Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Cries 'Uncle' to End IBM Patent Feud

Posted by Zonk on from the make-it-stop-make-it-stop dept.

theodp writes "Amazon will pay an undisclosed amount to IBM to settle a long-running patent feud, and the two companies have agreed to a long-term patent cross-licensing agreement. Information Week wonders if an insurance dispute prompted Amazon's settlement, noting that Atlantic Mutual sued Amazon back in March to escape any obligation to reimburse the e-tailer should it lose the case brought by IBM. Amazon had relied on Atlantic Mutual's backing in an earlier legal battle it waged against tiny InTouch. 'Amazon, whose chief executive, Jeff Bezos, is a vocal advocate of patent reform, has had numerous patent issues in the past. In 2005, the technology used in its 1-Click checkout system came under scrutiny as potentially infringing upon a similar product made by a small Virginia-based company called IPXL Holdings. Meanwhile, the US patent system itself is experiencing growing pains as Congress continues to explore the possibility of updating it to better serve the needs of the 21st-century business world.'"

63 comments

  1. Bullies, take heed by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is always someone bigger than you.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Bullies, take heed by ushering05401 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone take heed. The patent lawsuit is not such a huge deal in the case of Amazon because they are not going away, but all the big players use selective lawsuits which is what bugs the hell out of me.

      Under the current system big companies wait for smaller companies to become profitable and then they pounce. If one company sues another for patent infringement they should be obligated to sue all infringers. So as the owner of a small company I should be able to name co-defendants who also appear to use similar technology, and with how broad patents are these days it should not be hard to find big players who might be committing similar patent infringements.

      If those bigger players are found to be implementing technology similar to what I am being sued for then they should be required to join the defense.

      No more assassination through selective lawsuits.

      Regards.

    2. Re:Bullies, take heed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullies or the rest of us? All that happened here is that two 'someone biggers' got together and agreed not to bully each other. Now they can both focus on beating up the little guys.

    3. Re:Bullies, take heed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take head... uh, I mean heed.

    4. Re:Bullies, take heed by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Under the current system big companies wait for smaller companies to become profitable and then they pounce. If one company sues another for patent infringement they should be obligated to sue all infringers.
      Sure you thought that one through? By what you're suggesting, only the very largest corporations would be able to assert patents, because small players couldn't afford it. This would make the patent system even worse: in essence, only really big companies could own patents (smaller companies could own them, but not use them, so they may as well not own them at all).

      The patent system is bad enough as it is, please don't give them any ideas how to make it worse.
    5. Re:Bullies, take heed by moochfish · · Score: 1

      Unless you're IBM, and the fight is over patents.

    6. Re:Bullies, take heed by ushering05401 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. My view is that patent enforcement would become almost impossible for anyone. A a small developer all I want is the freedom to innovate in my niche market by pursuing my own development schemes I shouldn't have to worry about who may have patented a concept that I hacked out in my home office and was completely unaware was patented.

      My opinion is that the system cannot be broken any worse than it is. My opinion is based on patent reviews I have done that cover such a broad range that many commonplace task implementations are technically open to lawsuit. Any enterprise level system I develop is liable to be crushed if it takes off.

      Regards.

    7. Re:Bullies, take heed by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Under the current system big companies wait for smaller companies to become profitable and then they pounce. If one company sues another for patent infringement they should be obligated to sue all infringers. So as the owner of a small company I should be able to name co-defendants who also appear to use similar technology, and with how broad patents are these days it should not be hard to find big players who might be committing similar patent infringements.

      If those bigger players are found to be implementing technology similar to what I am being sued for then they should be required to join the defense.

      No more assassination through selective lawsuits.

      The owner of the patent will just grant licenses to the bigger players that they don't want to have to face in court, so that they will not be infringing but the smaller company will. Unless you're planning on compulsory licenses too, then this idea will not stop selective lawsuits. Plus it would completely prevent any small company from ever enforcing a patent.

      Besides, I don't think the problem is selective enforcement. Being allowed to not care about a given instance of infringement is a good thing. I don't want patents to become like trademarks, where companies must aggressively pursue all infringement just to keep the trademark. The problem in the common scenario you describe isn't the selectivity, it's the way in which they wait for the infringement to continue such that the infringing company is not just profitable but completely reliant on the patent for profits, and then they get attacked. They company with the patent knows the other is infringing, but allows it to continue so as to increase the damage done by their eventual attack.

