Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Goes Web 2.0 Wild to Defend 1-Click Patent
theodp writes "Six years ago, Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly urged the masses to give-patent-reform-a-chance as Richard Stallman called for an Amazon boycott. On Monday, the pair will reunite to kick off O'Reilly's new Amazon-sponsored Web 2.0 Expo with A Conversation with Jeff Bezos. Be interesting if the conversation turned to Amazon's ongoing battle against an actor's effort to topple Bezos' 1-Click patent, which The Register notes included dumping 58 lbs. of paperwork on the patent examiner, including dozens of articles from the oh-so-Web-2.0 Wikipedia, which the USPTO had already deemed an un acceptable source of information ('From a legal point of view, a Wiki citation is toilet paper,' quipped patent expert Greg Aharonian)."
What is toilet paper?
Will code for new sig.
Actually, in debate, I am often very pleased when my opponent relies heavily on wikipedia, it's like shooting fish in the frozen food section.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
"The problem with Wikipedia is that it's constantly changing,"
Just click on "Permanent link" and you will have a version that won't change. Or click on Cite this article.
From the FTA:
O'Reilly has the money and the influence to help strike out this dumb patent, but he chooses not to do so. It would be a nice irony if the USPTO threw it out because Tim's chum Jeff used Wikipedia. I'd laugh my fricking ass off.Anyone who reviews my post history or goosles me, and digs a little will find that I'm not exactly a proponent of wikipedia.
But there is no black or white here. Wikipedia is not apropriate for serious use, where it's important to be correct. But it's a massive quick and dirty database. If I want to know what X is and I've never heard of it, I can go to wikipedia and get an overview. If the authors did their due dilligence, I can find a decent collection of links off site that will tell me a bit abotu the subject matter.
Wikipedia can be a useful tool. Just not for most important applications.
Let's use a programming analogy. The "right" way to deploy a new application cross platform would be to code it in C or Java, or some other language apropriate to the task, and fine tune each version for each platform, and hunt for bugs on each platform. Annother, quick, relativly painless way, if it were an unimportant, trivial task, would be to just put together a web based Java applett, or perhaps even a flash object if it's simple enough. Hell, millions do this with YouTube, every day because it's "good enough". Even though an MPEG, MOV, AVI, or other video file played in a stand alone player would be "better".
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Dude, I have no intention of goosling you. The only person I goosle is my wife.
From a legal point of view, a Wiki citation is toilet paper,' quipped patent expert Greg Aharonian.
:-)
:-)
And from any sane person's point of view, 99% of comments from patent experts are toilet paper, which is why we're in such a mess today.
So, it's beautifully symmetric. Patent lawyers and Wikipedia were made for each other.
Although in Wikipedia's defence, it gets it right ***far*** more often.
In any case, Wikipedia can always be corrected, and very easily, that's the power of it. Whereas the only way of correcting a patent lawyer is with a lobotomy.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I was just reading the book "On the Edge", which is about Commodore's rise and fall. The silly "Xor cursor" patent lawsuit may be what finished them off. Commodore survived a slump in 1986 and may have also survived its 1993 slump if not for the Xor patent suit. Although the issues were complicated, the Xor lawsuit may have been what put it over the edge. If Commodore survived a few years longer to about 1996, then the shere money wave of the web boom may have kept them alive to try again with more products and an updated Amiga that was on the drawing boards.
Table-ized A.I.