Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos Calls For Governments To End Patent Wars

Obviously by sunking2 · 2012-10-17 06:38 · Score: 0, Troll

Bezos has run out of ideas and wants to start using other peoples for free.

Re:Obviously by lewscroo · 2012-10-17 06:44 · Score: 5, Funny

I guess Amazon is just a One Click Pony.
Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:45 · Score: 0

Bezos has run out of ideas and wants to start using other peoples for free.
Or maybe because he sort of failed?
Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:01 · Score: 0

Or perhaps 'one click' was intended to discredit the whole system.
You know increase misery so as to precipitate revolution.
Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:10 · Score: 0

I did not know Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, AT&T, Google, Microsoft etc were part of the Government. Did Amazon get out of the Government? Is that why he wants Government to stop Patent Wars?
Re:Obviously by AikonMGB · 2012-10-17 07:23 · Score: 1

I would get it, but I don't believe it.
Re:Obviously by Joce640k · 2012-10-17 08:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

He could show he means business by putting the "One-click" patent in the public domain and refunding everybody he's sued over it.

--
No sig today...
Re:Obviously by Kalriath · 2012-10-17 08:52 · Score: 2

Really? He's licensed it to Apple, and sued Barnes and Noble over it. Definitely working as he intended.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Obviously by epSos-de · 2012-10-17 09:22 · Score: 1

Could not find a living Pony on Amazon. Where did you see it ?

--
~ Best man at your service.

Yes, and no. by Black+Parrot · 2012-10-17 06:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree with him on patent reform.

However, I suspect that it's impossible to write a set of laws that leeches can't find a way to exploit, for their own benefit at the detriment of the greater good.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Yes, and no. by MightyMartian · 2012-10-17 06:45 · Score: 5, Funny

I may agree with Bezos, but I still feel a little like it's Satan complaining about forest fires in Hell.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Yes, and no. by fustakrakich · 2012-10-17 07:08 · Score: 1

You can start by making sure the law applies to everybody, equally.
This guy only wants an end to the bad PR that is coming out of these wars. He wants the 'five families' to make peace before their political support abandons them.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Yes, and no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:12 · Score: 0

I always compare him to Lex Luthor, myself.
Re:Yes, and no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:20 · Score: 0

Not quite. Satan owns Hell. It's within his property rights to complain if his forests are immolated without his consent. He can send his sons - the lawyers - to seek compensation.
Bezos is more like the mortal complaining how other people could make deals with the devil, just like he did. He suddenly realized that Satan's sons worked for Satan, and not him.
Re:Yes, and no. by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2012-10-17 07:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's because laws are fixed. In any scenario, if you stare at fixed defenses long enough, you can find some way to get around them. What you need is a vigilant and trustworthy justice system that punishes attempts to get around the law.
It can happen, it's just that it comes closer to fascism than most people are comfortable with. If you want to punish abuses of the law, you have to say, "Even if the law would let you get away with it, I won't." That's not how most people view a free and open society, although arguably it is necessary to maintain one.
Re:Yes, and no. by StripedCow · 2012-10-17 07:24 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, his One Click (tm) model does not work for patent reform.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Re:Yes, and no. by MozeeToby · 2012-10-17 07:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

However, I suspect that it's impossible to write a set of laws that leeches can't find a way to exploit, for their own benefit at the detriment of the greater good.
Well, you can, it just requires putting more faith in juries and the judiciary than we are currently comfortable with. For example, a good legal code can be summed up in the four words "Do Not Harm Others" if you trust your police, judges, and juries to apply that code fairly (but we don't, and we shouldn't).
Think about it from a software testing perspective, where do you encounter the most errors when testing software? The edge cases right? But with law, every time you try to close a loopholes you create more edge cases. Only with a wholesale re-write can those edges be removed, and there are very, very few laws that have gone through such a re-write in recent history. I would argue that any complex law code is going to have loopholes that the unethical will take advantage of, the more complex the code the more loopholes there will be to abuse.
Re:Yes, and no. by AuMatar · 2012-10-17 07:49 · Score: 2

The way to game that is to get to be the man making those decisions. Sometimes, there's just no way to win. You pick the least bad route.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:Yes, and no. by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-10-17 07:53 · Score: 1

You can start by making sure the law applies to everybody, equally.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
--- Anatole France
It's nearly impossible to make a law that applies equally to everyone, because we're all different, in different situations. Companies, even more so. There's no way the same law can apply to a 100,000 person corporation and a mom/pop shop. (Mostly mom&pop are exempt, but not always)

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Yes, and no. by SlippyToad · 2012-10-17 08:06 · Score: 1

It's nearly impossible to make a law that applies equally to everyone, because we're all different, in different situations. Companies, even more s
You say this, but you provide zero evidence that it is so. I'm not sure if you're making a distinction between the law or the corrupt system under which it is implemented, because those are two different problems.
On the topic of could we stop patent abuse, sure we could. Hire more and better patent clerks, pay them a proper wage and encourage them to spend time researching so that they are patenting things that are actually innovative, not just different
Make the process of getting a patent for a real innovation trivial in cost, and the expense of making a bogus patent claim uncompromisingly huge.
I think that would about cover it, though the devil is in the details. Laws are not like computer programs. When written in clear language they do not require complex debugging.
Oh, the final ingredient in this mix is to write the law clearly.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Re:Yes, and no. by fustakrakich · 2012-10-17 08:16 · Score: 1

More likely the 100,000 person corporation buys exemptions to rules that are applied to mom & pop. And the bailouts have proven that the rich have license to steal. So, let's at least a apply a facsimile of equality here.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Yes, and no. by Znork · 2012-10-17 08:19 · Score: 1

