Slashdot Mirror
Patent Reformers O'Reilly, Bezos Mum on 1-Click
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)."
Looks like O'Reilly thought selling books was more important than patent issues...
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.
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.
the original description is completely incomprehensible
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.
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?