Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Reformers O'Reilly, Bezos Mum on 1-Click

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the tails-between-their-legs dept.

theodp writes "Brought together 7 years ago by a threatened boycott over Amazon's 1-Click patent, Tim O'Reilly and Jeff Bezos vowed to reform the U.S. patent system. So in The Register's Open Season podcast (@12:25), Andrew Orlowski finds it very ironic that news of a victory by LOTR choreographer Peter Calveley against Bezos' 1-Click patent broke as O'Reilly was once again busy trotting out Amazon-tied speakers to headline a Web 2.0 conference, this one sponsored by Fenwick & West, the prestigious law firm bested by Calveley. Orlowski notes that O'Reilly, who now counts Bezos among his investors, was oddly silent for a self-described software patent protester, especially one who once vowed to torpedo 1-Click. Equally untalkative was Bezos, who deflected questions on the damage done by Calveley's DIY legal effort, telling a Wall Street analyst to 'refer to our public filings' (although nothing on the subject appears in the 8-K and 10-Q filings). One last dose of irony — in explaining the prior art he used to reject the 1-Click claims, a USPTO Examiner cited the very same TV remote control patent that was deemed to be unsuitable in a 1-Click prior art contest run by the O'Reilly and Bezos-bankrolled BountyQuest (just last year, Amazon testified to Congress that the contest failed to find prior art for Bezos' patent)."

48 comments

  1. Money! It's a gas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks like O'Reilly thought selling books was more important than patent issues...

  2. Next question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If this patent is invalidated by prior art, who should be liable if a company demonstrated it has suffered financially due to the presumed validity of said patent?

    1. Re:Next question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      At the time, the patent was valid and amazon (etc) was acting in good faith. Most patent license agreements include a clause that there is no refund if the patent is invalidated. If a patent lawsuit resulted in a jury awarding damages, you could appeal that. If you spent time and money working around a patent, you don't have any recourse.

    2. Re:Next question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then what incentive is there for either applicants or the USPTO to perform adequate prior art searches? The one click patent was but one ridiculous example of how pathetic the patent system has become. If the USPTO are not prepared to accept liability when they fail to do their jobs then all litigated patents should be presumed invalid by the court system.

    3. Re:Next question by Znork · · Score: 1

      "If the USPTO are not prepared to accept liability"

      Nobody in the pro-IP camp is prepared to accept any liability, or even responsibility for the costs of the system.

      A first step towards a saner patent system would be to simply recognize patents as delegated taxation rights, and require any patent derived revenues to be accounted for as a separate post within the government budget. Then we'd get the actual cost of the system on paper, and we could get an actual discussion of wether we're getting our money's worth for what it costs the economy. And we could get a frank discussion about wether having civil servants handing out unsupervised taxation rights is a really a good thing.

    4. Re:Next question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no incentive.

      In fact, you'd better not do a prior art search if you develop software. The state of software patents has become so ridiculous that every program of significant size is guaranteed to infringe registered patents. This isn't a sign of widespread invention. It is a sign that companies are being granted monopolies on conceptual innovations, which are a dime a dozen, in order to freely extort money from people who actually produce things.

      As for the USPTO failing to do its job: this is not an issue. The USPTO has done its job admirably. Its job is to accept as many patents as possible, on appeal if not immediately, because this is what the USPTO gets paid to do. The more patents they accept, the more powerful they are as an entity, and generally the more they get paid.

    5. Re:Next question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, you'd better not do a prior art search if you develop software.

      You missed an important point: if you do do a prior art search you are considered a wilful infringer (when you inevitably infringe something) and are liable for triple damages in a patent suit. So definitely do not do patent searches.

    6. Re:Next question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is no incentive.

      Then how can the the US courts, in good conscience and faith possibly presume issued patents to be valid? Aren't many patent issues settled prior to costly litigation because of this court-presumed validity? Shifting the cost of prior art searches to those accused of infringement and volunteers under the pretense of "patent reform" is unlikely to have anything like the impact of holding the USPTO and patent holders liable for fraud.