      So what I propose is that for someone to bring a patent infringement suit against someone, they must bring the suit within some reasonable time after first learning of the infringement. If it can be shown that the plaintiff knew about the infringement but just sat on the issue, then the case would be dismissed. The patent owner can still selectively enforce the patent based on who infringes, but not when. I'm thinking there would still be major implementation problems, such as what happens when a company is bought by another, does the infringement immunity get transfered? So it may not be practical. But it would have for example completely shut down the RAMBUS DDR patent suit, because simply by being aware that JDEC was implementing things covered by their patents they would have had to bring the issue up immediately (in which case JDEC would have changed the standard) or forfeit their ability to sue later. No more waiting until the "open" standard becomes ubiquitous then turning around and claiming you own it.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Bullies, take heed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.

      The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process.

      After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.

      An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

      After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.

  2. Serve the needs of the business world by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what patents are for, right? Serving the needs of the business world. Not fostering innovation amongst Citizens of the United States. Nope. Serving the needs of the business world.

    Just like Congress itself, I suppose.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Serve the needs of the business world by samkass · · Score: 1

      Just like a democracy is a government of the people, in a capitalist system "the business world" is the people.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    2. Re:Serve the needs of the business world by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep. But that's not how it's supposed to work. Stakeholders in a capitalist system include not just business owners, but employees and customers as well. That is why I have a problem with capitalism, it's inherently anti-democratic.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  3. New euphemism... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No one knows what "cries uncle" means anymore. Let's use the modern version:

    "Tapped Out!"

    1. Re:New euphemism... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      What if his sister is also your sister, and your mom is your sister, and your dad is His dad???

      Okay, now I'm really confused. NM

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:New euphemism... by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Where is the "-1 Disgusting" mod? I can't seem to find it...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    3. Re:New euphemism... by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      that was the joke, apparently the inbred have mod points and were plainly offended.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  4. "Obvious" results? by vrimj · · Score: 1

    The timing is intersting given the new ruling on Obviousness. I wonder if a lot of patent things will settle to avoid litigation and thus potential re-examiation. It would seem like IBM would press to settle, but prehaps IBM thretened to instigate a reexamation of Amazon patents. I would not be susprised is everyone is spooked and with the insurance thing Amazon agreed to a nominal settlement and IBM accepted on the condition that they seal it.

    1. Re:"Obvious" results? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Especially since IBM has a literally unparalleled ability to generate legal paperwork. Only company to ever bury the DOJ under so much paperwork that they got lost. The funny thing about it all (funny in a modern, corporate context anyway) is that IBM at least seems to be relatively scrupulous. In a world in which people are suing people left and right for patent infringement, IBM is mostly using their portfolio defensively. While others are still trying to maintain vendor lock-in (Apple, Microsoft, I'm looking at you) IBM is promoting Open Source, Free Software, you name it. IBM used to be a great satan, now they're our last best hope for peace or something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:"Obvious" results? by cyborg_zx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IBM used to be a great satan, now they're our last best hope for peace or something.
      *AHEM* In the year(s) of the patent war it became our last best hope for victory.
    3. Re:"Obvious" results? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a world in which people are suing people left and right for patent infringement, IBM is mostly using their portfolio defensively. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's just plain ignorant.

      Maybe back in the early 80s that was true. But since then, under the guidance of Marshall Phelps, IBM turned their patent portfolio into a $2B+/yr revenue stream. IBM's patent licensing has become so onerous that it is often referred to as the "IBM Tax."

      And just so you know what to expect in the future - and maybe who to blame for the Novell patent licensing fiasco - Marshall Phelps joined Microsoft a few years back, explicitly to do for MS what he did for IBM.
    4. Re:"Obvious" results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How sad someone gave you an "interesting" instead of a "funny" for that.

