Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos Calls For Governments To End Patent Wars
concealment writes with news that Amazon's Jeff Bezos has called for new legislation from governments to end abuse of the patent system. He said, 'Patents are supposed to encourage innovation and 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 because I don't think some of these battles are healthy for society.' His comments are from an interview with the UK's Metro. Bezos was also optimistic about the future of the private space industry: "If private companies can start to generate profits from this kind of activity then you’ll start to see the flywheel spin more rapidly and we’ll make more progress, because I really do think we want to live in a civilization where millions of people are living and working in space."
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
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.
...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!
I guess Amazon is just a One Click Pony.
'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.
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
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.
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! --
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!
But I used a one-click payment button so I had to take it down.
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.
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
So he can't change his mind?
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
I'm surprised this wasn't modded insiteful.
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! --
> 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.
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...
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".
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)