While it may be difficult to create a system without leeches attempting to exploit it, it's possible to create systems where the various forces balance eachother.
The fundamental problem with all IPR systems is that all the parties involved in the system gain from having it extended. The government offices managing them, lawyers, holders, they all gain. The paying party, consumers and the aggregate economy, has no representation. The total cost to the economy isn't even calculated and certainly not accounted for.
Imagine a different system, for example if patents didn't grant monopoly rights but instead a renumeration right where the patent office paid out a certain amount out of a fixed budget as patents got used in products. In such a system, granting more patents or increasing the duration of them would mean everyone got smaller payments. Further, as there would be an actual visible budget it would compete with other priorities such as defense or health care, creating an incentive for politicians to keep a certain balance.
You'd still have the leeches, but there would be a built in systemic resistance, as for someone to get more it would be apparent that everyone else got less.
Re:Yes, and no. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-10-17 08:37 · Score: 1

"Even if the law would let you get away with it, I won't." That's not how most people view a free and open society, although arguably it is necessary to maintain one.
That society would be neither free nor open.
Free and open societies may allow some injustices to occur. But the notion that totalitarian (not fascist) societies don't is just totalitarian propaganda. So, the actual choices available are freedom or (soft) slavery.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Yes, and no. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-10-17 08:40 · Score: 1

Sometimes, there's just no way to win. You pick the least bad route.
Quite so. There's no ideal world, and putting more people in prison won't achieve one.
The physicians have a good saying: "first, do no harm."

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Yes, and no. by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2012-10-17 08:51 · Score: 1

Free and open societies may allow some injustices to occur. But the notion that totalitarian (not fascist) societies don't is just totalitarian propaganda.
Propaganda for a type of government is silly; the people actually in charge can and will make all the difference. The larger problem is that forms of government last across generations, and what might be right for one generation (a dictatorship with a benevolent king) can be terrible the next (the benevolent king's evil son). This is equally true with democracies, republics, federations, and all other forms of government; even anarchy might do alright for a generation or two before devolving into depravity and evil.
Part of the question of what government is best is about planning for this multi-generational span, and the modern answer (constitutional republics, especially with the legislative/judicial/executive breakdown) seem to do alright. However, especially now that the world's changing, we are getting a good look at some of the flaws, and I fear a little bit for the future. Given the complexity of the system, I wonder how it could possibly be fixed without someone using nearly dictatorial powers to overcome it.
And, naturally, the people involved may have different definitions of what a "fixed" system looks like, which is part of what makes it so dangerous to involve dictatorship...
Re:Yes, and no. by gtall · 2012-10-17 09:03 · Score: 1

More like a snake at a dinner party who acts surprised when a guest is missing and there's that suspicious lump slowing sliding down its snake belly.
Re:Yes, and no. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-10-17 09:05 · Score: 1

Given the complexity of the system, I wonder how it could possibly be fixed without someone using nearly dictatorial powers to overcome it.
It'll be OK. We'll have some rough patches to get through, but really a Constitutional Republic was itself a reflection of the technology of the time. As our race progresses, we discard old systems and move on to ones that make more sense - big thinkers categorize "the State" as such an artifact. Granted, the in-between periods are the ugliest.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Yes, and no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 09:58 · Score: 0

Patents were never intended to inspire innovation. They were designed from their inception by old entrenched industries as a means to protect themselves from competition from the rest of society. Any restriction of peaceful traders, consumers, and creators from voluntary association of any sort limits productivity. Granting a violent government monopoly privilege to one party means they will not have to innovate while holding consumers hostage. The best case study I'm familiar with is AT&T which enjoyed the privilege of having government thugs brutally attacking any and all who dared to compete with them until 1893, when their patent expired. During this time, they did jack shit to serve customers with the service they held a monopoly over. In about 15 years after the government stopped violently stopping the rest of society from offering better services, 50% of the market share had been given to competitors. Only through subsequent patents (and worse utility monopolies) did AT&T manage to remain in the industry.
Source: http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/R92_3.pdf
Re:Yes, and no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 10:19 · Score: 0

Yea jeff, sure, when you remove that asinine one click from your website. I won't buy anything that forces me to use it so your ebooks I'll download from somewhere else.
Re:Yes, and no. by ATMAvatar · 2012-10-17 12:08 · Score: 1

It's nearly impossible to make a law that applies equally to everyone, because we're all different, in different situations. Companies, even more s
You say this, but you provide zero evidence that it is so. ...and the expense of making a bogus patent claim uncompromisingly huge.
You inadvertently touched upon the GP's point.
What is uncompromisingly huge? How do you make your "uncompromisingly huge" law equally apply to Apple versus Jim Bob's Software? How do you make it apply equally between Apple and Exxon? How about Apple versus Bank of America?

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:Yes, and no. by socceroos · 2012-10-17 13:34 · Score: 1

I think the best way to resolve this problem is to have judges who are driven by common sense within the bounds of the law. Forget making more rules - we need people who can see through the smoke and mirrors and can rise above the layers upon layers of stupidity and pass justice in its true form.
Re:Yes, and no. by Maudib · 2012-10-17 20:53 · Score: 1

Easy.
If a jury decides you were pursuing a patent claim in bad faith, the defendant gets your company and you go to jail.
Re:Yes, and no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 23:42 · Score: 0

"What you need is a vigilant and trustworthy justice system that punishes attempts to get around the law."
Do you believe that all laws are good?
You mention fascism, good point.
It can be applied to both sides.
Fascists need the same things, their laws just change and the trust relationship between justice and people is broken.
Also, I'll bet fascists tend to be more vigilant.
Re:Yes, and no. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 03:25 · Score: 0

That was along the lines of my theory. If for some bizarre reason I became overlord of earth, there would be one law, made up of three words, to replace the entire legal everything:
Don't be stupid
Generally, if you have to ask if something is illegal, it probably is. Naturally, as overlord, I'd have ultimate say on what's stupid... but if people just used common sense (yeah, yeah, the age-old meme of common sense being horribly uncommon), then 99% of laws could be eliminated.
But of course this would never happen because a) I don't see me becoming overlord, b) people are corrupt as fuck (and I imagine I'd have no way of avoid corruption myself anyway), and c) for everyone who WOULD use common sense, there's going to be about a dozen who are deliberately or willfully ignorant, or otherwise will continue to do stupid shit because they're stupid shits.

