IBM Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement

Petersko writes "It appears Amazon is about to be sued for patent infringement by IBM". From the article: "Hundreds of other companies have licensed the same patents, and IBM has tried to negotiate licensing deals with Amazon "over a dozen times since 2002," Kelly said. Amazon.com, which has bought a lot of hardware from Hewlett-Packard Co. over the years but not IBM, has allegedly refused every time."

Comments

OneClick?

[J053]

I sure hope OneClick is among them.

Re:OneClick?

[daterabytez]

If anything, this is a perfect example of why Amazon must keep patents. Our patent system is so broke the only way to defend yourself from "evil" companies like SCO is to stock your own ammunition.

It's like nuclear proliferation, until every company in the world signs a treaty, you have to continue to stockpile patents. Amazon officials have said in numerous interviews, patents are taken whenever they can be granted under the current (broken) system to prevent someone else from patenting an idea and turning around and suing THEM.

• See Jeff's comments here: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/ask_tim/2000/ bezos_0300.html
• And other links here: http://www.oreilly.com/news/patent_archive.html

Amazon is not playing the IP company (like SCO and others) that sits around and looks for people to sue, they sue when needed to protect their patents, which they taken whenever possible to protect themselves from being on the other end of the warhead. If we could just fix this broke system none of this would be needed. As long as the patent office will allow something like 1-Click to be patented, companies like IBM, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, eBay, and others must aggressively seek patents just to protect themselves.

Re:OneClick?

[Serveert]

Getting the 1 click patent was about protection, sure. Except it used it to stop a competitor, a competitor who wasn't threatening any patent lawsuits. I see this lawsuit against Amazon as a way to punish Amazon for their past behavior. I kinda like this lawsuit actually.

Re:OneClick?

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to companies the size of Amazon, no patent is about protection. If they wanted to protect their "invention", they could have published it, thereby putting it in the public domain and preventing anyone else from suing Amazon at a later date. If a company like Amazon patents something, the implication is that they plan to extract money from others using the invention (through licensing or legal action). This is not a defensive action, it's an Intellectual Property land grab - an offensive action.

Re:OneClick?

[daterabytez]

When it comes to companies the size of Amazon, no patent is about protection. If they wanted to protect their "invention", they could have published it, thereby putting it in the public domain and preventing anyone else from suing Amazon at a later date. If a company like Amazon patents something, the implication is that they plan to extract money from others using the invention (through licensing or legal action). This is not a defensive action, it's an Intellectual Property land grab - an offensive action.

This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the patent system. As obvious as an idea is, it still might be a business advantage over those who do not yet do it, so publishing every single idea a company has is not a good way to stay in business. Additionally, as Jeff says in the quotes I linked in the parent post, many ideas seemed so obvious they weren't patented, but in retrospect, it was a mistake.

Patents are only made valid when companies enforce them. Take trademarks, for example... this is why Google had to make at least an effort to prevent people from using the term as a verb - only by doing so can they purport to keep the trademark. Patents are the same, only by "defending their patent" can they ensure someone else couldn't have it thrown out in court. Then the next time some company sues Amazon for something mind-numbingly obvious, Amazon won't be able to say "yeah, but you are accepting orders here with one click, so drop it and we'll call it even".

Unless you've published a paper on "A method by which one clicks submit on a Slashdot post which contains false, misleading, or uninformed claims" some company could patent it and sue you right now and despite the obvious nature of posting BS on Slashdot, without patents of your own to throw in their face, you could be stuck loosing millions fighting it in court.

It all boils down to a broken system allowing BS patents in the first place, but don't hate the player, hate the game.

Almost a month old

[jpetts]

Dupe.

Re:Almost a month old

[LiquidCoooled]

Its not a dupe, IBM had to double sue because Amazon have a patent on single click lawsuits.

Re:Almost a month old

[Ruff_ilb]

That's the point...

Re:Almost a month old

[nwbvt]

And to make matters worse, the slashdot summary reads "It appears Amazon is about to be sued..."

Did someone misread the month and think this story is about something that happens Novemeber 23, or tomorrow?

Re:Almost a month old

[darkmeridian]

The law restricts what a patent holder may do with his government-granted monopoly. For example, the patentee cannot enter into a licensing deal lasting longer than the remaining term on his patent. Nor can a patentee try to corner a particular market by buying up all the patents necessary to compete in that field. (It would be another story if the patentee innovated all the patents, but not if he just bought all of them.)

If IBM sued Amazon partly because Amazon wouldn't buy IBM hardware, then this is arguably an unlawful extension of IBM's patent power. I cannot license a patent on software, for example, on terms that change depending on how much hardware I buy from you. That would be bundling, which is bad.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matte rs-9208.html

Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out that Big Blue has a business method patent on abusing the patent system. Amazon should have seen that coming.

Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Our system has become based on the ridiculous premise that all inventors come up with ideas that nobody else could possibly have come up with.

The patents system has devolved to be that if you are the first to file a piece of paper .. regardless of how obvious your idea is .. you win a monopoly on it for 20 years (with possible infinite extension via mickey mouse legislators).

Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you). It's like a winner of a race claiming that if it wasn't for him, nobody else would have crossed the finish line.

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with who did what first, it's about who filed what papers first and where, and gets away with it. I.e. Tesla's design used by Marconi, who filed something that didn't work. Guess who made the money and who is "remembered" as the father or radio? Yup, the fraud, not the inventor.

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree.

A good analogy would be the development of a race car. IBM is like the company that perhaps developed a car or two. Reasonable patents would probably be on the engine design, electronics, etc. Instead, however, the patent office has granted it the patent to "race cars"; disallowing anyone else from developing their own engines, electronics, or what have you, and putting it all together.

Is the difference so hard to comprehend in technological contexts that the patent board is unable to differentiate between the two?

Re:Patents

[QuantumG]

On slashdot it doesn't matter if you're the first to do it, no-one else had ever thought of doing it, and no-one knew how to do it until you did it.. if the method can be explained in a sentence this audience is more than willing to call it "obvious" then make some claim about how something completely unrelated (that is also obvious) could be covered by the patent under question and therefore declare that not only will the lawsuit fail but the patent will be revoked by royal decree.

Re:Patents

[foobsr]

if the method can be explained in a sentence this audience is more than willing to call it "obvious"

And I would bet that many other audiences would do as well. Those are commonly believed to have common sense of sorts.

CC.

Re:Patents

[QuantumG]

Sigh. If I were to ask you how to do some technical task, without telling you how I am doing it, and you were to tell me my method, then it would be fair to say that it is obvious.. simple != obvious.

Re:Patents

[Cow Jones]

It's like a winner of a race claiming that if it wasn't for him, nobody else would have crossed the finish line.

Thank you, AC, that's a very nice analogy.

Re:Patents

[trentblase]

Our system has become based on the ridiculous premise that all inventors come up with ideas that nobody else could possibly have come up with.

The system is not premised on the idea that nobody else could have come up with the idea. The system encourages people to take their ideas and reduce them to practice. Having the invention filed with the government exposes the knowledge to the public, who benefit where the alternative is keeping the details a secret.

The patents system has devolved to be that if you are the first to file a piece of paper .. regardless of how obvious your idea is .. you win a monopoly on it for 20 years (with possible infinite extension via mickey mouse legislators).

Unlike some other countries, the US is not a first-to-file jurisdiction. Instead, it is a first-to-invent jurisdiction, generally giving rights to the first person to come up with the idea. Furthermore, obviousness is a bar to patentability (although a challenger is not allowed the benefit of hindsight when making this obviousness determination). Except in very strange circumstances (usually involving government appropriation of defense-related inventions) there is no way to extend patent rights beyond 20 years. The mickey mouse legislators you refer to are dealing with copyright. Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you). It's like a winner of a race claiming that if it wasn't for him, nobody else would have crossed the finish line.

The limited rights given to a patent holder is one of the main incentives that drives the metaphorical race you describe. Without patents, things would surely be invented... just not as quickly. And once they were, the details would be kept completely secret, robbing value to society. Without patents, here's how the race would go: once the winner reaches the finish line, all the other runners are instantly transported to the finish line and given gold metals. So what is the incentive for any one runner to be first? Nobody would run. They would more likely meander indifferently towards the finish line.

I'm not some crazy lover of patents. I believe that some reform is in order. But the basic premise makes sense in our currently capitalist business environment.

Re:Patents

[GIL_Dude]

That sounds like a reasonable test to me. I certainly haven't researched the patents involved here, and CNN wasn't very helpful about any details, however in just reading the article it says that they patented and ordering system using an online catalog. I think that would certainly meet the definition of "obvious". I don't know if they have some totally non-obvious stuff in the patent, or just a bunch of long words that mean "online ordering system", but if it really is just "an online ordering system with a catalog" - then hell - that's obvious.

Re:Patents

[bonhomme_de_neige]

Sigh. If I were to ask you how to do some technical task, without telling you how I am doing it, and you were to tell me my method, then it would be fair to say that it is obvious.. simple != obvious.

Unfortunately it's a prisoners' dilemma, because once I've told you the method, it's easy for you to claim that was what you were going to do anyway, and I have no way of proving otherwise.

Similarly, if you tell me your method first then it's easy for me to claim _that_ as what I was going to tell you. Whoever volunteers the information first risks having their idea claimed by the other person.

So this test would never happen in practice (about anything you might seriously want to patent anyway), and thus we need different measures of obviousness (new word?)...

Although I agree that a lot of things that are not obvious can be described in one sentence, once you know what they are. Gravity is a good example - it took thousands of years for someone to write down a theory, but that theory is one sentence long.

Re:Patents

[Eskarel]

As of a few months ago the US was passing laws to become a first to file nation, don't know what became of that, but it's likely that sometime in the not too distant future it won't be first to invent anymore(first to invent is way to expensive and difficult to administer).

Re:Patents

[foobsr]

you were to tell me my method

Not the method, but the concept, IMHO. Like in: keep record of your products (file cards, inventory), have a way to display it to your customers (printed catalog), have a way to tell them what they want (mail order), ... you got the point.

