodigy, CompuServe, and AOL back then, and IIRC, they had some nascent e-commerce going on, including catalog ordering, back then and before that. It would be interesting to see if that patent could be challenged on the basis of prior art and how that prior art evidence could be gathered.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
We'll, amazon has the one click patent; therfore, either IBM patent is obvious or the whole pattent system is severly screwed. These are the only two choices; dont compalin about the lack of choices so choose one.
US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.
Too bad Sears Roebuck didn't have the same idea a century ago, eh? Then non-inperson sales would never have existed...
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
The article says that Amazon is fighting unfairly against their competition with their One click patent. They are trying to close down other web sites. They just receive their own medicine. I'm sure these connoisseurs will appreciate it.
It hasn't since business methods and software have been patented. Check out the Eastern District of Texas. This is a popular venue for patent litigation plaintiffs. They apparently aren't inclined to waste a lot of time reviewing the original appropriateness of patents in the cases they hear. What's with the two seperate courts?
I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it's a decent story anyway.
IBM is negotiating with Sun regarding a patent of some sort (which one doesn't matter). Sun goes through this whole dog-and-pony about exactly where Sun's patent comes into play and how much it's going to cost IBM.
Long silence.
An IBM lawyer clears his throat and says they're going to go back to Armonk and dig through their thousands of patents and see just which ones Sun has violated since the company started.
IBM gets the patent license for free.
Like I said, no idea if it's true or not, but it's illustrative of the power of IBM and their patent catalog.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
a corporation can patent something as fundamental as this that would mean the whole damn patent system is screwed u... oh wait
Would some IBM legal staffer care to qualify what "property" has been taken from IBM? I doubt I'd consider these patents valid, however I'm not prepared to risk "willfull infringement" by reading them.
Is it possible that this is a veiled plan to finally destroy obvious process patents? Those patents are about as obvious and widely-scoped as they come. It really would take a case of this scale to finally cause some movement on patent reform, IMO.
Of course, I'm sure I'm being a bit too optimistic.
So, you're saying that Internet shopping was invented before the Internet?
-- Alastair
Doesn't SCO or somebody have it locked up with:
"A Method for Doing Stuff with Things" and
"A Method for Doing Stuff with Things Involving a Computing Device"?
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
Used to be 17 in the US until the GATT treaty - now they're 20 years. I was thinking the same thing though - some of these patents must be expired or getting pretty close to it.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
this peer review.. like peer patent trolls or peers in the industry, or are they just the peerless peer :)
.. ever
How these patent Nukes would effect sites:
US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.
oh like every ecommerce site
US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
there goes yahoo!
US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
Good bye Google
US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
ummm well at least theres still Use net
``IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement''
And so it begins...
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Well, I'm still waiting for my lawsuit to be put into place. I'm suing over patent infringement on the Patent System.
... ain't she, Jeff? Couldn't have happened to a slimier company.
Quite apart from this, Amazon supply a lot of books to IBM. The pair should be 'commercial friends', not competitors. Amazon don't do a lot of commercial solution providing and outsourcing.
Seriously, this patent shit has gotten completely out of control. I understand that people want to keep other people from stealing their ideas and profiting on them, but patenting a concept? Christ! Can I go ahead and put a patent on a virtually representing people or places over electronic media for communication purposes? Just because it's not mainstream now, doesn't mean it won't completely fuel commerce in 10-20 years. Would it make more sense for a patent to last 2 years: Just enough time to get a product to market first? This would still stifle industrial espionage without killing commerce 10-15 years down the road.
What exactly does IBM hope to accomplish with this? I can't think of any motivation besides milking Amazon for every penny.
IBM's patent portfolio is truly frightening in that the only thing preventing it from doing massive harm to the industry is self restraint and the enlightened self interest of wanting to remain relevant in the industry. Let's just hope their business never goes south. If you thought that the IP trolls that make money by buying the patents portfolios of failed start-ups was bad, just imagine the hell that will be unleashed if IBM enters a downward spiral and decides to "refocus the company revenue strategies on their intellectual property licensing opportunities".
A couple years ago in a thread surrounding the SCO vc IBM case, I made a reply to the background chorus of /.'s that were singing IBM's praises: i.e. how lucky FOSS was to have IBM's support. I was jumped when I suggested to hold back a little- I worked for IBM for a number of years, and stated that if mgmt thought it was in their interests, they would skin us all alive & sell the result in China as customized wetsuits.
... smiling the whole time & telling us "we were asking for it".
Man, I am absolutely telling you all again that IBM's "partnership" with FOSS is one of convenience only- if and when the time comes, IBM will without a doubt or a regret bend each and every one of us associated with FOSS over a chair
Isn't there a statute of limitations? If you wait 10 years until a company has money before you mention said patent you are out of luck. If there isn't there should be. After all it's easier to stop something small.