      > The more patents they accept, the more powerful
      > they are as an entity, and generally the more they get paid.

      I agree with you but I want to hear some reasoning for it from the pro-patent side, which I why I posed the question.

    7. Re:Next question by jwilcox2009 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are right that the USPTO doesn't have any incentive to get this right, but then that is a problem with government in general. The usual response to your argument is accountability to the electoral process, but the argument is rather hollow here. No one can say with a straight face that we are going to vote out currently-elected government officials based upon patent law. It just doesn't register with the electorate. A more practical rebuttal of your argument is based upon the resources that are poured into patent prosecution. The idea behind this system is to weed out the good patents from the bad patents--we can argue some other day about whether it actually does this job well. What would be the purpose of this expensive system if it was not given any weight by the courts and instead courts started from scratch each time litigation comes up? If you want that system, then we may as well have a patent system where you simply register your patent, you receive your patent upon filing the application, and then any challenges are handled through litigation. Also, who says the courts have any more of an incentive to reach the correct result than the USPTO?

    8. Re:Next question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What would be the purpose of this expensive system if it was
      > not given any weight by the courts and instead courts started
      > from scratch each time litigation comes up?

      10/10

      > If you want that system, then we may as well have a patent
      > system where you simply register your patent, you receive
      > your patent upon filing the application, and then any
      > challenges are handled through litigation.

      Despite continued pretense to the contrary and (sometimes incorrectly) assumed validity, isn't this exactly how it is now?

      > Also, who says the courts have any more of an incentive to
      > reach the correct result than the USPTO?

      The courts would have no financial incentive to approve or reject, whereas the USPTO make more money for (and are therefore biased towards) approval.

      As for the USPTO moving to a first to file system; that's the biggest joke since Columbus "invented" America!

  3. just don't buy from them by m2943 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know what is going on with these guys; maybe they had good intentions, maybe they had some sleazy master plan from the beginning.

    Good thing is: you don't have to buy from them. There are plenty of alternatives to both Amazon and O'Reilly, run by people that don't have such a cloud hanging over them.

    1. Re:just don't buy from them by fgaliegue · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, as far as O'Reilly is concerned, you have to admit, a good number of their books are just good, very good.

      Sure, any book must be taken with a grain of salt (you have the net to fill your mill for grains of salt) but I've never been disappointed by my purchases from them. "The Art of SQL", for instance, is a gem. And I don't know of any alternatives for such a book.

      OK, maybe some influential people there can be "bought" (case in point here), but they do know how to pinpoint good authors and make them write good books. You may not like some parts of them, but what is good is good. As long as O'Reilly keeps on producing such gems, I'll keep on buying (some of) their books.

      Everybody here knows that money for money can only produce mediocre goods (I think I need not mention examples), and I don't think O'Reilly is up to that stage. Yet?

  4. "who now counts Bezos among his investors" by fgaliegue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unfortunately, that seems to tell a lot.

    Money and common sense (and/or ethics) just seem to be strangely opposed... Why am I (not) surprised?

    Retracting your common sense/ethics arguments because you find yourself in "debt" to money-makers just looks cheap, doesn't it?

  5. No problem. by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There are plenty of alternatives to both Amazon and O'Reilly, ....

    O'Reilly isn't a problem for me. I've been moving into FOSS web development and I'm finding that O'Reilly's books aren't what they used to be. They used to be a great value, concise, full of information, and plenty of examples that made sense - like the Perl books - most of them, anyway.

    Now, they're verbose, hard to follow, the authors go off on tangents, the editions come out too infrequently, and they are no longer a good value. The "cookbooks" are still pretty good, but the tutorials and generic references are just bulky crap. The worst: the Python books.

    I find that I'm gravitating towards the newer publishers (Wrox, Sitepoint) and going back to the tried and true - Willey for one.

    Amazon. If you get the "Super Saving" shipping (i.e. free) when eligible, they'll sit on your order for a several days. If I just buy the regular USPS shipping when he free one isn't available, they ship in a day. I find I'm shopping at other places more and more.