To make it short: software (among other things) cannot be patented. Imagine someone comes up with a "real" AI passing Turing. Get sued, you "improperly" make use of IP.

CC.

Re:Patents

[QuantumG]

Most every patent that is reported on slashdot or in other media as being a patent of some idea is a result of the person making the report not knowing how to read a patent application. In the rare occurance that such a patent is granted, it is never enforced because the lawyers who are called upon to enforce such patents know they won't be able to.

Re:Patents

[Dunbal]

Imagine someone comes up with a "real" AI passing Turing. Get sued, you "improperly" make use of IP.

      Not if the one filing suit is the AI... well, it could happen!

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

first to invent is way to expensive and difficult to administer).

Especially when you
* divert funds collected for such a system to other areas of government
* leave the systems ambigously defined (e.g. "not an invention obvious to others in the field")

Re:Patents

[Wolfier]

If I had my mod points, I'd be modding you down cold.

Our system has become based on the ridiculous premise that all inventors come up with ideas that nobody else could possibly have come up with.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? The patent system is to encourage people to elevate their ideas into tangible implementations, and bring them public. Ideas are a dime a dozon - that worth almost nothing on their own.
If you reach the same implementation independently - too bad - no system is perfect and that includes the patent system. The police system is imperfect but I doubt anyone would call for its abolishment. Same for democracy. In this case, the patent system does not preclude you from being the first in the next invention - so in the long run it is still fair. Think of it this way - all patents in existence can be worked around - there's nothing that prevents you from doing your research and implement the same idea in a different way. Someone may have a monopoly but at least their implementation is in the open and in 20 years it'll become public domain. Society wins.
On the other hand, the inventor of the implementation might choose to keep it a secret. There's no monopoly, but it can remain a secret for 300 years. Society loses.

The patents system has devolved to be that if you are the first to file a piece of paper .. regardless of how obvious your idea is .. you win a monopoly on it for 20 years (with possible infinite extension via mickey mouse legislators).

Again, you might have confused between the idea and the implementation. The idea or the end result is very probably obvious, the implementation may not be.
Also, unlike copyright, patents cannot be extended, period.

Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you). It's like a winner of a race claiming that if it wasn't for him, nobody else would have crossed the finish line.

I'll copy one of the replies here: without a patent, once somebody reaches the finish line, everyone else is suddenly teleported to the finish line without running. It's extremely unfair to the person who actually runs - in fact, it's the real premise of the patent system: without some sort of monopoly, implementations will be copied by freeloaders who don't spend a cent in research.

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea or the end result is very probably obvious, the implementation may not be.

If the implementation is not obvious, then there are ideas needed for it to work .. correct?

Anyway .. the original post was NOT saying that a patent system should not exist. If you read it properly you would have noticed words such as "has become" or "devolved" .. meaning the current patent system has CHANGED from offering at incentive for developing ideas to one that rewards filing paperwork on an idea. Basically, the patent system should exist .. but it must not grant extended 20 year monopolies for trivial and obvious things that a 5 year monopoly would suffice for.

Do you have problems reading what you quote?

Also, patents CAN be extended .. they used to be 14 years .. now they are 20 years. Patents that originally were given a 14 year monopoly in the 80's got extended to 20 years. Who knows if when some big corporations current patents are about to expire they won't push for another extension. The pharmaceuticals have already made rumblings about this.

Re:Patents

[foobsr]

is a result of the person making the report not knowing how to read a patent application

Claims, yes. Disclaimer: IANAL, nor even a U.S. citizen.

In the rare occurance that such a patent is granted

Like here: http://www.slingshots.com/html/wrist-braced-slings hot.html

it is never enforced because the lawyers who are called upon to enforce such patents know they won't be able to

Yes, enforcing surely would not conform to business ethics.

CC.

Re:Patents

[GospelHead821]

Although this does not pertain to an obvious idea, the patent office has always operated on the principle that the first to file is granted the patent. Alexander Graham Bell secured a patent for the telephone hours before rival Elisha Gray filed for a telephone patent.

Re:Patents

[juergen]

The limited rights given to a patent holder is one of the main incentives that drives the metaphorical race you describe. Without patents, things would surely be invented... just not as quickly. And once they were, the details would be kept completely secret, robbing value to society. Without patents, here's how the race would go: once the winner reaches the finish line, all the other runners are instantly transported to the finish line and given gold metals. So what is the incentive for any one runner to be first? Nobody would run. They would more likely meander indifferently towards the finish line.

So let's assume there are no patents laws, and companies keep their inventions secret. Amazon.com "invents" one-click shopping. How the f* are they going to keep it secret *and* benefit from it?

Clearly patents do not enrich the public here, since Amazon would implement one-click shopping with or without patents since it benefits their bussiness. On the other hand, patents do cause huge problems for SMEs and new, innovative challengers, because the established companies have a HUGE club to swing at them.

Patents in the field of IT tend to protect ideas, not implementation, and hence run counter to the original idea of patents.

Patents, especially in the field of IT, are more harmful than beneficial to society nowadays. Period.

Maybe one way out would be to only allow patents on inventions that could reasonably be kept secret while exploiting them. That would rule out crazy patents like bussiness schemes & maths, although I can't see how to implement an objective review on this.

Jürgen

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent system is to encourage people to elevate their ideas into tangible implementations, and bring them public.

What a fancy ideal. Pity it has little resemblance to how the patent system is actually used.

On the other hand, the inventor of the implementation might choose to keep it a secret. There's no monopoly, but it can remain a secret for 300 years. Society loses.

Now this is truly funny. Let me rewind a bit... ah, there it is.. "Our system has become based on the ridiculous premise that all inventors come up with ideas that nobody else could possibly have come up with." Notice that "ridiculous premise" part? Yeah, that's right, that exact ridiculous premise you cling to. Hate to break it to you, but it's a fiction.

Also, unlike copyright, patents cannot be extended, period.

Again, what a fancy ideal. I sure the moment someone attacks the patent system your brain shuts off and you go blindly into defend mode, but do try sometime actually look into how the current patent system is misused and abused. It's quite different from how you apparently believe it works.

I'll copy one of the replies here: without a patent, once somebody reaches the finish line, everyone else is suddenly teleported to the finish line without running. It's extremely unfair to the person who actually runs - in fact, it's the real premise of the patent system: without some sort of monopoly, implementations will be copied by freeloaders who don't spend a cent in research.

I'm sure there are some out there who do but forth effort and resources into what they patent. Take a look at what is being patented sometime, and you will see that they are rare. Much of what is patented does not have any invested resources behind them, rather, they are patents by freeloaders (yeah, you read that right) who jump in and grab the obvious. Yes, the freeloads who filch off of those who spend considerable resources developing, certifying, marketing, manufacturing, and delivering to market products to end users.

Re:Patents

[Niten]

Keep in mind that the primary motives for the creation of the patent system went beyond encouraging innovation. Prior to the advent of patents, inventors would often attempt to maintain an advantage over their competitors by keeping their inventions as trade secrets. Patents were created by the government as an incentive for inventors to give up their trade secrets to the public domain in exchange for a temporary monopoly on those ideas, so that other inventions and innovations could be built on top of them.

I agree that the United States patent system has gotten quite out of hand in recent years, especially with the proliferation of software and other "soft" patents. However, limiting your argument to the innovation facilitation rationale for patents does not do the debate justice.

Re:Patents

[nacturation]

Sigh. If I were to ask you how to do some technical task, without telling you how I am doing it, and you were to tell me my method, then it would be fair to say that it is obvious.. simple != obvious.

Something like the One-Click patent would fail using this criteria. Any decent web developer back when it was introduced could have duplicated the implementation given only the business problem to solve. The credit card info is in a database; if we want to tie that to the user, we'll need to find a way to have the browser persist some kind of reference to the database record; the best way for a browser to store information between sessions is via cookies; when the user returns to the site, grab the cookie, retrieve the database record, and pre-populate all the shopping information. Voila... one-click shopping.

Re:Patents

[Wolfier]

First, everything I said is an ideal - as when the patent system was first introduced. It's how everything is SUPPOSED to work. "Fancy" or not, it's just your subjective feel and you're free to label what I say whatever you like.

Now, by the human nature of laziness, some rules are not enforced enough so they work. It's the fault of the enforcers, not the system. Again, I'm going to put the patent system in the same category with police and democracy. They fill useful purposes. People are misusing them. Well, the fault is in the people - maybe the system needs some adjustments, but not the fundamental ones on which the entire system is based.

I sure the moment someone attacks the patent system your brain shuts off and you go blindly into defend mode, but do try sometime actually look into how the current patent system is misused and abused. It's quite different from how you apparently believe it works.

Having witnessed first hand how patents are abused, I believe I can tell what is ideal and what is reality - I believe it's how it should work.

As for your personal attack about my brain being "shut off and go blindly into defend mode", reply with a real login and we can talk, coward.

Re:Patents

[QuantumG]

and yet no-one did. Why? Because the practice at the time was to never store credit card information. This solution was only "obvious" to people who had no concept of basic security precautions. As such, the rules were somewhat relaxed for this patent as a tribute to Amazon actually having the balls to advertise to the world that they were not following best practices.

Re:Patents

[kimvette]

But. . . It's on the Internet. That's INNOVATION! ;)

Re:Patents

[TommydCat]

Well then I, for one, welcome our new patent-filing AI overlords. At least we'll never have to think for ourselves again!

Re:Patents

[idlake]

The system encourages people to take their ideas and reduce them to practice.

Unfortunately, it doesn't: many patents these days are of the form "wouldn't it be nice if someone made ... work".

Requiring a working prototype would do a great deal towards cleaning up the patent mess (in addition to doing a better job on prior art and obviousness).

Re:Patents

[m0rph3us0]

Patents cannot be extended unlike copyright. The term is still 17 years. The only way to make a patent longer is to refile it with additional details before it gets approved.

Re:Patents

[arose]

The system encourages people to take their ideas and reduce them to practice. Having the invention filed with the government exposes the knowledge to the public, who benefit where the alternative is keeping the details a secret.

How many people go digging through the huge pile of crap that a patent database represents when they need to make something, say an online shop?

