Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Takes Round One in Patent Dispute
Masem writes "Amazon has gotten a preliminary injunction placed on
Barnes & Noble due to the fact that B&N used
Amazon's patented 1-Click method for ecommerce.
This does not bode well for those fighting against
business model patents, and if Amazon does turn out victorious,
this could deal a lot of damage to e-commerce." Now, at this point it is only a preliminary injunction, however, it does not sound the tone we'd like to hear.
..gone bad.
All a preliminary injunction says is that the plantiff's case does in fact have merit, and to prevent further potential damage from being done, the defendant must cease in the offensive behavior until such time as the defendant is cleared. There has been no trial, no finding of fact, and no consideration of the merits of Amazon's case by either a judge or a jury. Don't get too worried too quickly.
--
Matt Singerman
Matt Singerman
http://matt.vegan.net/
In a perfect world, the patent isn't valid if it was obvious to one skilled in the art. Hopefully B&N will duke this thing out and get a good precedent set.
This is just plain idiotic. The only way e-commerce is to take off is if it is universally adopted and considered "safe" by the unwashed masses. What Amazon is doing is *not* protecting their investment in doing busness over the web, rather, they are harming it by discouraging others from using a rather generic, but good, method of making it easier to shop online. The only way e-commerce will take off is if many companies, including competing ones, get out there and present their products. (I know their already are many out now) The threat of being sued because they might be violating someone's stupid patent on common technology would be a serious deterent to a small company attempting to market online.
Run. I like water. Push My rutabaga.
Perhaps having 2 titans go at it will finally shed the needed sunshine on this nonsense -- so perhaps the injunction is a good thing in the end.
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
I heard Bill Gates wants to patent the numbers 1 and 0. Do you not wonder what he wants with them?
Just make your customers click somewhere twice. ;)
Then you have 2-click shopping. But, then again, I'm applying for a patent on n-click shopping, where n > 1. So I would have to sue.
This sig is false.
Considering the fact that the patent is very specific about "1-click" shopping, B&N would be wise to simply change their method of shopping so it takes 2 clicks to do the same. Personally, I don't visit vendor sites based on how many clicks it takes me to order...and I doubt many others do either. I think B&N is missing the forest for the trees. It make business sense to wage battle against Amazon on the sidelines, and find a temporary workaround.
All "1-click" shopping is is simply storing the users' name/address/shipping info/credit card (eek)/etc in some database and always using it when they buy something. That's not exactly rocket science.. so how can they patent something like that? If I were B&N I wouldn't be too worried about this.. except if they are forced to take their 1-click shopping offline, which I assume is what they will have to do.
:)
Hmm.. I think I'll patent 2-click shopping.. 1-click plus an "OK, I really don't mind that you saved my credit card number in your database, so go ahead and let anyone with my cookie automatically order anything they want!" button
As has been said, a preliminary injunction means only that the case has some merit. But really, if Barnes & Noble literally took Amazon's patented 1-Click technology, then there's a case.
The good thing is that there is, as there is with many patents, a way around it -- Barnes & Noble just has to change enough that it can be considered different. Honestly, the technology used by places like amazon and buy.com aren't really that good. All they seem to do is store your ip. That's just great if you happen to order something from a public computer. It saves your info for anyone else to use. They do have this "if you're not XXX, click here" line, but that just relies on users to do the right thing. I have long ago learned that you can never rely on and end-user to do the right thing.
The sad thing is how many people don't seem to realize what can happen if they save private information on public machines. In the computer lab at school, so many people use programs like Eudora and Outlook Express to check their school mail accounts and leave their account info saved locally. They don't seem to realize that anyone who logs in at the same machine can access their mail account.
In my opinion, a company that cares about the people ordering from them would make them log in and produce the information from that. It's slightly less convenient, but it's also more secure.
Alright, this is probably going to be an unpopular post on a open-source haven like /., but I think that it's good that some of these companies have a way to protect themselves from competition. Internet sites offer so much to so many for, in most cases, real little. Think about it - you spend hours developing your competitive advantage and it's gone the second you go live. Not that companies should be able to patent non-revenue and widely used things like the technology behind downloading files off the net, but innovative methods like Priceline's and maybe Amazon's, that are not real difficult to reproduce but still unique, should have some protection.
lf.o
It's a great place to shop, but there are lots of alternatives. I'll spend my money with vendors who aren't resorting to dirty patent tricks in such an obvious way.
This stupid patent and the insanely irritating Christmas commercials they have been running lately. At least bn.com has a plan to institute their version (express checkout) soon.
We should all do our seasonal book and music gift buying at bn.com! I have...
Eric
This doesn't mean too much, except that the judge thinks that there is enough possibility for damage to place an injunction on B&N to prevent further harm. Don't get too cynical just yet!
