Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the who-are-the-good-guys-again? dept.

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.

7 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. An old slogan comes to mind by Kelson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As crazy as this patent insanity gets, I can't help but think of the phrase, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

  2. what IBM wants by wardk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IBM just wants amazon to let them use the heralded one-click "invention" without royalties. this is their first offer.

  3. Re:Prior Art? by AdamKG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be interesting, but, in the long run, ultimately futile.

    I for one do not beleive patents are in and of themselves a bad thing. The problem with patents is that the best way to use them, business-wise, is to patent obvious things, obfuscate that in your application, and then sue, sue, sue. There are ways to reward innovation that do not encourage this model, however, and that is what we should adopt.

    So, how? I would argue that we should use a method in which patents are universal, that is, a patent holder can either keep everyone from using his patent, or no one. Thus, the impetus is on the filer to file a good patent, so that a company or a consortium of companies (or, potentially, the USPTO if they weren't such a mess) would buy/liberate/open the patent. At that point, it would be open competition on the free market. Companies would no doubt try and pay as little as possible for patents, but that's the case as well today. The gains would be well worth it: Patent litigation would center on only issues of innovation and prior art, not on licensing follies. Innovating companies could continue to do full-time innovation, and the public would see dramatically reduced prices.

    I'm sure I'm missing things, of course, so feel free to point them out...

    --
    groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
  4. Re:Oops, the beast escaped by Fozzyuw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is this seriously all you have to do?

    IBM said that Amazon.com has willfully infringed and continues to infringe on a number of key IBM patents, including: 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.

    I'm going to patent "interacting in an interactive environment" and let the $ roll in for my 'patent'. Or maybe I can patent "doing stuff"? Or has that been taken already?

    What's more concerning, does this mean if I create my own shopping cart, review system, or recommendation system, that I can get sued from IBM? If I build my own car, will I get sued by Ford or GM? I guess I'll have to have sheep with lazers on their heads as "aquatic animals with lasers on their heads" might have been patented by now.

    Cheers,
    Fozzy

    --
    "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
  5. Re:But if by Phillup · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Normally I'd say you have a point, because I agree that the patent system is a load of BS, but at the time in which the patent was filed, I would very much doubt that e-commerce was as "fundamental" as you make it out to be.

    Name a form of communication that has NOT been used for commerce.

    --

    --Phillip

    Can you say BIRTH TAX
  6. No Kidding. by pavon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  7. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Mydron · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Without reading the actual applications, it sounds to me like that covers like 99% of anyone selling or storing anything on-line. I mean, WTF?
    Here's a tip: a patent's legal boundaries are NOT defined by it's title. As disappointing as it might be, you actually do have to read the patent and, in particular, its claims. The claims of a patent (in light of the patent's specification) define it's legal boundaries. Even the specification itself is not enough. I could describe every conceivable phenomena in the universe and the allowed claim might read: "A red thimble made out of tin with thirteen divots arranged in a circular pattern on the exterior of said thimble." Clearly I've patented much less than all conceivable phenomena.

    The title of a patent is intentionally broad. The issue is that otherwise patent infringer's can argue in court that they earnestly looked for applicable patents before they implemented their widget but they couldn't find any such patents. They will argue that if they did infringe they did so by accident. (Patent holders get thrice damage from infringer's who willfully infringe compared to infringer's who do so by accident.) A patent holder doesn't care to entertain such arguments so they intentionally title their patents very broadly, thus ameliorating the issue.