Re:Patents

[arose]

I'm not the AC, but I would very much like you to explain why patents can not be extended in the same way copyright was, the AC may have been a bit harsh, but the claim was compleatly unsuported.

Re:Patents

[nacturation]

True, but your criteria was that given the task someone could come up with the same method as you. Of course, I haven't actually read the patent itself to know whether or not my description is essentially the same as Amazon's but on the surface developing the method to implement it does seem obvious, once the task has been stated.

Re:Patents

[QuantumG]

Obviousness is only one possible criteria for patent acceptance. If your invention is significantly novel then its obviousness can be ignored. Amazon's one-click patent is a perfect example. Literally overnight a practice that was considered crazy became acceptable.. it was the skill of their implementation that made that possible. The method, "one click", was so novel you had to look past the obviousness of the implementation.

Re:Patents

[trentblase]

Reduction to practice can be actual or constructive. A prototype need not be built for the invention to have social use. See: http://www.smithhopen.com/glossary/default.asp?ID_ Glossary=38 saying:
Constructive reduction to practice is accomplished by the filing of a PATENT APPLICATION that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue research or experimentation.
If someone of ordinary skill in the art can make the invention without research, the public interest is served.

Re:Patents

[trentblase]

This happens all the time. When drug patents expire and the formulations are snapped up by generic manufacturers, do you think they spend money reinventing the wheel? Hell no, they look up the patent and use that to practically eliminate their design costs.

Re:Patents

[slashbart]

Without patents, things would surely be invented... just not as quickly.

Software is apparently excluded from this, considering the amazing pace of innovation for the last 20 years or so. The EU specifically blocked software patents early on in order to make sure this innovation would not be hindered by patents. Bart

Re:Patents

[Alioth]

Even the USPTO admit that most of the patents suck. They even have a term for good patents - they call them "Pioneer patents". Unfortunately, I can't find the article where they said this - but apparently, the USPTO say that only 5% of patents are truly novel "pioneer patents" - and the other 95% or pretty mundane.

I think the USPTO's direction should be changed so that ONLY pioneer patents (as they call them now) are awarded a patent - and the other 95% get rejected.

Re:Patents

[sasdrtx]

Bingo! Thw whole idea of a patent is based on the model of lots of research and development being expended to come up with an invention. To promote that research and development, a patent assures the inventor that those R&D costs can be recovered, without being undercut by competitors who have no such costs to amortize.

In software development, and business, there is no real research cost. Development cost is protected by copyright. So software and business patents are fundamentally bogus.

Frankly, I'm pretty well convinved that patents are completely unnecessary, at least in this era. In any case, they do more harm than good.

Re:Patents

[pla]

Except in very strange circumstances (usually involving government appropriation of defense-related inventions) there is no way to extend patent rights beyond 20 years.

Pharmaceutical companies have found ways to abuse that severely, such as patenting the drug itself, then five years later patenting the precursor, then five years later patenting the delivery system, and so on, all of which the FDA requires any potential generics to use exactly to claim bioequivalence.

I don't think any other industry has found quite such an egregious way to exploit regulations designed to protect the public, but never forget that the "20 years" idea only applies to a single patent. If you hold 10 time-staggered patents on the same thing, you have a patent until the expiration of the newest of them.

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

A prototype need not be built for the invention to have social use.

No, but it does need to be built in order to prove that the applicant isn't blowing smoke up the examiner's ass.

If someone of ordinary skill in the art can make the invention without research, the public interest is served.

Yeah; too bad that many patents don't meet that standard. That's why people who apply for patents should be forced to demonstrate that.

Dup check

[$exyNerdie]

This was already discussed in October!! http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/23/18 14217

Re:Dup check

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded this Offtopic/Troll? He's right! Mod him redundant if you must, but please, mods, show some sense!

Re:Dup check

[megaditto]

[...] but please, mods, show some sense!

You want us to get sued by IBM for infringing upon their Sense patents?

Re:Dup check

[Dunbal]

please, mods, show some sense!

      You must be new here ;)

Statement should read...

[iSeal]

The first paragraph in the article states:

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Key aspects of Amazon.com Inc.'s retailing Web site are improperly built on technologies developed at IBM Corp., Big Blue alleged Monday in two lawsuits against Amazon.

It should read:

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Key aspects of Amazon.com Inc.'s retailing Web site are improperly built on very general concepts involving technology developed at IBM Corp., Big Blue alleged Monday in two lawsuits against Amazon.

Re:Statement should read...

[Morphine007]

meh... semantics ;-)

Re:Statement should read...

[tilandal]

Some ideas that seem obvious now were not so obvious 25 years ago. For example, Changing a web page based on a users previous habits. If storing a users data so they can buy without entering it is valid a valid patent then generating dynamic content based on a users browsing habbits is at least as patent worthy.

Re:Statement should read...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Given that a user is already recognized by a website, what actual innovation is represented by oneclick?

Re:Statement should read...

[Tim C]

Cute, and I see your point, but that's not what IBM are alleging at all. IBM has said "Hey, we invented those technologies and patented them - cough up!". Whether or not that's true doesn't change the nature of the allegation one bit. If I say the sky is green, the fact that it isn't doesn't change my allegation at all; it just makes me obviously wrong.

amazon

[Feyr]

amazon had it coming. you reap what you sow.

that said, patent lawsuits are still dumb

Re:amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

i wear what i sew!

Re:amazon

[Feyr]

you sir, are dumb. may i suggest a dictionnary?

sow

Re:amazon

[__aaclcg7560]

Considering what he's wearing, I don't think a dictionary will cover it. :P

Re:amazon

[sabernet]

I wanna be the first to patent the "one click lawsuit". ;)

Re:amazon

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sorry, there's prior art on that joke right at the top of the thread... :-)

Simple solution

[edwardpickman]

Make lawyers a minimum wage job. All the lawsuits are costing the public a fortune and has placed the court system in perminate gridlock. We need to concentrate on crime not petty squabbling. Patents should be for significant inventions not every minor thing some one thinks up. Often times there's no thieft involved it's simply such an obvious idea that others are recovering the same ground and haven't a clue some suit ape patented the idea. Patents should help spur innovantion. If they don't they aren't in the publics interest. Patents are a creation for the publics interest and are not in the Constitution so when they work against the public they need to be revised. There is no inherent right to patents. I'm a big supporter of inventors rights but these aren't inventions they are similar to cybersquatting and need to removed from the patent process.

Re:Simple solution

[elmarkitse]

Lets see....for sensationalisms sake, lets assume you go to the best law school out then and have a 150,000 bill for your law degree. Even at $10.00 an hour, billing 80 hour weeks for 3 years, you not paid off, assuming every dollar of your minimum wage goes to paying off your bill. Putting $4 an hour into your tuition reimbursement, still working 80 hour weeks, but this time for 9 years, and you're barely there, assuming no interest on your initial debt.

More fun, lets say you get stuck at the 'best buy' of 'full time' minimum wage new age law companies, and can only work 32 hours a week before you get benefits.

23 years, not including interest.

I wonder where the line is for people hopping on this idea?

I agree on your other points however, patents being limited to certain types of innovation, limited on their legnth, and designed to support advancements in our society not stifle them

Re:Simple solution

[ultracool]

I think another possible solution is simply to reduce the length of time before a patent expires, say down to 5 years. That still gives the inventor an advantage, but does not cripple everyone else and force the public to pay exorbitant prices for things (medicine for example). However, software patents are still ridiculous and should be done away with entirely. Imagine if you could patent mathematical methods. "I'm sorry, you have to pay us royalties if you want to use Simpson's rule to solve your integral."

Re:Simple solution

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Patents are a creation for the publics interest and are not in the Constitution so when they work against the public they need to be revised.

Um, actually:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

I agree with you entirely that we need to revise the way and extent to which patents are issued, but the fact is that the issuance and enforcement of patents (along with copyrights) is one of the fundamental purposes of the US government, as defined by the Constitution. (You can of course start an effort to get that section amended; good luck with that.) A better approach is to look at the explanatory clause -- "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" -- and start ruthlessly revising those sections of IP law which do not work toward that goal.

Step 1: if it's not a physical object, a working model of which can be presented at the time of filing, don't grant a patent. Period. End of story. No software algorithms, no "business methods," no DNA sequences, etc. -- software can go copyright; the other two examples shouldn't get IP protection at all -- and no speculative ideas for something that someone might want to make someday, either.

Step 2: deem any patents which are not being actively exploited to be unenforceable, and the IP represented in them to be public domain. IOW, if you have a patent on something, you have to be either distributing it on the market, or be able to show that you're working toward the goal. Otherwise, everyone else gets a shot too.

Step 3: require patent holders to defend their patents, as is the case with trademarks. If the patent holder could reasonably be expected to be aware of a violation -- as IBM certainly could be expected to be aware of Amazon -- require them to begin legal action within one (1) year or forfeit the claim.

These three steps, if followed, would I think substantially reduce the amount of patent bullshit which is currently doing the exact opposite of "promoting] the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The lawyers whose clients still have a legitimate claim would still have plenty of work. Similar though not identical reform is needed for copyrights and trademarks; Step 1 in the former case is reducing the term of copyright to 20 years or so and keeping it there.

Re:Simple solution

[Trieuvan]

That never happen, these lawyers make law !!!

Re:Simple solution

[elmarkitse]

You're charming, thanks for sharing.

Re:Simple solution

[psykocrime]

Well said... I hope some of your suggestions come to fruition!

Re:Simple solution

[GIL_Dude]

Makes a lot of sense. Now, we need to "Make it so."

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent wrote:

I wonder where the line is for people hopping on this idea?

From http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/legalotln/la wyers.htm:

The number of lawyers in the United States has increased steadily over the past half century and is currently estimated at more than 950,000. Where do all the attorneys in the United States find work?

and according to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2119rank.html, the US population is 295,734,134.

For sensationalisms sake, let's divide those numbers: 950,000 / 295,734,134 is only 0.32%, or about one in 311. What happens when it comes up on a ballot? Oh yeah, that's right: the other 99.7% of the country votes them out of power. But they'll never let that happen.