I'm letting them know, politely, that their practices will cost them more than just attorney fees. To make the point clear, I'm attaching the total sum I spent in their on-line store during this year.
While Amazon's service is generally good, and shopping there is easy and convenient, I can't in good faith endorse anyone who abuses the patent system the way they have. I'll be more than happy to shop there again, if they make it clear that they will make it their policy to not patent obvious software "inventions".
I wouldn't depend on B&N to fight the battle for us. It would be nice, but they are probably reluctant to fight the patent itself. Rather the defence would involve differences in implementation. The worst result for us would be a settlement.
Guess who'd be paying for an "Amazon-One-Click E-Commerce Tax" in the end?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
This patenting/suing/injuncting crap is just like a game of Jinx!
All these obviously repressed corporate types are doing nothing but childrens games -- only this time they expect their Coke at the end.
(Jinx - owe me a Coke!)
-m
In the past 18 months I've purchased close to $US 2000 worth of books from Amazon.co.uk. I don't use 1-click & have no intention of using it in the future. It doesn't affect my purchasing habits in the slightest. I would rather go through the more tedious route of purchasing just to make sure all my details are correct.
I am firmly of the belief that public companies are inherently evil.
This evilness is especially disturbing to observe in companies we think/thought are/were cool. It seems like once a company goes public, it loses its soul -- the purpose of the company is then to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Obviously, you have to be somewhat ethical to make money -- you must keep your employees and customers, and you must behave according to the law to keep from being involved in lawsuits.
Unfortunately, it's very good business strategy to file stupid lawsuits against people because they might infringe on a stupid patent you hold that stupid people shouldn't have issued you in the first place. This sort of stupid lawsuit is now just another tool of a "successful business." Suits probably have friggin' seminars on it.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
This isn't about data security, it's about ease of use.
The 1-Click "technology" is very simple and logical construction that's fairly obvious to anyone creating ecommerce sites professionally. On the sites I've been working on, we're using similar techniques to ease the use of the site. So, IMHO, this shouldn't have received a patent at all as it's nothing unique and similar things have been constructed in the past for certain.
Now, the reason this being bad is that if other web developers want to give their users similar ease of use, they can't. As a user, you suffer. Amazon's patented a user interface contruction and thus making it harder for others to provide easy to use web services. And since Amazon is getting away with it, others will come behing. Is that really what you want?
sulka
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
Look at it from their POV - they own a patent on this. No matter how misguided, the law of the land says they should get royalties on it. And would companies walk away from one-click if they had to pay amazon $0.01 every transaction? I think not... its just too useful for those "unwashed masses" you speak of. So I think they're doing something sensible by enforcing their patent, rather like trademark protection. (Now if there were to be a net-wide backlash against them, that would be a different can of worms...)
Do I think this is a good thing? No, not at all - but the fault is in the broken US patent system. Amazon and B&N are just doing their bit to bring it to wide attention, and I for one will not be unhappy about the slugfest. (Though who gets rich from this? Amazon? Nah, not yet. B&N? Nope. The masses? Not really. Its a conspiracy by trial lawyers, of course... maybe they divvy up cases like this: You patent this, I use it, you sue me, we both get rich while the companies bleed...)
I'm cynical this morning! Must be the additives in the coffee...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
A preliminary injunction means that this will probably go to trial.
I hope to hell this stupid patent is overturned. I mean this is as obvious as you get. Storing the customer info in a database has been done for years. Making a 1-step buy button on the item is so obvious that it's ridiculous. There's plenty of prior art, as well.
I hope that B&N fights this one tooth and nail. With any luck, Amazon's patent will be ruled as unenforceable or overturned or something. Hopefully, the judge will see this as well, and decide to make a statement about companies patenting the blatently obvious to mess their competitors about, and say that the only way the get away with it is that the patent office is too busy to care anymore.
I need to vent my anger more often.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You have to wonder why an obviously intelligent person hasn't got better things to do with their time than make comments like this.
Grab cookie.
Grab book id.
Use cookie to lookup userid in database, and extract shipping & billing details.
Create order.
Output pretty screen.
How hard were these programmers working?
If as everyone says there is no merit in Amazon's case. Then the injunction must be the aim of the suit. and so having recieved it countersuit, claiming that as the technology that amazon are using is so obvious. then they are presenting a spurious case, which can only be intended to damage my buisness. get them charged with restraint of trade, use the department of justice against them. stop them setting up a Microsoft style monopoly of simple shopping. after all it's going to be easier to do before they're in the overwhelming position.
Putting the whole patent silliness aside for a second, I wonder if B&N could introduce a more technically-savvy (n+1)/n-Click approach. The first click brings up a box that says "Do you wish to auto-order this item and all subsequent items?". If the user says "yes", then he is allowed to click the same button later to auto order things without the prompt. I would envision the button initially saying "2-Click", then "1.5-Click", then "1.33-Click", then "1.25-Click", etc.
