Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Web Services Drops Controversial Patent Clause From Standard User Agreement (geekwire.com)

Amazon Web Services has quietly dropped a controversial provision from its user agreement that essentially forced customers to agree that they could never file a patent infringement lawsuit against the public cloud vendor. From a report: The clause in the basic user agreement raised a lot of eyebrows back in 2015 after AWS asserted it as a possible defense in a patent lawsuit filed by Appistry, a former AWS customer that sued the cloud vendor over high-performance computing patents. Until sometime around February 2017, Section 8.5 of the basic agreement for using AWS included this sentence: "During and after the Term, you will not assert, nor will you authorize, assist, or encourage any third party to assert, against us or any of our affiliates, customers, vendors, business partners, or licensors, any patent infringement or other intellectual property infringement claim regarding any Service Offerings you have used.

16 comments

  1. meh by gravewax · · Score: 2

    I actually prefer items like that remain in the agreements/EULA's etc as it makes them completely invalid and easy to argue in a court should you ever need to that they have created an illegal agreement that violates consumer rights and hence nothing in it can be enforced.

    1. Re:meh by knightghost · · Score: 1

      Does it actually work that way? Is the entire civil contract thrown out on the smallest technicality?

    2. Re:meh by Asgard · · Score: 4, Informative

      Almost every contract will have a 'severability' clause (http://www.contractology.com/severance-clause.html) that seeks to pre-jettison any portions that that are deemed illegal / unforceable while keeping the rest of the terms.

    3. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup but oh wait, "If a provision of this agreement is or becomes illegal, invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, that shall not affect the validity or enforceability in that jurisdiction of any other provision of this agreement or the validity or enforceability in other jurisdictions" is part of all my contracts.

    4. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That also depends entirely on the consumer laws of your state or country and such a provision can be just as unenforceable.

    5. Re:meh by gravewax · · Score: 1

      that really is also a country by country thing and depends on who the contract is intended for and many such clauses have in the past also been ruled invalid.

    6. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      severability clauses do not apply when the contract itself has been deemed illegally entered into. severability is where legal issues and situations may arise after signing, they do not and in most countries cannot cover an illegal contract which the conditions AWS supply would be in quite a few countries with strong consumer laws.

    7. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, "if these terms are invalid, actually only a part of them is invalid because of this clause" doesn't really work like that. Because the clause is invalid as soon as the terms are.

  2. software patents are immoral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Software patents are immoral anyway so if you were ever in a position to use the patent clause then you deserved to die in a fire.

    1. Re: software patents are immoral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowhere does it say it only applies to software patents.

  3. Amazon is absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that whole system came to be because of The Purge --termination of virtually the entire IT workforce in America during the 2000 stock market crash and subsequent homeland attacks. That was just as Indians were starting to show up offering their fine coding skills for $7/hr (to maintain their expiring H1Bs) and teens/near-teens who had just been making $50/hr in 1999 were willing (after having moved back home) to work for $10-$17/hr. The more experienced people were forced into retirement and couldn't possibly come back for those kind of wages. Absent ANYONE who knew what the hell they were doing, these teen-like and Indian people googled for recipes/howtos/each-other for rumors about how to make things work, much of it written by those in Europe who weren't as badly affected economically but also never had the kind of training that America's once great IT workforce had (because they depended upon America for such tedium --not because they were stupid). Amazon recognized the skills problem and opened up its in-house web-services to businesses everywhere and the rest is history. [It should have been IBM which had provided that kind of timesharing service to society decades earlier, but Those Greedy Bastards were *leaders* in sending hundreds of thousands of their people into retirement while opening up plant after plant in India and were no longer in a position, though they tried by fixing PHP (the 5.0 release) and embracing Linux and Java.] Amazon totally went gangster at the point where the business schools began preaching "the cloud", that is, "Nobody ever got fired for using Amazon Web Services". They can put anything they like in their contracts and you will accept it or they will cut you off.

    You see, they also handle most startups (and suck the cash right out of them on the pretext that it reduces Total Cost of Operations) and are now actively bullying hold out companies that should know better. Never mind their global cascading S3 crash last Winter. I'm thinking it ends with the company being busted up into components that can't survive on their own because the only thing that makes money is the thing they CORNERED THE MARKET with: AWS.

    1. Re: Amazon is absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > because they depended upon America for such tedium

      and because, at that point, they could not justify equipment and time investments within their smaller economies that would have afforded more robust IT solutions like American businesses could...so the post-apocalypse IT kids/Indians learned/downloaded that minimalist style.

  4. Silent changing of User Agreement by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    should be made illegal. How is a user supposed to know what they are signed up to if the other party to the ''agreement'' can change part of, what is often, a long & badly written has been changed? Any change should be clearly flagged up and all users informed by email; this should be long enough before the change takes effect for them to move to an alternate service.

    1. Re:Silent changing of User Agreement by Solandri · · Score: 1

      That's the drawback of paying month-to-month. If you sign up for a 5-, 10-, or even 30-year service contract, then you can negotiate the terms of that long-term contract. And when both parties have signed that contract, they can't change it for 5-, 10-, or 30-years without mutual consent.

      What's that? You don't want to commit to a contract for that long? You want to be able to stop using the service at the end of the month if it no longer suits your needs? Well that works both ways. If the company offering the service decides at the end of the month that different terms of service suit their needs better, they can change it too. Flexibility for your benefit is also flexibility for the service provider's benefit.

    2. Re:Silent changing of User Agreement by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      More importantly, these should be forced into a plain language format, that a average person can understand (that is who is intended for it to be enforced upon). If its too complex, it should be considered a void contract, as you cannot come to a 'meeting of the minds' if you require a lawyer for the simplest of modern interactions. The law is supposed to be accessible to everyone, its time to stop allowing these unconscionable contracts that are being offered.

      --
      Good-bye
  5. Does not matter by qbast · · Score: 1

    It was impossible to enforce anyway. What would would Amazon do if I sued them for patent violation anyway? Terminate my contract? Go ahead.