Re:Simple solution

[GWBasic]

Step 3: require patent holders to defend their patents, as is the case with trademarks. If the patent holder could reasonably be expected to be aware of a violation -- as IBM certainly could be expected to be aware of Amazon -- require them to begin legal action within one (1) year or forfeit the claim.

Actually, patent holders do have to defend their patents; it is the patent holders who always accuse other parties of violating patents.

I think the real problem is that one company will buy another company that bought another company that bought another company that bought another company that bought another company and will go digging through the archives and find an old & questionable patent that they think means they own the entire industry. There's no consequences for being a patent troll.

Re:Simple solution

[mrchaotica]

You should send that to your congressman and ask him to submit it as a bill.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but this being a free country, we can't put limits on wages like that. And the lawyers aren't going to lower their prices. If there's a lot of money in one job, you'll see high wages in it. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is the way it is.

I much more like the idea of reducing corporations control on america, but that's not going to happen, they already have a strong hold in the political system and we can't get them out of power unless we start pestering our politicians and not letting them sway us so easily with their ads. I can't seem to find the study in gewgle, but studies showed that people are more likely to vote for politicians if there's more banners for them outside of election buildings.

IMHO - the only way to stop this is to prevent politicians from advertising (or limit it), but that'll never pass in a government like ours where the top guys have the power.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Come by again when you detect the begnnings of fuzz on your balls.

I imagine that'll be about the time when you let your beard start to grow out.

Re:Simple solution

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Step 1: if it's not a physical object, a working model of which can be presented at the time of filing, don't grant a patent. Period. End of story. No software algorithms, no "business methods," no DNA sequences, etc. -- software can go copyright;

That doesn't work - if something is actually innovative and wholly software, then copyright just means that someone else has to write the software.

Re:Simple solution

[elmarkitse]

Hungh?

When what comes up on a ballot? Having lawyers earn a minimum wage salary?

But I'll try and understand:

When (it)=(the minimum wage proposal the GP proposed for laywers,) comes up on a ballot, the rest of the country (that aren't lawyers) votes (them)=(the laywers) out of power. But, (they'll)=(the lawyers) never let that=(the voting by the people to....wait....vote on a minimum wage proposal that 'moves them out of power'?) happen.

What are you talking about? Lawyers aren't exactly elected...

And whats sensationalist about finding out that lawyers by your numbers make up .32% of the population? When I chose to use the highest average private school tuition for law school to arbitrarily inflate my numbers several times over, that was 'sensationalist' by merit of my conscious decision to use numbers that skew my example in a way that is favorable to my point. Either that or unethical, but nothing really depended on my post so I think it's more sensationlist than unethical, but I'd wager a semantic argument like that is already lost in this conversation.

Also, Isn't .321% more like 1 in 321?

Re:Simple solution

[MooUK]

As I recall, it's an option, not an obligation. And even then it is limited to systems which prmote the cause of science etc.

Re:Simple solution

[Randym]

Step 1: if it's not a physical object, a working model of which can be presented at the time of filing, don't grant a patent. Period. End of story. No software algorithms, no "business methods," no DNA sequences, etc. -- software can go copyright; the other two examples shouldn't get IP protection at all -- and no speculative ideas for something that someone might want to make someday, either.

Er...a software algorithm is, by definition, the "working model" of itself. ( I agree with you about the other two, though.)

And you think patenting software is bad, it's only 17 years -- copyright is "the life of the copyright holder" plus 75 years. Don't you think that's a bit worse?

Almost a great point

[typidemon]

Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you).

The idea is to protect people who invest those resources into developing technology from people who just wait for the technology to be invented and then just selling it without any of the research costs involved.

What I do hate is that patents have turned from protecting a method of production to a concept of a product in all of its forms. That's a major difference, if I invent a new device I should have a realistic expectation that nobody else could use my design to make their own device. However, if someone goes "hey, I like what this thing does" and then invents their own way of doing that exact same thing, they should be able to. Hell, they can even learn from my mistakes and improve on the process. That's where patents facilitate innovation.

But. . . wait a second!

[kimvette]

But I thought companies such as IBM only use their patent portfolios defensively, particularly concerning patents over trivial and/or obvious "inventions?" Isn't that what a number of users here have been claiming? I'm confused! ;)

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[__aaclcg7560]

They do say that a good defense is a good offense. Besides, annoying the heck out of the other guy has never been ruled out.

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Jason Earl]

IBM is the ultimate patent troll. They make quadzillions every year licensing their patent portfolio. In fact, Microsoft's recent foray into the patent business are based on recreating IBM's success. When it comes to patents IBM is definitely not the good guy.

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Dunbal]

companies such as IBM only use their patent portfolios defensively

      Yes, they're merely applying the "The Best Defense is a Strong Offense" maxim...purely defensive though. Probably go after Amazon's WMD's next...

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Wolfier]

Good guy or not, it depends on what they do with the patents, not that they hold a lot of patents.

In suing Amazon, are they trying to sue away a competitor? Don't think so. Are they trying to extort money? Given IBM's size, I doubt it.

On the flip side of the coin, IBM is pro-OSS at this moment, and I'm glad that IBM has so many patents.

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Jason Earl]

Exactly. That's why IBM is a bad guy when it comes to patents. They make millions of dollars shaking down companies that they feel are using their patents without paying. IBM has been more successful (by far) than any other company at monetizing its patent portfolio.

In this particular case IBM wants a piece of the multi-billion dollar online advertising business. If IBM can set a precedent with Amazon then it will round up all of the other big players and get its money from them.

When it comes to patents IBM is far and away the biggest problem in the software business. Microsoft just wishes its patent portfolio generated as much money, no one else is even close. IBM does a lot of things right, but when you are talking about patents, IBM is the enemy.

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Wolfier]

Simple indiscriminate enforcements of patents is nothing bad - it's the misuse of patents (e.g. extort with submarine patents without actual implementation, suing competitor out of business) that's bad.

Enforcements sometimes are necessary, otherwise the patent may diminish in power when needed, much like a Trademark does.

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Jason Earl]

First of all, patents don't diminish like trademarks. That's why "submarine" patents are so dangerous. Take this particular patent in question. It covers a form of Internet advertising. That's about as generic a function as you can find. Seriously, who hasn't written Internet advertising code. IBM waited until the business was worth billions a year and now it is striking. If it had sued earlier no doubt a judge would have said that the patent was worth far less (assuming it came to that point).

Software patents are all bad. Business method patents are worse.

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Tim C]

On the flip side of the coin, IBM is pro-OSS at this moment, and I'm glad that IBM has so many patents.

"Sure, they out-number us, have far better weapons and lots of them, and have demonstrated an ability and willingness to use them to great effect, but so what? They're on our side at the moment, we've nothing to worry about!"

So what happens if IBM decide that while OSS can help make them money, their own proprietary software will make them even more money? (Not saying it would, mind you, just that IBM might suddenly come to that conclusion) They have a metric truckload of patents and the lawyers to wield them; what chance would any given OSS project or company stand if they decided to turn against us?

I'm not saying that they will, and I'm not saying that IBM isn't a powerful ally at the moment, I'm just not as comfortable with the situation as you seem to be. Powerful allies can become powerful enemies when it suits them...

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Wolfier]

It seems that you have more inside knowledge of this suit - do you have any evidence that IBM "waited" and then striked? If so, this is a bad move since it's submarine.

Otherwise, I maintain that patents are useful - even software and business method ones - however, the enforcement needs to be more strict and draw a solid line of definition between merely an idea or an unordered description thereof (bad), and precise, step-by-step guide of carrying out the idea, with workarounds clearly possible after exercising due diligence (good).

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Wolfier]

Well if it's a lesser company, I can understand...but I reckon that since it's a large corp. with its reputation at stake when it comes to making technical decisions, it's not easy to change ship. It took them 7 years from OS/2 to Linux. This "era" is probably going to last a bit longer. Just my personal opinion, it can sound foolish to you.

Re:But. . . wait a second!

[Jason Earl]

Here's IBM's side of the story. Even with IBM writing the story you can see that IBM is basically claiming to own Amazon's business. I didn't read the actual patents (nor am I going to read them), so I can't tell you exactly what the claims are, but I wouldn't be surprised if any ecommerce site would infringe.

Now, if you happen to be the sort of person that happens to believe that IBM should own the concept of ecommerce whether or not they have written or sell code that is ecommerce related then I suppose we are going to have to simply agree to disagree. If not, then here's a little bit about the realities of software patents (and patents in general).

It is a common myth that software patents are commonly used to protect the "little guy" from the big guy. That is true in some cases, but only when the little guy doesn't actually write software. If you write software chances are really good that you are using one of IBM's patents without paying royalties. This means that IBM and most of the other large patent holders can do whatever they want, and if they happen to infringe on your patent and you take them to court they can simply bury you in patent lawsuits until you agree to settle your case and set up some sort of patent licensing deal (chances are good that you'll end up paying money).

These days companies are getting around this problem by simply not actually writing any software. This guarantees that they aren't infringing on anyone's patents. You can't force someone into a cross licensing deal that doesn't actually write software. These companies simply patent their ideas and wait for someone else to write the software. Once their patent is embedded in all sorts of software (say like IBM's ecommerce patents) they begin to go after companies that have actually written software.

IBM is a bit of a special case. It has so many patents that it can basically build a case against anyone. However, it also makes billions of dollars selling software, so it has to be careful and pick victims that don't have patents that it uses in its own software. That's the reason that IBM went after Amazon.com in this case. Amazon.com has patents, but it doesn't have any that IBM infringes on because IBM doesn't actually sell ecommerce software so it is relatively safe. Here's an article that talks about this.

I honestly doubt that you could find a single solitary example of a software patent suit that was "useful," and business method patents are worse. In the real world these types of patents simply don't work like they should. For the most part they are used by the large software development houses to keep the software development game an activity that only large, well-funded software houses can play. If you don't have the money to keep an army of lawyers busy creating patents then you are vulnerable to patent abuse. Even if you do hire the lawyers and obtain some patents these patents aren't going to help you if you actually write the software. If you write and sell software then you'll end up having little choice but to cross-license your patents (you'll probably pay a fee as well). That's why you hear so much in the news about companies that simply license their patents without actually writing software. These days its the only sane way to deal with the current patent regime. Unless, of course, you are IBM and have 40,000 patents already.

