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."
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.
I guess Amazon is just a One Click Pony.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...