Amazon Cries 'Uncle' to End IBM Patent Feud

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.'"

Comments

Bullies, take heed

[Weaselmancer]

There is always someone bigger than you.

Re:Bullies, take heed

[ushering05401]

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.

Re:Bullies, take heed

[ushering05401]

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.

Re:Bullies, take heed

[Chris Burke]

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.

Serve the needs of the business world

[spun]

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.

Re:Serve the needs of the business world

[spun]

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.

Minor clarification

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:the patents in question?

[2nd Post!]

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

Prior art is kind of hard to find.

So, patents are going to be fixed..

[YetAnotherBob]

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??

Re:Can a leopard change its spots?

[drinkypoo]

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.