Excuse me if I think that a system that discourages companies from actually writing software is promoting innovation.

IBM Laywers

[Anonymous Coward]

... have nothing better to do after SCO

Good, but bad

[Trogre]

I'm not sure whether to tag this one "haha" or "evil"

Re:Good, but bad

[niXcamiC]

It would seem you decided.

Here's a thought

[mutube]

Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you). It's like a winner of a race claiming that if it wasn't for him, nobody else would have crossed the finish line.

If the purpose really is to reward valuable invention (vs. obvious extension) then a simple answer is this: In the event of someone re-inventing something which has been previously awarded a patent, with no evidence of copying, there should be two options available to the patent holder.

• Add this new inventor to the patent & allow them equal share of licensing fees for it's remaining lifespan.
• Revoke the patent.

Re:Here's a thought

[PCM2]

If the purpose really is to reward valuable invention (vs. obvious extension) then a simple answer is this: In the event of someone re-inventing something which has been previously awarded a patent, with no evidence of copying, there should be two options available to the patent holder.

The "no evidence of copying" is the sticky part. You're back to a system that requires that patent examiners be shrewd enough to understand the fundamental difference between one patent and the next. What would obviously end up happening in such a system is Amazon finds out IBM has a patent on something it wants to do (patents are published, public documents), says, "hey, that's a great idea!" and then "invents" its own way of doing it. Voila! Instead of paying IBM to license the patent, Amazon gets to add itself to IBM's patent and take half of IBM's fees. You can see where patents would quickly become an anti-competitive weapon of an order even greater than they are becoming today.

In today's world, the outcome of these patent lawsuits between big companies, more often than not, is some kind of licensing agreement. It will more than likely be a cross-licensing agreement ... so IBM says it's OK for Amazon to use its patent, provided IBM can add One-Click shopping to its Web site, or something of the sort. It's not as if IBM really wants to put Amazon out of business. It just wants to keep the money moving from hand to hand, with some of it staying at IBM for a while.

Re:Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so now A & B share the patent. C possibly infringes. B wants to pursue C, A does not. B pays all the costs, and wins. A gets his share? If not, consider that maybe A is some small fry, and B is IBM. So IBM essentially hijacks the patent. This is only one of dozens of problems that I'm too lazy to type out.

What is everyone thinking?

[Cauchy]

Ok, I understand the desire to hate bad patents and bad patent law, and I hate large corporations as much as the next guy---I made enough 'free' phone calls in my youth to prove that. But, seriously, the small guy needs patent law more than the big guy. I work creating ip as I am sure many of you do, and I have extensive experience working for startups including some without VC funding. The fact is that if I, as an individual or a very small business, come up with an idea, a patent may be my only line of protection. I don't have the money to develop it as fast as IBM or Microsoft or Google. I couldn't seek funding for an idea without ip law because the investors might just steal my idea. Patents and ip law are the ONLY protection I have from being completely screwed over.

When I was younger, I screamed 'information wants to be free' as loud as any of you. However, that was probably the dumbest idea ever to be voiced. Information is the most valuable asset in the world, and it always has been. People die for information all the time. The CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO, and all the other agencies we love to hate are solely about information. Wars are won and lost because of information. Societies succeed or disappear because of information. Information wants to cost you everything.

We may think the patent system is broken, but we do need a patent system, and we need a patent system that covers algorithms. An algorithm one of us invents is just as valuable as a widget some mechanical engineer invents.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[wes33]

The CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO, and all the other agencies we love to hate are solely about information.

And these organizations exist and work so hard at keeping information unfree. Why? Because information "wants" to be free. This is almost a theorem of thermodynamics. Unshared information is an unstable equilibrium and it takes a lot of work to keep the information state at the top of the hill.

The internet is like adding a new path to the lowest energy state and information is just "desperate" to flow down that easy pathway to the equilibrium state ...

It's not *just* a metaphor ...

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[mjrauhal]

I couldn't seek funding for an idea without ip law because the investors might just steal my idea. Patents and ip law are the ONLY protection I have from being completely screwed over.

Not so. This can be done with suitable NDAs and/or pre-contracts (eg. negotiating a flat high percentage and no money up front for use of the ideas, with the understanding that this is just a stopgap and renegotiating will occur once people know what's on the table). This is of course impractical now, since investors would be taken aback with such agreements, however without patents this would have a high chance of becoming pretty much standard, so smart money would go with it.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[NineNine]

So then, an inventor has every person on the planet sign a NDA? Brilliant! Now, do you suggest that I do this: via email, fax, or physical mail?

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Dr. Evil]

Problems with that theory:

• As soon as you come up with a good idea, you'll be sued into submission by a large company's patent warchest
• Small companies don't even have the money or time to pursue patent lawsuits, so if a big company did take your idea, you'd be tied up in court until you were broke... or they launched a countersuit (see above)

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have the money to develop it as fast as IBM or Microsoft or Google.

Neither did Google, until after they'd done it. Go read any essay Paul Graham ever wrote.

and we need a patent system that covers algorithms.

Bullshit. It's a bad mistake.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Cauchy]

> And these organizations exist and work so hard at keeping information unfree.

Actually, the purpose of these organizations is generally to acquire information. Most of the secrecy comes to protecting their methods for acquiring information. And, it isn't the information that wants to be free. People want the information because it is valuable.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Cauchy]

> > and we need a patent system that covers algorithms.

> Bullshit. It's a bad mistake.

Then, why do we bother to develop algorithms? I don't know about you, but I work very, very hard developing algorithms, and I deserve every penny of the compensation. If it weren't for patents and other forms of ip law, the only one who would profit from my work would be large companies who stole my ideas.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Cauchy]

As I said, the system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. I'm not sure how to fix it, but it should be fixed.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[AK Marc]

Then, why do we bother to develop algorithms?

To solve a problem. Sometimes for the fun of it.

If it weren't for patents and other forms of ip law, the only one who would profit from my work would be large companies who stole my ideas.

Then don't do it. Or, better yet, go to work for one of those large companies and become a millionaire developing algorithms for them that make them richer.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[rajafarian]

An algorithm one of us invents is just as valuable as a widget some mechanical engineer invents.

How much capital will it take to bring that mechanical widget into fruition versus your hypothetical algorithm?

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[edbarbar]

The patent system wasn't invented to protect the little guy. It was invented to protect society.

In your note above, you say going it alone might take so long to get there someone else scoops you. In that case, you want to protect that you got there first, or patented the idea first. Patents weren't designed to protect the person that gets there first.

In terms of getting funding for an idea, in my experience VCs fund teams and markets first, and ideas second. I do have some sympathy with this part of your argument, but not a tremendous amount. If your ideas are really good, they will fund you precisely because you can come up with good ideas.

CIA, spooks, etc.? Pulease. Patents aren't about protecting information, they are about releasing information but protecting ideas.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[swillden]

But, seriously, the small guy needs patent law more than the big guy.

That's a nice theory, but the reality is that the small guy can't afford patents, and the big guy can. The little guy is much better off keeping the important ideas secret, protecting them with trade secret and contract law (NDAs, etc.). Patent litigation is ruinously expensive, and if you end up fighting with a big guy, odds are very good that he'll dig up a dozen patents of his own that you are infringing.

Note that I do think patents are a good idea, in the abstract, but our present implementation is so badly broken as to be a net negative -- especially with respect to software.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Cauchy]

Fun doesn't pay the rent. I enjoy what I do, but I also need to eat. I'm rather fond of eating.

I don't want to work for a big company. And, if I did, I would only enrich the wealthy few who own most of the stock. Patents can and are abused, but they also serve to protect the 'little people'.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[alais4]

I am probably misunderstanding you. Surely you don't imply that whenever someone uses quicksort, someone else should get five cents? Hoffman, Dijkstra, etc. also worked very, very hard to develop those classic algorithms, and limiting their use might be like copyrighting string theory, or copyrighting math techniques. Of course I'm not implying that your algorithms are simple, but merely suggesting how these copyrights can be abused.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Cauchy]

That's a good point. I have moderator points right now, and if I wasn't participating in this thread, I'd probably moderate it. I guess the counter argument is that they (as well as Hoare, inventor of quicksort) were academics and to some degree or another supported by public money. To the degree they were not always academics, their employer chose to put their work into the public domain.

My guess is that this is a discussion that deserves its own top level topic (and more). I find many counterpoints interesting though I suppose some is connected to a desire of not wanting to pay for information. My confession is that I use a LOT of open source software, and I salute those who develop it, but Mastercard/Visa, my landlord, and my credit union all demand that I make money for my work. If there wasn't a way of commercializing my work in a protected manner, no one would pay me---they would wait for someone else to develop algorithms and then have them implemented by someone who is presumably less educated/experienced/cheaper. That's my point---without the ability to protect the innovations of individuals and small businesses, the world would be old money making more money off the backs of those doing the work. We certainly have plenty of that in this world, but it is nice to know that we can make money for our good ideas.

And, in part, patents are to serve the public good by encouraging disclosure. But, they also protect the rights of individuals innovate, encouraging innovation. Innovation is in the public interest.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[falsified]

Can't patent math. Sorry. And the law doesn't need to change to suit your workplace preferences.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Bent Mind]

Years ago, in watching the fight between Microsoft and Apple over the GUI, I made the comment to a friend that Apple should just patent the interface. It seemed like they were attempting to use copyright law when patent law would make more sense. I didn't give it much more thought until the last couple of years.

I caught a headline on Slashdot the other day saying that Intel had been granted a patent on Web phones. The summary said it had been filed for in 2000. I didn't get the chance to read the article or comments. However, it struck me as ridiculous that a patent filed for in a technology's infancy wouldn't get awarded until after that technology had matured and was in wide use. It seems to me that if a patent can't be awarded within a year of filing, it should invalidated.