:-)
That's different from the 1-Click approach in that it's prompting the user to agree to the order after the first click, but subsequent clicks are auto-ordered for them until that shipment is processed (at which time, it starts over).
This has the advantage of approaching 1-Click technology as n approaches infinity.
I've been wondering about something. Do you mean that you have both linux and grits together in your pants? Or do you have linux somewhere else, while your pants are filled with grits alone?
What an interesting time frame they chose to go after their competition. I realize that they were awarded this screwy patent not too long ago, but hey, this is ridiculous and just plain evil. It kind of reminds me of a time when a local grocery store was in trouble, so they sold canned foods at a loss to attract customers. What happened? The competitor sent employees over to buy all the on-sale items to hasten their death.
Right in time for Christmas shopping - what a great time to cause the most amount of damage with an injunction.
I leave you to resume pouring hot bowls of grits down my pants.
I would sooner kill myself with a blunt salad fork then do that. Pouring grits down your pants is fine it's only when you trample on my rights to live that you are in error.
In the olden days (prior art) if you wanted by something from a book seller either by phone or in person you'd do the following. This also would be applicable to any other buying scheme. a). Visit JC Penney/Sears and order something from their catalogs or within the store. The same applies to looking at Books in Print. b). Get the price of the product(s) c). Put the item on lawaway either by having: 1) your name, address, phone, credit card etc be written on a piece of paper. 2) same as (1) but a clerk types it into the computer system (online) for you
I certainly hope that is only a joke.
The problem with their logic is a very simple one. In order for a patent to be valid it must not be obviouse. Well here is the thing, Microsoft had a patent on Cookie technology (as in the browser end) first, and the concept of 'one click shopping' was the whole point of Cookies, to make e-commerce easy (no really, I did some probing). Anyways B&N should call as witness the team at microsoft who developed the technology, since that would end it real quick. I hate to say it but this time Microsoft may be a hero for free flow of commerce and information.
No, s/he was RIGHT. In the major programming languages comparing (rather than assigning) the equality of two values, != means "not equal" and == means "is equal". So, the title of the original post was correct in stating that "preliminary injunction is NOT equal to major finding of fact".
Study programming syntax a little bit before you go and make such rash criticisms.
In the olden days (prior art) if you wanted by something from a book seller either by phone or in person you'd do the following. This also would be applicable to any other buying scheme. a). Visit JC Penney/Sears and order something from their catalogs or within the store. The same applies to looking at Books in Print. b). Get the price of the product(s) c). Put the item on lawaway either by having: 1) your name, address, phone, credit card etc be written on a piece of paper. 2) same as (1) but a clerk types it into the computer system (online) for you vs. you doing it yourself (self serve) NOTE: This is the 1-click or n-click or long handwriting approach which stores the data. d). Come back to actually complete (buy) the product or call them to cancel the purchase. So. the definition of 1-click purchase etc has already been done by a similar method. THe purpose of which is for the customer to buy something or not conventiently. Amazon case lost!
With the rise of e-commerce and the Internet, we've seen a increase in tech-related cases hit the courts. This is a problem. In the best of cases, the justice system doesn't move at the speed of the Internet. Nor do our judges fully understand the industry and the effects their rulings have.
This Amazon case is a perfect example. Every one of us understands that the Amazon patent is shady, at best. If I was the judge, I'd declare the patent null and void, and rip into the Patent Office. But I know. A real judge? He sees a patent, sees evidence of B&N violating said patent, and obviously issues a preliminary injunction.
Now, I've got faith in our judges and justice system. It's populated by remarkably clever people. Judges will study, research, and learn - mcuh as Judge Jackson did in the Microsoft case. The problem lies in the fact that this makes the wheels of justice move even slower than before.
The gov't needs some type of tech-smart judge.
and the patent office needs to get a clue.
Neither will happen, but it's nice to wish.
This is a capitalist society we have in North America, let's vote with our dollars, and pressure those who have "partnerships" with Amazon, like Slashdot, to dissolve those partnerships.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Instead of e-mailing Amazon and saying, "I'm not going to buy from you anymore....", e-mail B&N and say, "If you fight this case instead of cowering, I will be a faithful customer to you. If you give in, I will not buy from you."
After watching Borland and Lotus duke it out in court several years ago over look-and-feel issues between Quattro and Lotus-123 (a move BTW which came close to bankrupting both companies), it's really suprising to see two big players in e-commerce trying to do the same thing. I think I'm in the wrong career - I want to be a lawyer.
I have found BookPool to be cheaper than Amazon.com on many occasions. There are certainly alternatives out there...
Too bad for them, but bookseller Barnes and Noble is also selling books on the web. Barnes and Noble is already a profitable company with a large market share. Why should Amazon best them on the web? Because they're first?