Make patents more expensive by binarylarry · 2012-10-17 06:41 · Score: 1

We need to make it much harder for big companies to just mass patent everything they can.

It should cost much more for Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, IBM, etc to file a patent vs an individual tinkerer in his home.

Base each patent cost on the entities' current revenue, heavily penalize them after a certain threshold.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!

Re:Make patents more expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:46 · Score: 0

then they will just have their employees file for the patent and then sell it to them.
Re:Make patents more expensive by binarylarry · 2012-10-17 06:47 · Score: 1

Well when they transfer the patent, tax the fuck out of the transaction (to match what it would have cost if they'd just patented it outright).

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:Make patents more expensive by nedlohs · 2012-10-17 06:55 · Score: 1

So a subsidiary company with next to zero revenue will own the patents and license them to the real company (for cheap to keep that revenue down). They might even pay the real company to represent them in patent enforcement actions.
Re:Make patents more expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:57 · Score: 0

Which would stifle innovation coming from individual tinkerers, since companies would not licence patents from them because it would be cheaper to patent something similar and use lawyers to fend off complainers (with the added bonus of controlling the patent)...
Re:Make patents more expensive by Decker-Mage · 2012-10-17 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually they'll do what Hollywood and the others, such as patent trolling firms and that new entity created to house NorTel's patents, just spin off a LLC or LLP which has no real assets to speak of, houses just one, or a few, patent[s], and which can sue everyone in sight. Whatever you can think of, the lawyers and those politicians beholden to the corporate interests will circumvent either using loopholes embodied in the new law or via court cases that gut the new law on point. We have the best politicians money can buy. And honest because they generally stay bought.
Hell, you can't even limit patents just to individuals or small groups of individuals since corporations are people too, in the eyes of the law. I used to be both a realist about "the system" since I grew up knowing the warts as well as the good and the good kept me somewhat optimistic. Now I can't see much good, if any, left. Thank Bastet that I don't have any kids.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Re:Make patents more expensive by binarylarry · 2012-10-17 07:05 · Score: 1

Yeah so it kills off patent trolls.
Win win.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:Make patents more expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:12 · Score: 0

hey nimrod, the corporations write the laws.
Re:Make patents more expensive by godrik · 2012-10-17 07:16 · Score: 1

I don't like the idea of increaseing the price of the patent. You want joe schmuk to be able to patent things as well. What about setting the price of the patent as an exponential of the number of patent you already hold?
Re:Make patents more expensive by Tough+Love · 2012-10-17 07:24 · Score: 1

It should cost much more for Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, IBM, etc to file a patent vs an individual tinkerer in his home.
Bad idea. The deep pocketed corps will just buy the tinkerer and nothing will change. The cleanest, fastest, most effective fix is simply banning software patents. In other words, just put things back the way they were before this sorry chapter in American business history.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:Make patents more expensive by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-17 07:36 · Score: 1

Which would stifle innovation coming from individual tinkerers, since companies would not licence patents from them because it would be cheaper to patent something similar and use lawyers to fend off complainers (with the added bonus of controlling the patent)...
No - licensing and transferring ownership are 2 completely different animals.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Make patents more expensive by DickBreath · 2012-10-17 07:43 · Score: 2

> It should cost much more for Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, IBM, etc to file a patent vs an individual tinkerer in his home.

Let me suggest a different idea. Let's change the incentives.

File a patent. If patent is rejected, it costs the filer a lot*. If patent is granted, it costs you very little.

Overnight, the patent office now has incentive to do real prior art research and reject patents for prior art, or for obviousness. Only if the patent withstands real scrutiny is it granted.

Overnight, Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc are not going to file a patent unless they think it will withstand the scrutiny the USPTO will give it.

If the little guy has a truly patentable idea, it should be affordable to get it patented. It might even be possible for the little guy to get an underwriter (like insurance) so that the underwriter will take the risk of the cost of rejection. If the underwriter thinks it is truly patentable, they would be willing to take the risk for some cut of the potential value.

Similarly, weight the re-examination costs of a patent so that bogus patents are very expensive to the patent holder. If a patent is granted, and then later rejected under re-examination, then the patent holder pays greatly as if the patent had been originally rejected. That way, even if the patent holder believes it is a bogus patent, yet it is granted, they still risk it being re-examined later.

Software patents should be rejected automatically, even if disguised to appear not to be a software patent. Or alternately, make patents not enforceable against software. Only against tangible products, but not the software part of such products.

Another change I would make: You cannot license or litigate a patent unless you practice the patent yourself. That is, if you don't commercially exploit doing the thing the patent describes, then you shouldn't have patent protection. Patent protection is supposed to be a monopoly to allow you to exclusively do the thing that the patent describes. If you sell your patent rights, fine -- but the buyer better actually practice the patent in order to have any enforceable rights. This eliminates not only patent trolls who don't practice, but patent trolls who make a feeble pretense of practicing some of their patents. It also means you won't be hoarding patents not related to your business. If Apple comes up with a patented new way of applying bakers icing to cakes, they can't hoard that patent. Either start using the patent in your own cakes, or sell the patent to someone who will use it. No more holding a patent just so you can sue over it. (And even round cakes with circular shape aren't just any circles -- but are circles with Apple's patented rounded corners.)