It also seems to me that the length of time that a patent is valid is ridiculously long. Now it may be that it takes twenty years to take an idea from prototype to profit. However, I've never seen this as being the case with software. If software patents must exist, they should be valid for, at most, four years. It's wrong that a piece of software be protected by patent law for what is effectively it entire life of said software. How many people remember when the GIF patent expired? Now, how many even knew what a computer was when it was filed? GIF was an important step forward in exchanging information between computers. Before GIF, digital images were stored as raw memory dumps that could only be viewed using the same type of system. However, GIF was soon replaced by a hundred different image formats and died long before it's patent expired.

Of course, how much protection a patent (or copyright for that matter) can provide is determined by how wealthy you are. Sure, the law says you are protected. However, you are only protected in so far as you can afford a lawyer, court costs, etc. One of my favorite stories is about the invention of television. The poor guy spent every penny he had and died broke before he was awarded the patent. It didn't hurt RCA any to fight him.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk to Nikola Tesla. He had his radio patents stolen by Marconi and he had to dig ditches to make money at the end of his life. All while Marconi was profiting and getting Nobel Prizes. Nobody said life was fair. If you like doing what you're doing then the work itself is compensation enough. If you are so worried about eating then work like everyone else.

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[AK Marc]

Well, good for you. You don't want to work for anyone else, and you still want to make money. You want to do something that only the big companies want, but don't want to work for them. I would suggest a change of careers before passing crap laws to make it illegal for others to share thoughts. But who am I to think that outlawing ideas is a bad law?

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[Cauchy]

I work for others. And, I don't want to outlaw sharing ideas. I want to protect my right to make money for ideas I develop.

a) A mechanical engineer develops a better widget for a manufacturing process, and his ideas have a monetary value.
b) A song writer writes a song, and his ideas have a monetary value.
c) A mathematician develop a new algorithm for doing data mining, and his idea has be given away freely to everyone else?

Why is this a fair setup? I'm surprised y'all aren't advocating your rights to go to the local Porsche dealership and claim any car you want. Do any of you make a living developing information technology of any kind? Are any of you professional researchers or programmers or anything of the ilk?

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[icepick72]

That is an awesome post (I bookmarked it) and I also agree with you the patent system needs to be fixed in some ways. Here is a story the day after your post which you've no doubt already read, but I want to slot it in here as a good place to show an example of the patent system being broken at times.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/23/15 46218

In the spirit of the link, this post could represent a doubly-linked post if someone from that story posts a link back to here ... :)

Re:What is everyone thinking?

[AK Marc]

Why is this a fair setup?

Because a widget is something that is concrete. It is a physical device or a specific means to produce a physical device. A song is a unique piece of software that may be built upon, but could never get in the way of anyone else's progress. An equation is not related to physical devices at all. An equation is not an aesthetic piece of software. It is a truth. 1+1=2. It may be more complex than that, but it is still math.

I understand that you want it protected because it benefits you. However, it is not something that should be patented. Business processes, previous patents with the words "on a computer" tacked on the end, and equations should never be patented. You may want to copyright a program. That is what copyright was invented for. If the idea itself is the only thing that exists, then the idea may not be patented. You wouldn't trademark a novel. That's not what trademarks are for. You would not patent it either. The novel is lines on a page that convey an idea. Programs are lines on a page (well, at least when printed) that convey an idea (to a computer). Copyright them all you want. Put them under NDAs. But you can't patent a book, nor should you patent an equation or algorithm.

I'm surprised y'all aren't advocating your rights to go to the local Porsche dealership and claim any car you want.

Well, I'm advocating that Porsche should patent the devices that make up the car, and maybe some manufacturing processes to make them. But they shouldn't patent the manual. They should copyright it. And they shouldn't patent "Porsche", they should trademark it. You want something patented because it makes your life easier. Too bad that's not what the system was created for. You don't want to work with the system that was designed. You don't want to work for companies that would make your money working within that system. You want the system changed to be something other than intended to make you more money in the specific way you want. You are no better than Disney. Why aren't you claiming that all ideas be the property of the first person to think of them and no one else may ever have that thought without payment to them.

Sun IBM

[Dopeskills]

So basically IBM is evil again and Sun is the new FOSS poster child.

Patent bullying

[XCondE]

So IBM tries to push some of its hardware to Amazon, who refuses - in spite of possible threats of patent litigation -, and decides to take the matter to court.

The VP admitted that much:

IBM has tried to negotiate licensing deals with Amazon "over a dozen times since 2002," Kelly said

Looks like IBM is learning to play SCO's game to me.

Re:Patent bullying

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no mention of IBM trying to push hardware on Amazon. It's obvious given the rest of the article that "licensing deals" is referring to licenses for the patent. US patent law is stupid enough without making false accusations of childish behavior.

It's beyond me why the article mentions HP hardware at all. It has nothing to do with IBM's patents.

Re:Patent bullying

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like IBM is learning to play SCO's game to me.

IBM's been in this game longer than any other existing computer company. If anything, SCO took a page from IBM's playbook much like Microsoft has done. Still, IBM's management appears to have reached the reasonable conclusion that it's more important in the long term to keep one's customers happy than rake in as much has humanly possible in the shortest time.

Laugh at Amazon, but watch the patent abuses rise

[dwalsh]

Not the most innocent victim here, however this is a small but significant step in the rise of companies who has ostensibly "defensive" patent strategies show their true colours. Microsofts noises about patents and Linux is part of the same trend.

Re:confused

[__aaclcg7560]

CNN text: Amazon.com -- which has bought a lot of hardware from Hewlett-Packard Co. over the years but not IBM -- has allegedly refused every time.

The text from the article was not copied over correctly or was re-edited badly. Considering what they teach in high schools these days, it's not too surprising.

Those who live by the douchebag...

[straponego]

...die by the douchebag. Something like that. Couldn't happen to a nicer company. Oh, that reminds me, for years I've done much of my holiday shopping on Amazon. This year, I don't think so. Who do you guys suggest for books and movies, preferably both in one site?

Re:Those who live by the douchebag...

[NineNine]

Try your local independent stores, jackass. Feeding multinational corporations online doesn't help anybody except for the executives in said multinational corporations, and UPS. Try spending that money locally, with people who actually pay taxes, and contribute back to your community in lots of different ways.

Re:Those who live by the douchebag...

[straponego]

All of the gifts I buy online are shipped to other states. You're saying I should, what, drive them to their recipients? Maybe ride my bike there? Seems... inefficient. I buy locally when it is a reasonable option. I even have a bias toward doing so. So... take your assumptions, print them out on thick hemp-based paper, fold them into a nice sharp origami shapes, and shove them up your ass, you self-righteous prick.

Re:Those who live by the douchebag...

[Anonymous Coward]

Several years ago I gave up on Amazon due to their business practices. Since then I've switch to

http://www.bookpool.com/

and have always received great prices and service when buying books online from them.

Cheers!

Re:Those who live by the douchebag...

[EraserMouseMan]

Haha! Nice!

Nothing like getting kicked in the shins for asking a valid question with good intentions, huh?

Re:Those who live by the douchebag...

[Anonymous Coward]

...except Amazon -IS- a "local independent store" in the city where I live. They employ a lot of people who pay a lot of taxes, and contribute back to the community in lots of different ways.

This reeks of,

[Grand Facade]

If you don't scratch me here, I'm going to stab you there...

"Where's my tee shirt? Oh! There it is."
It says,
"US Patent Office, selling monopoly rights to common sense for over 25 years"

When are they going to figure it out?

Re:Screw em

[Achromatic1978]

I find it odd that your wife had to buy a textbook for her college class from Amazon, and was forced to cancel that class when they failed delivery. I don't know, maybe it's a novel expectation that a college bookstore would, you know, sell textbooks for the classes taught at that school. Or y'know, another bookstore.

Why only Amazon?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:

Amazon is accused of infringing on five IBM patents, including technologies that govern how the site recommends products to customers, serves up advertising and stores data.

Some of the patents were first filed in the 1980s, including one titled "Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalog."

"Given that time frame, these are very fundamental inventions for e-commerce and how to do it on the network," said John Kelly III, IBM's senior vice president for intellectual property. "Much, if not all, of Amazon's business is built on top of this property."

By this description, it would seem that IBM is entitled to sue just about every online vendor on the web today.

For maximum patent lawsuit profits, I think they should hit the iTunes store next, then work their way down the list of all domains until the profit from the lawsuits drops to less than $10K per victim.

The potential for a cash grab is absolutely insane here, they could bankrupt just about every single online vendor on the web, though that might be counterproductive to their hardware sales, however if the lawsuit profits can be invested and grow at a rate greater than hardware sales profits, I guess that wouldn't matter and IBM could abandon hardware sales and simply manage investment funds started with lawsuit profits.

This is definitely the beginning of the end of online commerce.

Re:Why only Amazon?

[Anonymous Coward]

I.E. Buy all your hardware from us, or we will sue you.

Re:Why only Amazon?

[pureCaffeine]

Perhaps iTunes is one of those hundreds of other companies who've already entered into licensing arrangements with IBM ...

Re:Why only Amazon?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This is definitely the beginning of the end of online commerce.

Only if IBM win.

There is a big difference between initiating legal action against someone and successfully arguing your case in court, perhaps more so in the US business world than anywhere else.

There is also a world of difference between attempting to use your huge patent portfolio to put pressure on a single target with a limited portfolio of its own, and attempting to use your huge patent portfolio against half the business world (and their own collective portfolio and ability to counter-sue you) all at once.

Besides, it looks like the relevant patents will expire fairly soon, so I'm pretty sure on-line commerce will survive, even if there are a few short term casualties in the worst case.

Re:Why only Amazon?

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

It's a good job IBM patented that, because otherwise we'd all have to wait until the files are released to see how it's done. Oh, hang on...

Re:Why only Amazon?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish IBM would try to push their patent on every single company who has infringed on it - all 100 million of them. Might be an end to the patent system as we know it...

Re:Sun IBM

[niXcamiC]

They do seem to have contributed more code than any other single contributor, what with opensolaris, java, some random compilers, openfirmware, and a bunch of stuff im sure im missing.