    I'd be interested in an online bookstore that can meet or beat Amazon's prices and service.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:No problem. by Omnifarious · · Score: 3, Informative

      I also think No Starch Press makes some good books.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    2. Re:No problem. by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Informative
      Bookpool doesn't have amazon's selection, but for computer/tech books, their prices are better. I haven't purchased anything from them in a while, but they currently seem to have free shipping on orders > $40.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:No problem. by m2943 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Book Burro (bookburro.org) is a Firefox extension that would give you prices of books at other sites when browsing Amazon (or vice versa). (It's down right now, but I believe it's still available.)

    4. Re:No problem. by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      There is also AddAll, a international search engine for new and used books. :)

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    5. Re:No problem. by Electrum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you get the "Super Saving" shipping (i.e. free) when eligible, they'll sit on your order for a several days. If I just buy the regular USPS shipping when he free one isn't available, they ship in a day.

      Amazon doesn't intentionally delay your order, but the potential delay is documented. The delay occurs when you order items that come from different fulfillment centers. Amazon aggregates the items by trucking them to a single FC, then ships them to you. (This was explained to me by a co-worker when I worked for Amazon.)

      I always order books with Super Saver shipping and they often arrive in three days.

    6. Re:No problem. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      I recently ordered 3 items with super saving shipping. I received 3 packages, all shipped on different days, shipped 1,6, and 8 days later. Why an 8 day delay when the items weren't aggregated?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    7. Re:No problem. by Electrum · · Score: 1

      I recently ordered 3 items with super saving shipping. I received 3 packages, all shipped on different days

      Maybe they weren't all in-stock at the same time? It seems odd to do this, especially if they were all under $25, as the shipping costs might exceed the already slim margins. Amazon has a large and complex system that works differently in different cases. My post was meant to give a possible explanation, not to say it always works that way.

      Everyone I met at Amazon was smart and wanted to do a good job. Seemly odd behavior is much more likely due to a compex system with insufficient customer transparency rather than intentional anti-customer business rules like "intentionally delay orders with free shipping". Delaying a customer's order to entice paying for shipping on future orders is silly.

    8. Re:No problem. by Oswald · · Score: 1
      I have had similar experience. I hate the one-click patent and Bezos's double talk, but I simply cannot fault the customer service at Amazon. A year ago I let them seduce me into a three-month trial of their Prime program (free two-day shipping for a year for $79), and I have never looked back.

      I abuse the program for my convenience, buying $4 trinkets or $6 paperbacks and having them appear in my driveway 36 hours later. Of course, I also buy $40 routers and $60 books on occasion.

      I wonder if there is a way to find out quickly how much I've spent with these guys over the years.

  6. The patent system needs reform by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There are too many obvious patents awarded. The system requires a good deal of money to establish and defend a patent. Patents are granted in some fields for an unreasonably long period of time compared the rate of discovery in the field. Software and drug patents are good examples.


    Given the above, many patents obstruct progress instead of encouraging it. They generate business for lawyers who get paid always by the hour and not on contingency. I think the legal abuse of intellectual property law is more costly than tort abuse.


    Patents and copyrights should be used for their Constitutional purpose, and not to provide monopoly rents to entities that can afford the costs to protect them.

    1. Re:The patent system needs reform by heptapod · · Score: 2, Informative

      The way the USPTO is run is the cause for so much drama. A few weeks ago Slashdot reported that employees at the patent office are overworked and underpaid with unreasonable quotas. It's an open secret that the patent and trademark office has a high turnover rate from being overworked and underappreciated for the role they fulfill for the government and inventors. Some companies and investors take advantage of this and gamble that prior art among other criteria will be overlooked because an examiner simply wants to get the job done, get to the next application and collect his paycheck.

    2. Re:The patent system needs reform by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Patents and copyrights should be used for their Constitutional purpose, and not to provide monopoly rents to entities that can afford the costs to protect them.

      You must be new here. (Said in a quiet, defeated voice...)

  7. what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the original description is completely incomprehensible

    1. Re:what? by Derek+Loev · · Score: 1

      Translating it to Latin might help...even if you don't read Latin.