* by "a lot" -- I don't necessarily disagree with your idea of tying it to corporate profits

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:Make patents more expensive by binarylarry · 2012-10-17 07:45 · Score: 1

yeah, hence:

Base each patent cost on the entities' current revenue, heavily penalize them after a certain threshold.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:Make patents more expensive by WillAffleckUW · 2012-10-17 07:55 · Score: 1

So a subsidiary company with next to zero revenue will own the patents and license them to the real company (for cheap to keep that revenue down). They might even pay the real company to represent them in patent enforcement actions.
Come on, if that were to happen then Microsoft would base all its IP in Ireland and ...
oh.
wait.
never mind.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Make patents more expensive by bertok · 2012-10-17 09:48 · Score: 2

This is trivially circumvented:
Lets say it costs $10K to patent something successfully, and there is a $1M penalty for failure.
Company A wishes to patent something, but they know they probably can't get away with it.
They set up a new Company B, worth exactly $10K, and have that company file the patent.
If the filing succeeds, they merge with company B, and acquire their patent portfolio.
If the filing fails, Company B is sued for everything they're worth by the government and goes bankrupt.
Meanwhile, Company A is laughing.
This is why game theorists should be writing laws, not lawyers! 8)

MIGHT???? by Omega+Hacker · 2012-10-17 06:41 · Score: 1, Redundant

See subject.

--
GStreamer - The only way to stream!

Re:MIGHT???? by Zocalo · 2012-10-17 06:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Also, "start"??? I think the correct phrase at this point would be "Patents are supposed to encourage innovation and we're now in a world where they have already stifled innovation."

Or isn't Mr. Bezos keeping up with events in the courthouses of the Eastern District of Texas?

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

What about Amazon's One click patent? by aristotle-dude · 2012-10-17 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Amazon has been licensing their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click to various companies like Apple. I guess Bezos just wants to use other people's patents for free but expects everyone to pay to use their patents.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by binarylarry · 2012-10-17 06:45 · Score: 2

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by shentino · 2012-10-17 06:50 · Score: 1

When the player helped write the rules for the game I damn well WILL hate the player.
Or have you forgotten a little process known as lobbying?
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:50 · Score: 0

A player doesn't have to play the game.
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:50 · Score: 0

To pay for licensing is the right way to go for patents. That is why they were created for...
Suing to hold monopoly of concepts and technology, especially broad ones, is the wrong (and current) way to enforce patents...
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:58 · Score: 1

No one in the tech industry wrote the rules for the patent game.
You can look to pharma if you want someone to blame.
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by mbunch5 · 2012-10-17 07:34 · Score: 1

Amazon has been licensing their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click to various companies like Apple. I guess Bezos just wants to use other people's patents for free but expects everyone to pay to use their patents.
Not necessarily. He's playing the game the way it has to be played now, according to the law. He'd like the law changed. That doesn't make him a hypocrite unless he honestly doesn't think the new law would apply to him. For patient laws to be changed some of the big players are going to have to make the move to change them, and it's hard to see how that's going to happen since it would invalidate patient chests that have cost, in some cases, billions of dollars to acquire. So if Bezos is serious about this, I'm going to have to buy some books from him again.
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by scamper_22 · 2012-10-17 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay, so he's part of the problem.
If you're looking for moral perfection before people can have an opinion, you're going to have to wait for a world full martyrs and saints. It's not going to happen.
Like it or not, if you're a tech company to say, you have to participate in the patent wars... or you won't be in business at all. This doesn't mean you don't want the whole system reformed.
I have many disagreements with the banking industry... but you know... I'd like to buy a house... and I'm probably going to get a mortgage from a bank and participate in the silly scheme. I have to live my life too.
Systemic change requires just that... systemic change. All the players operate in the current system under the current rules and you can't fault them for it.
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by N!k0N · 2012-10-17 08:01 · Score: 1

A strange game ... the only winning move is not to play ...
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 08:39 · Score: 0

the situation is quiet simple:
bezos knows change takes time, so getting the ball rolling now, might result in the changes taking place just in time when THE amazon patent runs out in 2019
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 08:46 · Score: 0

Some players game/abuse the system. Much like those rat bankers that lent mortgages to people that couldn't afford it at unsustainable interest rates.
Re:What about Amazon's One click patent? by alexgieg · 2012-10-17 23:08 · Score: 1

Amazon has been licensing their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click to various companies like Apple. I guess Bezos just wants to use other people's patents for free but expects everyone to pay to use their patents.
Not necessarily. A system in which patents still exist but must be licensed for a reasonable fee, like a compulsory FRAND, would both end the patent wars as well as keep things like the 1-Click patent intact.

--
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.

One Click by TheNinjaroach · 2012-10-17 06:42 · Score: 1

Jeff's participated in too much patent warfare of his own, in my opinion.

--
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..

Re:One Click by Mike+Buddha · 2012-10-17 07:08 · Score: 2

So he can't change his mind?

--
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Re:One Click by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:36 · Score: 0

No. Otherwise, that might force US to change our minds about HIM, and we've got way too much bile and have done way too much frothing at the mouth to do THAT! This is the internet! Come on, already, you're a 5-digit ID, you should know better than that!
Re:One Click by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 08:20 · Score: 0

If he did, let him change his actions to prove it. He doesn't have to keep holding onto patents that could be considered trollish. Let him take the first step forward.
Re:One Click by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 16:42 · Score: 0

Only when it does not favour him anymore ...
Whatever patents Apple has on tablets probably won't be good for his Kindle manufacturing business.
I think what everyone is saying is that this is just rich coming from him - the man who patented one-click.
Re:One Click by Mike+Buddha · 2012-10-18 07:28 · Score: 1

As long as the system is in place that will squash him if he lets his guard down, he'd be a fool to go this route alone. Leaving your company exposed to frivolous litigation is not going to change anything but your position with the company. Amazon is not a sole proprietorship. Bezos has a responsiblity to his shareholders not to expose their investment to this kind of risk.

--
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.

A timid way to express disagreement by manicb · 2012-10-17 06:44 · Score: 2

...we're starting to be in a world where they might start to stifle innovation. Governments may need to look at the patent system...