Re:Sun IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about NFS and OpenOffice.
OpenOffice, i can argue, is the most important piece of free software. It enables Enterprises the interoperability with Microsoft Office documents and it's an arguably equivalent that can competes with it.

Ohh Crap!!

[bossvader]

I just sorted a list of products in my spreadsheet!

Am I next?

Oh... guess not... I only have 32 cents in my deep pockets.

Zero knowledge proof

[Wolfier]

I can just show you the end result of my method to let you know that I know *some* way of doing it.

If you can tell how I'm exactly doing it, then it's obvious.

Re:Zero knowledge proof

[Anonymous Coward]

And outside of manufacturing processes you can see how something works by buying the device in question (add a large amount of reverse engineers as needed). Add into the mix that companies don't go out researching things just to patent them, but to solve problems (of course getting a patent is a nice bonus), I see no reason to grant functional patents outside of manufacturing processes.

Workaround?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Set the limited time to 20 hours instead of 20 years...

Not all ideas are like this

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are saying is true for things like flying cars.

But what if the idea itself is the end result ..for example, the idea for a user interface, or napster, youtube, or slashdot, or digg.

Nobody will say any "genius" of youtube lies in the implementation (look at how quickly there are clones). However the idea itself is somewhat original.

Sometimes once you tell me the idea, the implementation is trivial .. but the creative effort is coming up with the idea. So how do you reliably test for obviousness in that instance, when the idea itself identifies a need and provides a new service or capability?

Re:Not all ideas are like this

[Wolfier]

This is off-topic because ideas on their own cannot be patented.  Only implementations can be.  In the special case where the implementation is the same as the idea (e.g. look and feel), those *should* be protected by copyright instead.

In your examples, idea for a UI, Napster, YouTube - they have their specific implementations and only those are patentable (I'm sure there are at least 50 ways of implementing user interface, napster, youtube, slashdot or digg).

If you think these ideas are somewhat original, then let me tell you that ideas are a dime a dozen.  Don't worth anything at all unless it's elevated into something tangible, like an implementation.

Unless, of course, you may be confusing between an idea and an implementation.  Sometimes the line is blurred but it certainly exists.  Napster and YouTube - they have good business ideas.  Slashdot and Digg - the idea is a "community system" (which, again is a dime a dozen), but Slashdot and Digg are implementing it differently.

Re:Not all ideas are like this

[TekPolitik]

ideas on their own cannot be patented. Only implementations can be.

Unfortunately this is not true - and that's the whole problem. These days patents - especially software patents - seek to eliminate anybody from achieving the same goal as the patent holder. You don't patent the implementation of the telephone, the first claim in your application is on the idea of a two way voice communication device. Then you claim (2) "the device in claim 1 wherein the voice is transmitted by modulated electrical signal over a wire; (3) the device in claim 1 wherein the voice is transmitted by modulated electromagnetic waves; (4) the device in claim 3 wherein the electromagnetic waves are radio waves; (5) the device in claim 3 wherein the electromagnetic waves are microwaves; (6) the device in claim 3 wherein the electromagnetic waves are visible light; ..."

If you look at a patent they always start with a very generic claim describing the idea as a whole, and if you implement something that matches that idea, you infringe. The patents then go on to claim each detail of the implementation and each combination of sets of details in the implementation, the idea being that if the first claim is knocked out one of the others might be upheld. The full implementation normally comes right at the end of the list of claims.

Companies are going off and trying to patent every idea they can find, not in order to protect their own investment which is usually negligible and almost always entirely irrelevant to the first claim, but in order to shut down or extort money from anybody else who need to use the idea to get something done.

Re:Not all ideas are like this

[Wolfier]

I totally agree - it's not enforced the way it should be, and some reform must take place to get the patent system back to what it was meant to accomplish.

just another

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just another reason to rid the world of Software Patents. There is more then one way to code something.

Lawyers (and doctors)

[Colin Smith]

Make lawyers a minimum wage job. All the lawsuits are costing the public a fortune and has placed the court system in perminate gridlock.

They're expensive because they are permitted a government mandated monopoly on practice.

Lately I begin to wonder....

[pjr.cc]

As I sit there coding some piece of rather innocent software blissfully unaware of the world around me, i wonder how many patents im infringing with every line of code....

This is quite seriously scary stuff in my opinion and just goes to emphasize how we really shouldnt have software patents in the first place. Sadly, im a big fan of big blue and dislike amazon quite alot.

I wonder how many people, who code just "stumble" on the same idea. If you locked a coder in a black box and told him write a site that sells things online and make it "feature" rich, how many patents would he infringe?

The broad nature of the patents (or at least how they are described in the article) makes me pray to god IBM dont win this one.

What does IBM want?

[Weezul]

Does IBM just want money? Do they want Amazon to buy their stuff? Could they be seeking cross licensing deals for Amazon's shit patents?

I'd be lovely if IBM descided that its time someone puts the U.S. patent office out of its missery, but I'm sure this isn't the case if they have been trying to negotiate licensing deals with Amazon. But it might still have that effect if Amazon is stupid.

Patent abstract

[carpevita]

United States Patent 5,319,542
King, Jr. , et al. June 7, 1994
System for ordering items using an electronic catalogue

The disclosed system facilitates the user in electronically ordering items from suppliers. The system is comprised of an Electronic Catlogue and an Electronic Requisition facility. The Electronic Catalogue includes a Public Catalog and a Private Catalogue. The Public Catalog is stored on a publicly available database for access by customer/Requestors. The Private Catalogue is resident on a Customer's computer system and may contain unique pricing data based on pricing agreements. The Electronic Requisition facility is used by the Customer/Requestors to electronically create purchase requisitions based upon the information provided in the catalogues and route the requisitions through the appropriate approval process within he enterprise. Requisitions are then processed through the customer's procurement system and transmitted electronically as purchase orders to Suppliers."

Wow, that's just pathetic

[Endo13]

This just heavily underscores why the duration of patents needs to be drastically shortened, with no option for extension. Ten years or less would be sufficient.

Re:Wow, that's just pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents are for limited duration (now 20 years from first filing date)- and almost all have never had extensions (except now some drugs get an extension for time in FDA).
  I wish /. would learn the difference between copyright and patents!

as ye reap

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

so shall ye sow.

Re:Sun IBM

[niXcamiC]

Ah yes, thanks, I knew there was something really big I was forgetting, but I couldn't remember what it was.

Stop Software Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Software Patents do lot more harm to advancement of mankind than financial benefit for very few. Some companies like Apple do not earn any money out of some patents such as TrueType related and just cutoff others from competing with them by not giving licenses to others.

Please STOP Software Patents before Americas gun culture come into rescue of software industry and poor software developers. In my opinion Software Patents are abused to the limit and people are now pushed to limit with no option and very soon people may kill each other. Its Americas policy kill its people. Drop Software Patents and strengthen copyright law for benefit of mankind.

good cop bad cop

[rgaginol]

I'm lost... which company is the good cop now and which one is bad cop? Oh that's right, companies don't care, they just want more money - I keep forgetting that quintessential fact about a company.

Re:good cop bad cop

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I've said it before, but I'll say it until I'm blue int he face. Companies try to earn as much money as possible because its the most efficient way of determining prices. Good and bad really don't apply to such a general principle of economics, now how they maximize profits is. So in this case IBM is a "bad Cop" not because it wants to max profits, but because it is offensively applying its (somewhat obvious) patent portfolio to do so.

Good news?

[Rosyna]

Why is it lately when I see a story about IBM suing a company, it feels like good news? Almost as if IBM is using its huge Patent portfolio to sue companies that have abused patents in the past (Like Amazon with its One Click). Maybe I've only felt that way since IBM started helping the OSS community more.

I like the idea of patents, but I loathe the way some companies abuse something that can be used to help the little man break into an industry by creating something truly innovative without having the big boys crush them. But now days, big companies like Microsoft are filing patents left and right and just seeing what sticks. It doesn't matter if they're invalid, MS will still file them and call it innovation.

What was I talking about again?

Re:Good news?

[rucs_hack]

IBM was the first company in the IT industry to leverage its patent portfolio on a large scale to make money. They started all this.

Re:Good news?

[Tim C]

What was I talking about again?

I'm not entirely sure; I think you were talking about how utterly evil and despised IBM used to be, how there's no guarantee that this isn't the first sign of a return to form, and that they are the world's most prolific software patentors, but you seem to have been distracted by an utterly irrelevant swipe at MS.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all that IBM has been doing lately, but understand this - they're not doing it because they're nice guys, they're doing it because it makes them money. If that were to change, so would their tactics. They're nice to us *now*; we cna only hope that they continue being nice.

Re:Good news?

[msobkow]

Why is it lately when I see a story about IBM suing a company, it feels like good news?

Because IBM spends years trying to negotiate a deal before resorting to lawyers. They defend their patents.

Other scum sucking leeches buy up technology, kill the products, and just go around suing for infringement. They use patents to attack and rob legitimate tech producers.

How can you not cheer to see at least one company using patents the way they were meant to be used?

it's optional...

[QuantumG]

Maybe you should quote the sentence before that one as well: The Congress shall have power... They don't have to exercise that power. I mean, listed in the same section is: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; According to your logic the congress would have to use the militia to execute the laws of the union.

A Note to Jeff B ... could it be ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that in 13 months, you will be in a soup line, getting your portion?

Enjoy your portion, Jeff B.

Toodles

Let's be a bit nicer to IBM

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Everyone gets all GPL-ish over the patent system. First one to cross the line? Yeah, maybe if we're talking about a waffle maker, but not if we're talking about semiconductors. Take away their patents, and they go out of business to cheap knock off companies, with no R&D budget, and innovation dies. Most people forget a key part of companies like IBM:

FTA: "IBM is the world's leading patent holder, spending $6 billion a year in research and development and earning about $1 billion a year in royalties."

If that's not promoting the arts and science, I don't know what is. That's the whole idea behind the patent system. Reward the inventor to encourage invention. 20 years on a patent only seems unreasonable because we're used to Moore's law. If it was invented more than 18 months ago, it should be free now, by some strange leap of logic.