    5. Re:"Obvious" results? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Damn are you on the money. Thanks.

      Marshall Phelps - senate testimony on patents http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/mphelps/07 -26-05PatentTestimony.mspx

      Marshall Phelps - Novell http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/06/microsoft_ novell_analysis/page2.html

      Marshall Phelps - Sun Microsystems Cached

      Marshall Phelps - Precursor to Novell/Microsoft http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/25/ec_erects_ toll_booth/

      Marshall Phelps - on the register http://www.google.com/search?&q=Marshall+Phelps+si te%3Atheregister.co.uk

      Marshall Phelps - on slashdot http://www.google.com/search?&q=Marshall+Phelps+si te%3Aslashdot.org

      Marshall Phelps - on IBM.com http://www.google.com/search?&q=Marshall+Phelps+si te%3Aibm.com

      Marshall Phelps and Richard Stallman in the same search http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Marshall+Phelps %22+%22Richard+Stallman%22

      Reminds me of that Stephen King flick, Needful Things.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  5. SAVE THE SMILIES! by hexed_2050 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has tried to patent smilies for heaven sakes! Save the smilies, what ever shall we do?!? :P (..damn it, I'm going to get sued again.)

    --
    Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
  6. LINK TO PATENT FILING by hexed_2050 · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050156873%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20050156873&RS=DN/20050156873

    --
    Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
  7. Advice for survivors by russotto · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't play cards with a man named Doc
    Don't eat at a place called Mom's
    Never make a wager with a Sicilian when death is on the line
    Never pull on Superman's cape
    Don't spit in the wind
    Don't pull the mask off the old lone ranger
    Don't mess with Jim (unless you're Slim)
    Mess not with the mouse

    AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, DON'T GET IN A PATENT WAR WITH IBM.

    1. Re:Advice for survivors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot:
      never get involved in a land war in Asia
      and, more famously,
      never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

    2. Re:Advice for survivors by tmarthal · · Score: 1

      There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body.

    3. Re:Advice for survivors by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      You forgot the one about a land war in Asia
      Never shoot pool at a place called Pop's
      Never wound what you can't kill.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    4. Re:Advice for survivors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never start a fistfight with an Irishman...

  8. the patents in question? by Vasco+Bardo · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The e-commerce patents in question ranged from hyperlink technology to electronic ordering." Hyperlink technology? Electronic ordering? Sweet jesus, these guys at IBM are geniuses, are there any alienware nobel prizes for this kind of incredible breakthroughs?

    1. Re:the patents in question? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering IBM created these patents in the 1990s. Some as early as 1993.

      Prior art is kind of hard to find.

      --

      GPL Deconstructed
    2. Re:the patents in question? by Vasco+Bardo · · Score: 1

      The absence of prior art is not sufficient to prove the worth of a patent, and certainly not enough to avoid sarcastic comments. My point is that it looks pretty obvious.

    3. Re:the patents in question? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Was it obvious in 1993?

      In 1993 I was still using BBSes and modems, DOS and terminal windows, and playing Castle Wolfenstein. I certainly didn't think of it then.

      --

      GPL Deconstructed
    4. Re:the patents in question? by flosofl · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree with this. It may be obvious now, but was it at the time? With the information and the current state of the internet, were these patents covering something that just about anyone could have come up with at the time?

      There are a lot of times when, after knowing the solution to something, I slap my forehead and go, "Sweet jumping Jesus! That's so obvious!" But it was not obvious before knowing the solution.

      --
      "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
    5. Re:the patents in question? by Raideen · · Score: 1

      I haven't read the list of patents under dispute, but hypertext--the basis of hyperlinking--has been around since the 1960s. (The innovation behind hyperlinking isn't the technology, but rather the way in which it is used.) Electronic ordering was around when I started BBSing in 1990 and it wasn't new then either. Obviously, the patents could cover specific details of the above but the broad terms used by the GP would be covered by prior art. + "on the web" doesn't make it innovative.

    6. Re:the patents in question? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Read the patents. They cover, "The web" as we know it.

      --

      GPL Deconstructed
  9. Minor clarification by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congress continues to explore the possibility of updating it to better serve the needs of the 21st-century business world.

    In case anyone was wondering, unsure, or confused about that, it means that Congress is talking about streamlining and further entrenching software patent insanity. That they want "better" and "more enforcible" stupid software patents.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    1. Re:Minor clarification by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 0

      I thought the patent and copyright systems were intended to serve the public, not the business world.