Why has it become "good" writing to hedge everything you ever say? Out with it, man!

Re:A timid way to express disagreement by dkleinsc · 2012-10-17 06:52 · Score: 2

Why has it become "good" writing to hedge everything you ever say?
Because doing that makes the writer seem like less of an idiot when somebody demonstrates that the prediction or argument is flat wrong.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:A timid way to express disagreement by Decker-Mage · 2012-10-17 07:16 · Score: 1

...we're starting to be in a world where they might start to stifle innovation. Governments may need to look at the patent system...
Why has it become "good" writing to hedge everything you ever say? Out with it, man!
And it's not even "good English." This is what you get when the CEO-speak is run through legal first. The one "nice" thing about Larry Ellison is that not everything he says get screened first. It's pretty refreshing in a bull in a China shop kind of way.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Re:A timid way to express disagreement by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 13:17 · Score: 0

If I die, tell my wife I said... "Hello."

Started to be? by Stormwatch · 2012-10-17 06:44 · Score: 1

Patents are supposed to encourage innovation and we're starting to be in a world where they might start to stifle innovation.

Maybe we have always been in a world where patents do the opposite of what they are supposed to do.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.

Wait, what? by s.petry · 2012-10-17 06:44 · Score: 2

'Patents are supposed to encourage innovation and we're starting to be in a world where they might start to stifle innovation.

"Might" start to stifle innovation? Has this person not been alive in the same country as the rest of us for the last two decades? From the Shopping Cart on web servers to Nest, the examples of innovation being stifled are extremely obvious and simple to find. I personally would not start up a business in this environment, and most of my friends are the same way. Think tanks dumping patents in to the system without an invention have ensured that even if you have a brilliant idea, someone has a patent already.

While I agree with his point that we must have patent reform, I wonder what planet he is coming from to have just noticed that it "might" be a problem. Most of us in technical jobs have been screaming for reform going on 20 years now. yeah, I'm also in a bit of a sarcastic mood...

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Re:Wait, what? by BeanThere · 2012-10-17 10:49 · Score: 1

+1 .. I literally fell off my chair when I read "starting to be" and "might start to". What are you smoking Jeff .. can he really be that blind, or does the world just look that different from up in the ivory towers? Smaller tech companies have been veritably being bulldozed by the patent system for at least 15, 20 years.

Amazon One Click Anyone? by ravenscar · 2012-10-17 06:46 · Score: 1

Bezos? Seriously? It seems his company's patents helped take the patent war to its current extremes. I hate the patent war, but I smile a little when I think that it could come 'round to bite Amazon in the ass.

How did One Click get approved? The rage by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2012-10-17 06:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Isn't one click purchasing obvious? What I don't get though is: Why didn't they patent two click, three click, and so on? I think they could effectively crush any competition from the Internet if they patented up to a thousand click buying. No one is gonna wanna click a thousand times to buy anything.

--
God spoke to me

Re:How did One Click get approved? The rage by lordofthechia · 2012-10-17 07:45 · Score: 5, Funny

This could get exciting! Everyone would go to zero-click buying.
All storefronts would be rendered in flash and as soon as the page loads items would start crawling their way towards your shopping cart!
Your "shopping" experience would consist of *preventing* items from getting into your cart.
Just realized, this would work really well as a tower defense game.

--
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Re:How did One Click get approved? The rage by WillAffleckUW · 2012-10-17 07:59 · Score: 1

Too late, I already filed the patent for zero click buying.
I use remote brain imaging sensors to read your thoughts.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:How did One Click get approved? The rage by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 10:54 · Score: 1

I would say that no, one-click isn't obvious. What is obvious is a click, followed by some kimd of confirmation of what you are about to buy, maybe needing to re-enter a password for good measure, maybe some additional confirmation of shipping address, and shipping options, or at the very least, "your credit card is about to be charged. Are you sure you want to make this purchase?"... Multiple clicks required. One-click is truly one click: once you've identified the item you want, you click the buy button, and it gets shipped to you without any followup confirmation clicks.
That's not to say that Amazon has a good claim. Prior art is the issue. Most of the claims of obviousness that I've seen are from people who don't seem to understand what one click really means.

Easy fix by Spy+Handler · 2012-10-17 06:52 · Score: 4, Informative

all we need is for the Supreme Court to take up any one of the zillion patent suits and declare,

"Software, business methods, and computer algorithms are not patentable."

Patent laws date back hundreds of years and do not say whether software is patentable or not. It was the interpretation of one judge in the 1980's who said "Yes software is patentable" to open the floodgates and lead us to where we are now. Which the SCOTUS can easily reverse.

Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 12:41 · Score: 0

A good argument can be made that particular judges are the problem.
Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 13:06 · Score: 0

A good argument can be made that particular judges are the problem.
Re:Easy fix by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-10-17 15:54 · Score: 1

The problem is the CAFC which is a sort of SCOTUS for patents. These judges are infected with an extremist version of property rights everywhere on everything . The belief is that private property is the only thing that creates wealth and therefore the more private property you create the more wealth there will be.
Supporters contrast the US with developing nations which have poor enforcement of property rights and cite the difference as proof of their thesis.
Property rights are important to wealth creation, but they're not the ONLY thing and it's really just stoner high-school level thinking to conclude that more is better. Just like EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD , a good thing can be carried to ridiculous extremes and cease to be a good thing.
The takeaway lesson is that good things are good not because of some intrinsic property they possess but because of the (always mutable) relation they bear to the system they exist in and all the other (very mutable) things in that system.
So in this case property rights are only good insofar as the system also has a considerable amount of commons... a very considerable amount.
But property rights under the CAFC have become like Agent Smith in The Matrix.. it's out of control , replicating itself over and over and over and over attempting to reach into every nook and cranny and acknowledging no other good than its own.
I suppose libertarians think of themselves as against patents but FYI that's not the way Ron and Rand Paul see things. This election season Ron Paul explicitly asserted that things we normally think of as "the commons" like chunks of air could be rolled up into clearly defined property and bought and sold. Just saying.
Amusingly the new Ayn Rand movie has as a plot feature an evil Big Government that is seizing up all patents. It's amusing since patents are not a natural right but rather a man-made creation of government and legislation .... in effect a government grant of monopoly. So to say that the government is "seizing" it up or taking away something which is someone else's is highly amusing.
The government (that is We, through our elected representatives) gave it to you via legislation and the government can take it away from you via the same process and both are completely legitimate functions of the government, however you may feel about patents (I am against them in almost every field, although I am still willing to listen to intelligent dissent) .
There's an entire natural class of people out there who are constitutionally incapable of thinking in more than two shades of gray and all notions of things being defined only in terms of their relation to other things leaves them desperate for some form of Absolute Certainty. Those people should not be in government.