Patents used to be good for 17 years from the date they issued, now, patents are good for 20 years from the date of filing. Of course, the patent isn't in force until it is issued, which can take anywhere from 2-5+ years, so effectively, patents still last about the same time, just a difference in calculation to bring our system into accord with other nations.
They still had several years left in them back in 2002, when IBM first started trying to get Amazon to license these patents.
Big Blue simply want's Amazon to play nice and thus holds the mighty hammer over them until they decide to play with everyone else.... It would fit very nicely with their seemingly current strategy of responsibility yes even consideration - For instance look at the Danish case with secret agreements between companies which IBM is lookin into abolishing altogether thus living up to the vision about free movement of the workforce. They have really been showing some good sides lately, hope the mentioned patent move is one such move...
"Some of the patents in question go back to the 80s..."
Wow, I thought that patents were fairly short lived! Can someone tell a layman how long can software patents potentially crush innovation?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
So does US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities. mean that Google might be infringing also?
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities.
5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.
Note the algorithmic detail hidden in the patents hide some of the totally obvious "Hey isn't that common sense?" and "How can they patent that!?"
Of course I agree that on the surface, the patent claims are "insane" which is why Amazon ignores IBM. Almost as insane as a patten for a one-stop-buy button. The system is way broken, but read the patents yourselves to jump to the same conclusion.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
That was the year the US Government needed a faster, better, more accurate method to tally the census figures for the nation. By constitutional mandate, it was decreed that the census needed to be counted every 10 years. The census prior to the 1890 census had just been totalled by the time 1890 rolled around (it took 7 years to total the 1880 census) - it was feared that the new census would not be totalled before the next one was due, putting everything further behind. A new system was needed.
After various trials and tests, Herman Hollerith's electro-mechanical tabulation system, utilizing punch cards, won the day, processing the census in 2.5 years. His company and machines went on to perform many other functions with businesses (most notably with railroads and some department stores), governments, and other institutions which needed such processing.
Hollerith's company, the Tabulating Machine Company, later merged with others and was named the Computing Tabulating Recording (CTR) Corporation. Later, under the direction of Thomas J. Watson, the company was renamed "IBM".
Is it really any wonder about their patent portfolio regarding information technology?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You all owe me $10.00 each
I hold the patent on the concept of passing gas in a public vertical conveyance.
--
Send me my money...
--
That's what this patent crap smells like
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
... simply for correct usage and spelling of 'loose'. The actual contents are irrelevant, as insightful as they may be.
Worry not, some fearless chump is no doubt lobbying against them ever expiring!
I was allmost worried for a moment.
Perhaps you could elaborate. Being "clueless" I can't see how software patents could possibly be the ally of any Open Source programmer...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It's not the length of the patent that is killing inventions, it's the obviousness of the patent. There are a lot of inventions that required years to become sucessful after a patent was granted on them. The intent of the life expectancy of the patent was to reward the inventor for his innovation during his lifetime. Some industries would never see a return on their investment if we limitted the life span of a patent. Drug companies have to patent their drugs before applying for FDA approval. If the drug makes it through the FDA approval process, which most do not, the drug company has two to three years to make their profit on the drug. The purpose of a patent is the granting of a limitted monopoly on the invention. Most inventions would not make it through the system without being out of date since it takes 3-4 years for a computer patent to make it through the system. The real problem is not the limitted monopoly granted by the patent office to the inventor. This incents the inventor to make new products. The real problem is criteria for patentability and the overwhelming number of submissions into the patent office. The system needs an overhaul and there must be a redefinition of obviousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_no n-obviousness. The patent office needs reform, but limitting the protections of the inventor isn't the right answer. Patents that declare a new use for a current invention should be invalidated. These inventions are called usage patents. They require no real thought. Just look for a different use of a current invention. Also, the fact you can patent a business process is bogus! If you eliminated business processes as patentable, then IBM would not have a case because most of these patents center around business processes. Eliminating business process patents,redefining obviousness, and limitting usage patents. are essential to the survival of the patent process.
Dude, what you describe sounds eerily exactly what the ePlus v. SAP patent infringement case is all about....damn!
h tml
see http://techdirt.com/articles/20050908/1059235_F.s
2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities.
5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.
Shit, if I knew you could patent the Internets I would have done so back in the 80's. In fact I'd go ahead and patent "free standing walk-up device through which lemonade may be dispensed for profit" and sue all those little bastards who infringe on my lemonade stand patent.
"Amazon sues SCO for copyright infringement"
It'll be like a triangle of lawsuits!
...a controversial patent by the Omni Corporation on "Nano Technology" has been passed. The patent is vague but includes the highly controversial paragraph of pateting everything under "100 nano meters".
We had an excluvsive interview with one of the originators a Noble priced Physicist and he had only one comment on the matter:
"...All your base are belong to us."