      The intent was to encourage release into the public domain by offering a short term monopoly, emphasis on the words "short" and "term."

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    2. Re:Minor clarification by kansas1051 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's pretty clear you haven't even looked at the "Patent Reform Act of 2007." Among its highlights include a quick post-grant opposition procedure and serious limitations on the damages an infringer may be liable for. Both of these will make all patents "less enforcible."

      Here are some more informed opinions on the legislation:
      http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=117809668258 1
      http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml ?articleID=199400075

  10. Can a leopard change its spots? by Bozdune · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm old, so I remember. I remember when IBM was so clearly the Great Satan. Like suing IBM clone mainframe peripheral vendors in the 60's and 70's. Like trying to push the PS/2 down our throats in the 80's.

    Bastards.

    Now they are good guys. Why? Because having lost the OS battle, they turn to open source for succor. Not sure this makes them good guys, exactly. They got sued by SCO, but that doesn't make them good guys either, although it is fun watching them pound SCO into paste.

    I'm very nervous about their patent portfolio. I'm nervous about everyone's patent portfolio. A time will come when you can't write a line of code without stepping on someone's software or process patent. And that will be the end of a creative era that has known no equal in human history.

    Software should not be patentable. Processes should not be patentable. Period.

    1. Re:Can a leopard change its spots? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm very nervous about their patent portfolio. I'm nervous about everyone's patent portfolio. A time will come when you can't write a line of code without stepping on someone's software or process patent. And that will be the end of a creative era that has known no equal in human history.

      it makes me nervous too, but the fact that they have one of the biggest patent portfolios on the planet and yet don't do that kind of thing now (when they are probably the only company around that could both get away with it and do it profitably) speaks well of them.

      Unfortunately, a shift of executive management could potentially send them in a completely different direction - but I do think that they are entirely cognizant of the fact that goodwill is valuable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Can a leopard change its spots? by ShinmaWa · · Score: 1

      I believe that time has come already -- especially after the approval of the patent protecting "A method by which to produce through an electronic medium a greeting and salutation to a planetary body."

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    3. Re:Can a leopard change its spots? by fermion · · Score: 1
      They are the "good guys" because they no are humbled enough to have no choice but to listen to and provide what customers want, not what IBM research wants them to buy. This has come largely from the fact that customers do have a choice, and aren't forced to buy IBM, even when the IBM product is crap.

      I see the open source thing as something more recent than general failure caused by the utter lack of respect for the customer. This is the lesson that all technology companies needs to learn. IBM is still evil, but they are now at least nominally trustworthy. Other technology companies do not have to suffer the meltdown. They could choose to develop products that the market needs, and compete in the open market rather than continue to develop technologies that primarily exist to stifle market innovation. Even with massive patent inventories, some degree of failure is certain for companies that do not respect customers. Not only IBM, but also, for example, ATT.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  11. I think it's clear IBM is the 'better guy.' by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, I guess I might be exposing my pro-IBM bias here (good God, I can't believe I just said that -- I remember when you pretty much had to curse or spit after saying that name), but I think that IBM would probably be hurt a lot less due to the 'obviousness' ruling than Amazon would.

    Just look at the two companies -- IBM has a vast research division, which basically exists to invent stuff and turn out patents (and other things useful to IBM). Amazon is an online bookstore. Whatever patents they have, were probably found/invented/discovered more or less accidentally, while building themselves up. I think that there's a far greater chance that Amazon's patents would be ruled obvious than IBM's, because many of Amazon's patented inventions might be perfectly obvious to anyone else who was engaged in what they were doing ... they just happened to be there first because of their positioning during and following the dot-com boom.

    To be frank, I think the type of thing that IBM does these days is really what the patent system is supposed to encourage and protect -- IBM probably wouldn't spend the billions of dollars that it does on original research, if it wasn't able to capitalize on and monetize the inventions produced. If you look at the history of that company, they've produced a lot of pretty neat stuff. Leaving aside their past anticompetitive behavior, the world is probably a better place for IBM Research; any patent reform which eliminates the impetus to do what they're doing, would be IMO a mistake. However, Amazon, in contrast, seems to just be patenting stuff in order to protect their business model from competition. While that difference may not seem particularly important, I believe that creating a patent system that rewards original research while not rewarding blatant business-model protectionism is the key to reform.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  12. So, patents are going to be fixed.. by YetAnotherBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, the patent mess is going to be fixed by the same people who fixed the copyright mess with the DCMA?