Just return to the original system by WillAffleckUW · 2012-10-17 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Outlaw and expire Business Process and Software patents.

Return to a basic 13 year and 17 year patent and copyright issuance.

And only allow the Person (not fictional Person such as a Corporation) to renew copyrights for a similar period until they die.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:Just return to the original system by Sique · 2012-10-17 07:07 · Score: 1

But this doesn't work if a large group works together for a patent, when you have a lab with dozens of people developing and testing different setups and finally settle down to the design that makes the most sense.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Just return to the original system by jackbird · 2012-10-17 13:59 · Score: 1

So, who owns the copyright on Office? A Hollywood feature? Even an album produced by a 4-person band in their garage is going to have problems with the whole "copyrights not registered to entities" thing.
Re:Just return to the original system by chrismcb · 2012-10-17 21:07 · Score: 1

And only allow the Person (not fictional Person such as a Corporation) to renew copyrights for a similar period until they die.
I don't understand what this is supposed to prevent. And what does it mean for "the Person" for well anything that has more than one person involved?

Monopoly versus Licensing by WillAffleckUW · 2012-10-17 06:56 · Score: 1

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Patents are supposed to be licensed, especially if the patent holder has not widely distributed the invention. They are supposed to be licensed after the base patent period, not held as crown jewels and hoarded.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:Monopoly versus Licensing by foniksonik · 2012-10-17 07:18 · Score: 1

So you're saying licensing should be compulsory. Maybe a review board available if there is a terms dispute.
Sounds good to me.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Monopoly versus Licensing by WillAffleckUW · 2012-10-17 07:24 · Score: 2

We do that at the UW with tech patents. The inventor assigns the patent to the University, and then has a First Right of Use. If they don't bring it to production in a set period, the license reverts and it can then be licensed from anyone.
Last time I checked there were more than 40 tech patents for solar, biofuel, wind, and other energy techs. Lots of other things like medical tech and so on.
The point of patenting is to encourage the development and advancement of science and the arts.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Monopoly versus Licensing by WillAffleckUW · 2012-10-17 07:25 · Score: 1

meant licensed to anyone, not from anyone. my bad.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Monopoly versus Licensing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 05:24 · Score: 0

Uni of WI? Goooooo Badgers! or something, I don't watch sports.

I had a sight where you can donate to support him by a2wflc · 2012-10-17 06:57 · Score: 5, Funny

But I used a one-click payment button so I had to take it down.

what stifles innovation is the common practice by gatesstillborg · 2012-10-17 06:57 · Score: 1

of patenting the "what" as opposed to the "how". (One click purchasing is a good example of a "what".)

Furthermore, due to the inherent flexibility of the (software) medium, patents used validly are largely inapplicable, because there is always many ways something can be done. I think software companies need to find ways to try to live with that, rather than perverting the legal protection of patenting.

Oh, and this article looks like mainly a hook to hawk more gizmos.

We need a patent system based on freedom by qbitslayer · 2012-10-17 07:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

The current patent system is harmful to society because it tramples on freedom and gives unfair powers to patent holders. The purpose of patents is to provide an incentive for innovation and compensate inventors for their hard work. However, it should not infringe on the freedom of others. That would be counter to its purpose. Above all, the system must never serve as a carte blanche for a few to bully others out of the market. What we need is something like this:

1. A special independent fund must be set aside to compensate inventors for their inventions and reward innovation.
2. A retroactive formula must be adopted to calculate the amount of the compensation.
3. The formula must be adjustable so as to establish the best return for society at large in terms of innovations.
4. Last but not least, whatever the formula chosen, it must never infringe on the right of the individual to copy and use any invention for any ethical purpose.

Inventors should register and publish their findings as soon as they can because their compensation will depend on how much society like and use their ideas. Of course, we still need a Patent bureau and a system to manage claims and the proper registrations of inventions. The system should be able to determine the usefulness and popularity of an invention and how much work went into researching and creating the invention. It should also be as automated as possible.

Re:We need a patent system based on freedom by Joce640k · 2012-10-17 08:40 · Score: 2

The current patent system is harmful to society because it tramples on freedom and gives unfair powers to patent holders.
Almost.
It gives power to the people with the most attorneys (and the people who interact least with those attorneys, they just order the attorneys to get on with it then go and play golf).