Sounds like IBM puts out a lot more than they get back. Don't know the validity of the patents in question, but considering it was 1980's, electronic catalog shopping wouldn't be obvious (in implementation, not in general idea, which was quite older).

I'm certainly in favor of supporting $6 billion in R&D which we're all benefiting from indirectly by enforcing a patent on another corporate body that makes its fair share of pocket change off said R&D.

Patents drive such high R&D budgets, and nothing else. Take away patents, and take away all the toys. They're in business to make money, not to give out charities. $6 billion a year for IBM isn't like government spending. They can't run up a yearly deficit.

Re:Let's be a bit nicer to IBM

[arose]

FTA: "IBM is the world's leading patent holder, spending $6 billion a year in research and development and earning about $1 billion a year in royalties."

If that's not promoting the arts and science, I don't know what is.

5 billion loses certainly are not promoting arts or science. If I may take a wild guess it's probably the profits from selling new products their research produces that makes them spend so much on research and development.

PATENTS WERE EXTENDED IN THE PAST

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in very strange circumstances (usually involving government appropriation of defense-related inventions) there is no way to extend patent rights beyond 20 years. The mickey mouse legislators you refer to are dealing with copyright

It used to be 17 years until 1994 when the legislature decided that it should be 20 years. Patents that were still in effect in 1995 that had been originally granted 17 year rights got extended to have 20 year rights! So yeah the legislature can, and has changed the length of exclusive rights.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp03.htm

And btw, corporations (pharmas especially) are already grumbling that 20 years is not enough.

Anyway I doubt you'll bother reading this.

Re:PATENTS WERE EXTENDED IN THE PAST

[trentblase]

Yes, it is rather unlikely for me to waste my time reading at a threshold of 0, but here I am replying anyways.

I didn't mean to imply that congress could not increase the patent term. The point was that the so-called "mickey mouse legislators" have not given applicants a way to have an "infinite extension" on their term.

Note also that the 1994 extension was substantially meant to bring the US term into accord with international standards. Since reciprocity is extremely important the US interest in protecting patent rights abroad, this is something that makes sense. I am not generally for increasing the patent term, but the 1994 change sits right with me.

Re:PATENTS WERE EXTENDED IN THE PAST

[Anonymous Coward]

First the law change was in 1995 and second it changed from 17 years from issuance to 20 years from first filing- so as to prevent most of the submarine patent issues and so as to bring US law into accord with foreign patent laws.

404'd

[Shadyman]

CNN.com shows "Page Not Found". You can find a cache of the article here.

Re:404'd

[julesh]

'Cause a cache of a 404 page is really useful.

Re:404'd

[Shadyman]

Very Funny. The article was cached when I posted it. Mind you, the same could be said for the article. I blame CNN.

Re:404'd

[thedarknite]

Or you could read the arstechnica article from October when this news first appeared on Slashdot

Good. Go for the throat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope IBM kicks Amazon to the ground. Actually, I'd be happy if IBM also punches Amazon in the throat as they fell, by invalidating 1-Click or something.

Because I'm currently annoyed with Amazon for their completely random pricing - and it changing every 30 seconds. Amazon have started to suck up so much of the online retailership that they're becoming a monopoly. And if you can't get their prices to stay still for more than a couple of minutes, it's impossible to generate any sort of budget based on their prices (particularly for obscure interdependent software + hardware purchases where there's not much other choice, and the price determines go/no-go on a particular purchase).

So yes, I was recently planning a fairly major purchase around a cheap price that Amazon had listed, only to find that it had literally doubled when I went to purchase a few hours later. I was then left scrambling to find a halfway decent price elsewhere. And after reading that the prices often also vary from *customer to customer*, they've made me feel like a rat in a maze specifically designed to study consumers by subjecting them to a bombardment of ever-changing prices and self-destructing offers. On many levels it's dishonest - it's like a reverse auction "yours for $150" "sold!" "err.. actually $300". And it just pisses me off.

So yes, burn Amazon - burn. You dishonest, manipulative whores.

Not quite

[deft]

It could just as easily be read that they tried to avoid court as much as possible, kno2wing they had a case, but hoping to settle it with a contract instead.

I'm not sure IBM can be called SCO yet... thats like calling Michael Richardson "Hitler" of patent law... not quite yet.

What's the patent about?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Is the patent in question one concerning "a process or method for constantly changing shipping dates and requiring the recipient to approve such changes on at least a daily frequency, usually with a deadline for approval which is in the past"?

Because if it is, Amazon are clearly in violation of it.

And yes, if there's a patent for not reading TFA, I think I may have infringed it.

Why do you like patents?

[jotaeleemeese]

Specially software ones (you know, the patenting of ideas and concepts, that is speech).

In view of the last few days of sheer madness I find sad an discomforting that there are people out there still supporting what is clearly a rotten system.

That is what any sane person would expect.

[jotaeleemeese]

Patents should protect only objects whose construction or implementation is so complex that the inventor needs a monopoly to recoup the costs.

If somebody has an instant of genious for a little adaptation, sorry, it is great, it may have never been thought before, but if it is easy to replicate then one should call into question how innovative the artifact really is.

And in regards to software, which is just the formalization of a process of thought necessary to talk to a computer, patents are sheer madness. The equivalent in literature would be to have granted Shakespeare a patent on writing a performance about kings on te bases of any of his great plays. That is whay copyright is there for, it is high time that IT companies realize this and understand that nobody is being served by software patents.

I refer to IT companies because they are the ones that can either lobby for software patents abolition where they exist (mainly the US) or stop the idiotic push for them where they don't (the EU for example).

Re:That is what any sane person would expect.

[QuantumG]

99% of patents are small innovations. This is considered a strength of the patent system, not a weakness. Just because you're biased to "big bang" innovation, doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

Algorithms are not trinkets.

[jotaeleemeese]

How dare you forbid me to think for myself!

The problem with your reasoning is that it goes against the most basic grain of how human culture has developed.

The most fundamental freedom of any person (after covering the basic necesities) is the freedom to think.

If you come up with a method to solve a problem you should be fully entitled to get some kind of remuneration if your method is useful. But I don't see why if I come with my own method to solve the same problem I should have to pay you anything for it.

Notice here that I am talking about methods to do something. If that method describs a trinket then the trinket should be patentable, giving you protection for your efforts, ensuring other people can't look at your trinket and do their own to ssolve the same problem.

But what you are advocating is that by writing a program that adds 2 + 2 anybody should pay you money for the addition operator.

But not only that, there will be people claiming to have invented binary operators, then even others claiming they inveted operators, and then even others that will claim they invented mathematical symbolic languages and so on.

Software patents becomes a game of who can come with the most outrageous and broad claims and is prepared to support them with enough cash in a court of law.

The system is broken, anybody writing sofware is amply protected by copyright and should realize that at times he may "win" but in the long term we are all losing (all that money that goes to parasitic lawyers could be spent doing new, innovative products, then IT companies woue earn a living by actually doing useful things).

Re:Algorithms are not trinkets.

[Cauchy]

No, writing software to do 2 + 2 shouldn't let me deny you the right to use addition. However, if they only known way to add to numbers larger than one digit in a given base was to count, and I devised a method involving adding the right most column and carrying a one to the next column to the left if the result was greater than or equal to the base, I should be able to get compensated if others adopt my algorithm. Note that I said using my method that did not previously exist.

So, after sleeping on it, yes, Hoare should have the right to get money if you use quicksort if he had chosen to patent it. He developed a method that was significantly faster than other methods. It was his invention. If others use it, why shouldn't he get paid? Many years ago, a guy named McCoy developed a method of lubricating engines using slowly dripping oil. If you didn't want to pay him, you could stand there and drip oil for yourself. If the quicksort algorithm is patented, and it isn't worth it to you to pay, sort in slower than n ln(n) or develop your own algorithm (think for yourself). Arguments to the contrary are purely emotional and boil down to people not wanting to pay for using other peoples ideas.

No one wants to forbid you to think for yourself. But, what people seem to be advocating is letting other people do the thinking and then stealing their ideas.

The patent system is horribly broken. Patents are given for things that are obvious or that already exist. The role of money and lawyers in deciding patent issues is very unfair and abusive. But, there is a need for a system that works.

Both?

[Wooky_linuxer]

that's the beauty of tags; you can tag them both. In fact, I'd like to see a fs built around tags instead of directories someday. So that I will not be modded OT, I'd add that the current patent system might be both evil and good. In theory, it should protect the small guy who invents something on his owm from big bad companies. In practice, since you need a sheetload of money to patent something, and patents that are obviously invalid are usually granted, it all works in reverse. Alas, I agree that anything not phisical in nature couldn't be patented. This DNA patenting makes my DNA feel sick deep inside.

If something broken is not worth fixing....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... you just throw it away.

What is someone's thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the problem with both arguments is that they're not absolutes.

Strange answer

[cheros]

Judging by other comments from you seem to be capable of reasonably level headed comments, so why this anomaly?

Not quite having the right coffee-to-blood ratio yet?

Patents not in constitution- did you flunk civics

[Anonymous Coward]

"Patents are a creation for the publics interest and are not in the Constitution so when they work against the public they need to be revised."

Not in the constitution- have you read it recently- I know that the current administartion keeps ripping parts out but last I recall -- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 specifically calls for patents. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut ion.articlei.html#science%20and%20useful%20arts)

Update Posting Link? Original URL is now bad

[lpq]

Seem the URL in the original post has gone stale...

Re:Screw em

[AlphaLop]

Yes, she could of gotten it at the book store, for about 40% more. Some of us are not very wealthy and if we can find it cheaper we will. I found it on amazon, it was cheaper, and they did not ship it in an accurate and timely manner, which is what I paid for. By the time we actually got credited back the money from Amazon she was too far behind to pass... Sound a little less odd now? Then again, if you went to college you know how expensive textbooks are or your daddy paid for them for you and it did not matter what they cost.....

Re:Update Posting Link? Original URL is now bad

[etrnl]

Mod parent up. Tried to search around CNN to find it but didn't manage to.