Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.'"
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.
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.
... they just happened to be there first because of their positioning during and following the dot-com boom.
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
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."
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.
The patent system is bad enough as it is, please don't give them any ideas how to make it worse.
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.