--
No sig today...
Re:We need a patent system based on freedom by FrangoAssado · 2012-10-17 09:05 · Score: 2

Of course, we still need a Patent bureau and a system to manage claims and the proper registrations of inventions. The system should be able to determine the usefulness and popularity of an invention and how much work went into researching and creating the invention. It should also be as automated as possible.
It seems to me that this system would have exactly the same problem we have today: that is, to determine whether if a particular device uses a particular invention. Except that, in your proposal, this information would be used to determine how much compensation the inventor receives. So, it doesn't solve the problem of patent trolls at all, it just changes who feeds the patent trolls (in your system, it would be whoever gives money to the independent fund, i.e., everyone).
Re:We need a patent system based on freedom by qbitslayer · 2012-10-17 10:11 · Score: 1

So, it doesn't solve the problem of patent trolls at all, it just changes who feeds the patent trolls (in your system, it would be whoever gives money to the independent fund, i.e., everyone).
No. It removes the power of the troll to prevent others from using the invention and force them out of the market. So it prevents them from forming monopolies which have no place in a free market. The troll needs to prove that a lot of work and research went into the invention. For example, Jeff Bezos would get diddly squat for his 1-click invention and Bill Gates could never have built a multi-billion dollar empire on a piece of crap like MS-DOS.
Re:We need a patent system based on freedom by FrangoAssado · 2012-10-17 10:50 · Score: 2

If these are the only changes you want, then it's sufficient to change the current system so that:
1) an infringement can never prevent anyone from offering any products or services; and
2) licensing and punitive damages are set by designated experts (e.g. the USPTO).
These things are completely orthogonal to deciding who gets to pay for inventions -- i.e., the people who buy the products originating from inventions (the current system) versus the people who pay for the independent fund that finances inventors (your proposed system).
Re:We need a patent system based on freedom by tsa · 2012-10-17 18:06 · Score: 1

MS-DOS was never patented.

--
-- Cheers!
Re:We need a patent system based on freedom by chrismcb · 2012-10-17 20:06 · Score: 1

So you've basically described the system we have today... Except their are these mythical elves who'll set the fair market value.

Not unless we have a revolution by sohmc · 2012-10-17 07:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

The USPTO generates the most income for the government, outside of the IRS. There is absolutely no incentive to Congress to get rid of a patent that requires absolutely no materiel, don't exist, but worth a lot of money. For congress, software patents and the like are cash cows.

The only way this will change is we have a revolution and write a new constitution. Technically, we need to get the right people into office; but in this case, we need to get 51% of people into office. And once they are in office, there is no guarantee that they will write the bill.

While I will hope that this changes without the watering the tree of liberty with blood, I'm not going to hold my breath.

--
We don't live in Shouldland.

Re:Not unless we have a revolution by udachny · 2012-10-17 07:23 · Score: 1

The USPTO generates the most income for the government, outside of the IRS
- no, that would be the Federal reserve. Of-course we can argue on the definition of 'income', but whatever the Congress gets its hands on is used as if it was 'income', so that's a technicality (and they never failed to raise the so called 'debt ceiling', so they clearly think this can go on forever).
You are right, the Constitution needs to be fixed but you are wrong, there is no such thing as 'right people', not in the long run. In the long run you will not have 'right people' (and I doubt that Americans are capable of figuring out as a society that the right people are those, who would protect the Constitution and not an individual or a business interest, the right people are not getting elected: Ron Paul, Gary Johnson).
You are right at the end, there will be blood. Look at Greece. Imagine Greece but with 315,000,000 population and guns. There will be blood.

--
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Re:Not unless we have a revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:48 · Score: 0

The USPTO only brings in a only couple billion a year. Wanting to keep it around as opposed to taking on more debt is like trying to reduce the debt by cutting PBS!
Re:Not unless we have a revolution by jader3rd · 2012-10-17 07:49 · Score: 1

The only way this will change is we have a revolution and write a new constitution.

Okay, let's have a revolution and rewrite the Constitution; what would we change that would prevent the current political problems from naturally evolving under a new constitution?
Re:Not unless we have a revolution by Bengie · 2012-10-18 05:39 · Score: 1

Nah, don't rewrite, just amend in the ability to allow citizens to issue something like a "class action suit" against a politician, then allow the a jury to assign whatever punishment they deem fit.

People voted you in, they didn't like when you did, they're sending you to life in prison. Better be careful what you do.

As I've said previously... by XxtraLarGe · 2012-10-17 07:07 · Score: 1

Invalidate all current software patents, and count them as "prior art" for any new software patents. Same goes for "business process" patents.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.

Re:As I've said previously... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, invalidating the R&D dollars of old patents is sure to spur innovation. Right. Nothing like having the football pulled from under you when you run up to kick it, right Charlie Brown?
Re:As I've said previously... by VortexCortex · 2012-10-17 07:17 · Score: 1

Patents must not prevent people from thinking about them. When the first sentient machine intelligence is granted human rights, all software patents will be invalid.
This is why we must either completely abolish software patents, or start preparing for the machine wars.
Re:As I've said previously... by XxtraLarGe · 2012-10-17 07:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, invalidating the R&D dollars of old patents is sure to spur innovation. Right. Nothing like having the football pulled from under you when you run up to kick it, right Charlie Brown?
I specifically stated software & business process patents, most of which are rubbish. 1-Click buying isn't obvious? I'm sure Amazon did a ton of R & D coming up with that one...

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.

one click patent by poonbanger · 2012-10-17 07:13 · Score: 0

Soon you will be able to buy patents from Amazon. With "One-Click"!

Time for some poetic justice. by Faffin · 2012-10-17 07:21 · Score: 1

Because of what they did with the one click patent, it would serve them right if Apple or Samsung sued them over something in the Kindle.

I expect this is all about how hard it would be for Amazon to launch a smartphone though.

Re:I had a sight where you can donate to support h by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:22 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm surprised this wasn't modded insiteful.

"It's Obvious" Trifecta by Bob9113 · 2012-10-17 07:50 · Score: 1

First the CEO of Exxon admits AGW is happening, now one of the first software patent trolls admits software patents are causing harm. If we can get Karl Rove to admit that manipulating public perception is anathema to representative democracy, we'll have hit the "it's obvious to everyone but you" trifecta.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Re:"It's Obvious" Trifecta by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2012-10-17 07:57 · Score: 1

Funny, since one of with software patents is that the hurdle of "not obvious to a practitioner of the art" has been set way, way too low.