    2. Re:what? by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously. I've tried reading it several times now, and I always give up halfway through because it's just words in no particular order.

    3. Re:what? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I got as far as reading 'Andrew Orlowski,' at which point my brain replaced the entire summary with the phrase 'generic troll,' allowing me to skip straight to the comments without wasting any more time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:what? by MBMarduk · · Score: 1

      Same here.
      That was the first thing that came to mind after about 3 lines. "Why are there so many commas and parentheses (sp?) and not more periods?" Damn block of text reads like a legal filing to a layman.

    5. Re:what? by fdisk3hs · · Score: 1

      Absolutely says nothing. Cowboy Neal has had way, way too many cokes today.
       
      Although I've noticed that for the last year or so, I haven't known what about 80% of the stories were talking about. But then again, I have a job, and a girlfriend...

  8. Bozo's Mum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually I think I'll let that typo stand. But the article didn't indicate what his mum thought. Maybe she's proud of him.

  9. Re:I've never seen Bezo's Mum by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Bezo has - after all, he lives in her basement.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Well now that it is becomming clear that there are by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ...those who present the illusion that they support an anti-patent stand, perhaps we are closer to recognizing the honesty of software patents.

    And that is that software patents are acts of fraud against the public.

    Software is not of the nature of patent quality, it is of the matter of physical phenomenon, natural law and abstract ideas, as well as sub-subject matter such as mathematical algorithms and the likes.... all of which are universally recognized as non-patentable subject matter. Simply because such things are not possible to enforce man made laws on, what is of natural and parent to being human.

    For more fundamental information see Abstraction Physics

  11. knee high to a Wikipedian by epine · · Score: 1


    Orlowski also maintains a minor vendetta against Wikipedia, or more specifically, Wikipedians, and slams the unreliable nature of Wikipedia while writing for The Inquirer, the great mothership of all things unsourced.

    The Inquirer seems to hold a grudge over the persistent deletion from Wikipedia of the Everywhere Girl, an exercise from the outset in fanning nothing into nothing very much, and then congratulating themselves for this amazing and notable feat, in much the way that Paris is famous for being famous. Sorry, but as far as the fiddlers of Wikipedia are concerned, without the sex tape, the Everywhere Girl will have to ply her stock photography on a different street corner.

    I think what truly peeves Orlowski about Wikipedia is that he himself has to check there before writing his scurrilous articles to find out whether his cat is already out of the bag before he loads his wet innuendo into his muzzle-loaded pistol and fires off his first smokey salvo.

    Of the regulars there, Charlie Demerjian sometimes writes highly technical articles, but his sanity also takes fairly sizable holidays on a regular basis. For the pure sporting value of deciding what to believe and what is complete crap, for my money I prefer the Wikipedia.

  12. Mum? by pagaboy · · Score: 1

    Anyone work out what Bezos' mum had to do with anything?

  13. Eben is right by Dashcolon · · Score: 1

    Eben was right about o'reilly

    --
    Trout's epitaph: Life is no way to treat an animal.
  14. Even more ironic... by jgbustos · · Score: 1

    ...is the fact that Peter Calveley did his research using the archive.org site, which is financially supported by Amazon's Alexa:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/27/amazon_1_click_patent_interview/

  15. I agree by Burz · · Score: 1

    Though I am surprised there is not more awareness on Slashdot on this issue.

    Software is pure mathematical expression. As such, I can understand copyrighting specific implementations of ideas in software, but not the patenting of algorithms. The latter is a serious attack on intellectual freedom; Its privatizing math!

    1. Re:I agree by The+Empiricist · · Score: 1

      Software is pure mathematical expression. As such, I can understand copyrighting specific implementations of ideas in software, but not the patenting of algorithms. The latter is a serious attack on intellectual freedom; Its privatizing math!

      Mechanical devices are pure physics applications. For that matter, electric circuits and chemicals such as pharmaceutical products are all grounded in pure physics. Should a patent for a mechanical devices, electric circuit, or drug be invalid because it "privatizes physics?" Should a patent for a new type of vehicle be invalid because "it's all just physics?"