    Fixes by Congress have never done anything but make things worse. In my lifetime I've seen them fix campaign funding, pornography availability, fuel shortages, inflation, and several foreign governments. Every time, they just made things worse. Isn't the patent situation here bad enough already??

    --
    Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
  13. Easy way to patent reform.... by cuppett · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Change the filing fee to $250,000. This will drop patent application rates tremendously to only those applications protecting a truly lucrative and unique business idea or invention. If the idea or innovation isn't worth $250,000 to you, then it doesn't need protection. In addition, I would re-assess all existing patent holders $250,000 for each patent they wish to keep. This would allow the government to revoke all prior frivolous patents. Could also be a nice jolt to the government revenue stream, as well as a way to reduce the patent trolls as well.

    1. Re:Easy way to patent reform.... by BoothbyTCD · · Score: 1

      It would also more or less make it impossible for individuals or small businesses to patent anything, leaving all legal protections for large corporations. This does not sound like the way to go to me.

      --
      snig
    2. Re:Easy way to patent reform.... by Mex · · Score: 1

      That's pretty backwards, friend. That means that the only ones who will be able to apply for patents will be the rich corporations themselves, not poor inventors.

    3. Re:Easy way to patent reform.... by cuppett · · Score: 1

      Patents on ideas that are only worth $50k to their owners in terms of future revenue are part of the problem too. If your idea is worth $1M, then $250K is easy to get from investors, banks, etc. It could also serve to reverse the order of operations, instead of speculatively filing every idea, novel or not, you could put your idea into practice and if it is evident the idea will be worth it, then the patent could be filed. If another were to file the patent, you could claim prior art. An extension to the amount of time after disclosure it could be filed might also be worth considering. However, this wasn't meant to be an extended exchange, merely a provocative thought.

    4. Re:Easy way to patent reform.... by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      A better approach would be an exponentially increasing annual fee. Don't pay the fee and it expires.

      Say the first year is $1000, then $2000, $4000, $8000, $16000, ...

      That way the small inventor gets the chance to get started, while BigCorps can't afford to keep 10,000 patents that sit around for years doing nothing except waiting for somebody to accidentally infringe.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
  14. 1-Click is NOT a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In 2005, the technology used in its 1-Click checkout system came under scrutiny as potentially infringing upon a similar product made by a small Virginia-based company called IPXL Holdings."

    Everybody say it with me...

    ONE CLICK IS NOT A PRODUCT!!!

  15. Good, Amazon sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon infringes on patents, yet at the same time they constantly censor material. They censored the 'Terrorstorm' video (Alex Jones) by repeatedly resetting total # of hits (to keep it off popular lists). Amazon censored the book "America Deceived" (E.A. Blayre III) America Deceived (book) from their site. They always minimize any video and/or audio exposure for 9/11 truth. Amazon has bullied plenty of little guys. It's good to see them squirm.

  16. In the end... by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

    In the end, they both look stupid for having this battle.

    --
    "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
  17. In other words.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Don't fsck with IBM's Nazgul!

    They will blacken your sky, redden your books, stick you in a bloody, dark corner with Daryl M.

    Ware! Ware! Behold the flight of the Nazgul cometh! (obligitory) RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  18. Dugg by Wayne247 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dugg for the creative title.

    Hmm what's with all those nested comments?

  19. Amdahl Learned... by Black-Man · · Score: 1

    Took Amdahl a series of anti-trust lawsuits to stay in the business before the 800lb gorilla stomped them out of business. Exactly who feels sorry for IBM??

  20. Patent vs. Patent by javacowboy · · Score: 1

    Silly question:

    What if two companies with very similar patents sue each other for violating each other's respective patents?

    Let me use a exaggeratedly simple example:

    Amazon has a patent on "one-click shopping". IBM has a patent on "single-click shopping". Due to USPTO incompetence and laziness, both patents were granted at the same time. Each sues the other over their respective patents.

    What happens? How do the courts deal with the respective lawsuits? How does the patent office settle each disputed patent?

    I'm surprised a similar situation hasn't occurred already.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.