--
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden

Because that's how capitalism works by Hentes · 2012-10-17 07:59 · Score: 1

Amazon might not like the rules but they still have to accept them as they are today and play like all the others if they don't want to get sued to oblivion. Even Google had to learn that after they got hit by Microsoft pretty hard.

This is old news. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 08:09 · Score: 0

Between the Wright Brothers proving that flight was possible and WWI. There were may who tried for to become World Domiant, by blocking others from using 'their' patients. True flight innovation was grounded, until the governments stepped in to fight a World War.

Jeff Bezos ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 08:10 · Score: 0

... the Neville Chamberlain of the Internet.

One-Click Hypocrisy by edibobb · 2012-10-17 08:19 · Score: 1

I will pay attention to Amazon's view on patents after they give up their one-click patent, one of the most intuitively obvious and abused patents ever issued.

Flywheels by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 08:50 · Score: 0

While I wholeheartedly agree with his stance on space innovation, I don't think he knows how a flywheel actually works...

A new patent test by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 09:27 · Score: 0

Patents are a deal between the public and the inventor: if you reveal your secret to me, I'll protect your temporary monopoly.

So let the patent applicant demonstrate the invention. If the patent examiner says, wow, that's amazing -- I have no idea how you accomplished that, he can buy the secret by granting a patent.

But if the patent examiner concludes, there's no magic -- I can do what you just did, he can deny the patent application and let the applicant keep the "secret."

****Now 3rd parties can help invalidate patents*** by Cutting_Crew · 2012-10-17 09:33 · Score: 1

I have submitted this story twice and got rejected TWICE. Unbelievable. Google, the USTPO and stack exchange have gotten together and created patents.stackexchange.com - a chance to work with others (included those that are more familiar with patent law) to search out current patents already filed or vet out new patents on the horizon.

My thread that i started got some great feedback. It involves the patents revolves around Worlds Inc suing Blizzard. I was advised that I might want to focus on one of the four patents in questions and go with that then move on others, even though most all of the four patents are inter-related.(IMO). I need some help gathering information regarding any patent that you want to start on. send me an email/pm on stack exchange if you are interested.

I must be from a world in an alternate dimension by brshock · 2012-10-17 09:40 · Score: 1

"We're starting to be in a world where they might start to stifle innovation?"

On my planet -- which coincidentally we also call "Earth" -- patents have long since been stifling innovation, at least in software development. A small company opens its doors, finds a modicum of success, and suddenly a Non-Practicing Entity (what I believe you people call a "patent troll") shows up to claim infringement on an intentionally vague, clearly obvious patent that it managed to purchase. The small company may find it cheaper to pay off the NPE, or may simply go out of business. For giant corporations, this kind of thing is okay and perhaps even a beneficial means of eliminating disruptive upstart competition. But for the small guys (what the economists on your world call "the real job creators"), it's deadly.

Or more to the point: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/09581320679/dark-patent-troll-rises-now-40-all-patent-litigation.shtml

hypocrite by cas2000 · 2012-10-17 11:04 · Score: 1

Bezos should back up his words with some action - like renouncing his company's bogus patents.

I'm still boycotting Amazon over the one-click patent. Haven't bought a single item from them since the late 90s.

Hmm: when someone looks to end a war by Kittenman · 2012-10-17 11:51 · Score: 1

... it's usually because they're losing. Or about to. You never quit when you're ahead. Amazon have problems over the horizon?

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill

Guess who's building a phone? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 11:51 · Score: 0

Get those SW Patents out of the way before you make a phone has been the conventional wisdom:
http://setandbma.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/mobile-patent-suits.png

one word by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-10-17 12:35 · Score: 1

one-click

Pot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 14:15 · Score: 0

meet Kettle

Everybody knows the dice are loaded by crystal_rose · 2012-10-17 20:56 · Score: 1

The patient system is broken but that's only a symptom. The real problem is that the people who write laws are in the pockets of the those who benefit from the system being broken.

If the patient system were to be completely re-written from scratch tomorrow, in your country or in mine, does anyone really think the politicians would create a better one than what we currently have?

I don't know how to fix it, but right there is the underlying problem.

Tax the property. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 21:12 · Score: 0

For upkeep of the property and persuit of trespassers, pay property tax on your IPR.

Software wasn't patentable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 21:15 · Score: 0

Software wasn't patentable until the players in software lobbied for the software to be patentable.

Similarly with business methods and algorithms.

Research papers have multiple authors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 21:19 · Score: 0

Research papers have multiple authors. Each one given more or less heading on the result based on whether they are a primary author or not.

'might' and 'may' qualifiers are superfluous by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 05:48 · Score: 0

'... we're starting to be in a world where they might start to stifle innovation. Governments may need to look at the patent system and see if those laws need to be modified...'
I don't think the 'might' and 'may' qualifiers are needed here... patent and copyright laws haven't been touched (significantly) in decades; most patents still grant exclusivity rights (or effective exclusivity rights) for a period on the order of dozens of years, which for technology makes no sense at all. One need only look at the recent fights between Apple and Samsung over UX design patterns of all things to see that current patent laws don't just stifle innovation, they throttle it. I would propose the following for all tech related patents-- exclusivity is granted for exactly one year. After that, you retain the patent (mostly for the purposes of deserved pride), but anyone can make free use of your innovation (in so far as they can use the idea the patent espouses; blatant knock-off 'innovations' would still be frowned upon and protected against to a limited degree, assuming it can be demonstrated that said knock-offs do not bring anything significantly new to the table). This paradigm would respect Moore's law and the generally high-speed world of technological innovation without removing the capitalist incentive from the process of invention. It is paramount, however, that future innovation must be given priority over individual's/company's profit margins in any case where the two come into conflict. As engineers we do not usually invent to become rich, and if some engineers are working only to that end I'd say such people could stand a court case or two not going their way for once... perhaps they might even be moved to re-evaluate their purpose in life as engineers.

Slashdot Mirror

Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos Calls For Governments To End Patent Wars

135 comments