      Pure mathematics (such as an algorithm) or pure physics are not patentable. But use of mathematics or physics for a useful application may be patentable under U.S. law.

      The argument that software should not be patentable because software boils down to just mathematics has the backing of expert authority. It makes some sense from a mathematical perspective: if an algorithm f_1 is unpatentable, and adding a small algorithm to f_n+1 to f_n still creates an unpatentable algorithm, then all algorithms that have unpatentable algorithms at their very base are unpatentable by induction.

      But public policy (such as patent law) is not bounded by theoretical mathematical models, even nice, clean ones supported by very intelligent people. At some point under U.S. law, unpatentable mathematics can turn into useful, patentable inventions. Where is the precise boundary? That's like asking: "how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap?"

      Public policy ultimately has to deal with a world that is not easily modeled into discrete sets. There are better arguments against software patents then the argument that the algorithms are just mathematics.

    2. Re:I agree by Burz · · Score: 1

      For that matter, electric circuits and chemicals such as pharmaceutical products are all grounded in pure physics. Should a patent for a mechanical devices, electric circuit, or drug be invalid because it "privatizes physics?" They are not grounded in pure physics because the applications cannot be extrapolated from pure theory. That is why engineers get a somewhat different education than physicists: The former are more concerned with established techniques and standards that embody real world experience formed largely without a preoccupation with theory. And I should think that any physics researcher could tell you that, given that much of what they do in pursuing a workable and patentable application of their ideas is honing through trial and error.

      OTOH the "software engineer" is no engineer, and his/her role as a specialized mathematician is far removed from the physical world even in the case of robotics. There is only one primary physical tool, the computer, where the element of trial and error has been reduced to a minuscule set of physical factors. All other factors (the mathematical framework of the computing platform, etc.) are entirely discrete.

      The argument that software should not be patentable because software boils down to just mathematics has the backing of expert authority. It makes some sense from a mathematical perspective... Disagree. The enlightenment principle of intellectual freedom is at stake. There is a reason why mathematics has been traditionally excluded from any kind of monopoly in the past: Mathematics is an extension of thought and the substrate of speech. Monopolization of any algorithm is the suppression of rational discourse between author and audience.

      Public policy ultimately has to deal with a world that is not easily modeled into discrete sets. A political system that cannot recognize mathematics as distinct, when it is by definition composed of discrete sets and nothing else, has turned its back on rationality.
  16. I don't think so. by iknownuttin · · Score: 1

    It always happens when I do a "Super Saving" shipping or whatever it's called and I never have any delays otherwise. I live in Metro Atlanta and everything comes from their Kentucky center - always.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  17. "Disagrees with me" == "Troll" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Orlowski is very funny on Wikipedia. Not as sharp or funny as Jason Scott - but the "gift spurned" article was one of the best psychological insights into the Wikipedia cult mentality I've read.

    Open projects are by nature idealistic, a little gift to the world. When this gift is spurned, the rejection must feel terrible. Why would an ungrateful world reject this gift?
    http://www.theregister.com/2005/12/23/wikipedia_gift_spurned/

    It's fricking obvious that he doesn't have a vendetta - only Wikipedians ever seem to think he does. Orlowski usually points out that it's a decent trivia source. But as an "encyclopedia" it falls short.

    Why not challenge the criticism, instead of shooting the messenger?

    Maybe it's something you'll grow out of.

  18. How the hell is Bezos a "patent reformer"? by seebs · · Score: 1

    I just don't get it. His company holds spurious patents, and no matter how often he says things like "that's just defensive", his company has sued other companies for alleged infringements, when those companies were not suing him or his company. That is what we would normally call an "offensive" use of the patent system.

    If Bezos is a patent reformer, the RIAA is a copyright reformer.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    1. Re:How the hell is Bezos a "patent reformer"? by AVee · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the RIAA indeed wants to 'reform' copyright. It a direction which is, lets say, not really favored by the slashdot crowd, but you could call it a reform.
      So Bezos could very well be a copyright reformer, but his reform might not be what you expect when you here the term 'copyright-reform'.