In a world where the competition is one click away, Amazon needs reasons to compell web-surfers to stay on their site. How about if the shopping experience is marginally smoother?
This patent may be silly, but man, it's all they got to show for their $26 billion USD market capitalization. That's worth a vicious court battle.
Mapquest was (I believe) the first online map engine. Mapblast came along, it does the same sort of thing, but it's a superior product. (don't argue with me about the previous if I'm wrong, I'm just trying to make a point.) If mapquest had patented the idea of having a map online (I don't really know if they have or not), we would be stuck with crappy Mapquest until the patent ran out, or until someone came along with enough money to start a new business *and* license the patent, which could be a long time.
When the business strategy is nearly the product, (you can buy the same book ten different places on the web, so you use the easiest one) only allowing the original inventors to use a strategy stifles innovation. It's like the first bookstore that thought to put a coffeeshop in it would sue every other one that did it. You could argue for something like that, but traditionally that hasn't been patent fodder.
Bookselling online is obviously different from an online service (like the map businesses), but I think the analogy extends. I think the bookseller with the best prices and best marketing strategy (not the best totally original strategy, just the best strategy) should be able to be the best bookseller, not the bookseller with the best patents.
p.s. if think that if Amazon were smart, they would have just found a way to license their software to all the other booksellers that were slow to come online. It would have really fattened their profits (if they have even started making them yet).
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Fool, don't you get it? Amazon is more than just books. It's the virtual Walmart. It has everything. Soon it will have chat and other services to lock you in. You'll be able to have real-time discussions with author's, reviewers, etc.
Hell, send them copies of your receipts from other online booksellers, telling them that their heavy-handed approach to squashing their competitors is reason enough to do business elsewhere. If they see enoguh dollars going to other companies for this, maybe it'll change their minds. The only thing they care about is money.
They're well aware that their patent is ludicrous. They're just playing dumb and trying to screw their competitors, using an overburdened and behind the curve government agency as their shield. Let them know that you know this, and because of it you're spending your dollars elsewhere.
Thanks for the link.
This isn't about money, however. I've been buying from Amazon because it was convenient, and I didn't have to spend time looking. My time is valuable, too.
it seems to me that amazon is trying get a hold on simple things that everyone should have rights to. That is one method they could use to get a monopoly on the (albeit useless) region of selling krap.
hmmm... sound familiar?
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
Is B&N using amazons method to institute 1-click shopping, or are they using an in house method with a user interface that works similarly to acheive the same end result? If its the latter, and amazon wins, Apple should file a lawsuit against Microsoft. IBM should file a lawsuit against Compaq. Intel should file a lawsuit against AMD(among others). Whoever has the rights to UNIX has alot of people to sue. Unless B&N is actually using the same code, aquired directly rather than coincidentally coming up with the same obvious solution to the same problem, there is absolutely no case.
This is so sick and wrong -- I'm actually starting to look for the Grits Boy posts now.
p.s. Do the grits down your pants work with FreeBSD or is just not the same thing?
... that stupid patents cause stupid lawsuits. I nearly choked on my beer when I noticed the little patent number next to their One-Click thing on Amazon's site. It's such a stupid thing to grant a patent on. And now we're stuck with a stupid lawsuit that's going to have widespread, meaningful impact. Either way, consumers are going to lose.
You must have missed my manifesto which I released recently. I repost here for you edification. Hi people. Before I pour hot grits down my pants, I would like to have a word with my adoring public. In my absence the last few days, I've noticed a proliferation of people running around claiming to be the grits boy. While I was initially flattered , I quickly became saddened by the actions of seemingly noble minded slashdotters. While most imposters were able to muster up a weak facsimile of my legendary, humourous musings on life spent with grits down my pants, it became clear that they were missing an essential point. The point is this: I actually enjoy pouring hot grits down my pants. I seriously doubt that the imposters share such an affinity. Why do I enjoy pouring hot grits down my pants? That is a good question deserving of a serious answer. I have seen several arm-chair pyschologists attempt to diagnose my predelection for tossing hominy down my trousers. Some have chalked it up to a perverse, sado-masochistic, sexual ritual. Some imply that my prose is the work of some bored child. The plain truth is I do it as homage to Linux. Homage to Linux? Yes. Think about it. Linux has five letters. Grits has five letters. There are instant versions (Redhat) of Linux and there are instant grits. There are industrial strength versions of Linux (Debian) and there are industrial strength, slow-cooking grits. Linux started out as a niche product. Grits, outside of the south, remains a niche breakfast product. Linux and grits both go well with eggs and sausage. The synergy between Linux and grits is clearly evident. When I pour hot bowls of grits down my pants, I am professing my love for Linux !!! You now know who the real grits boy is. You also know a little more about the grits boy. I hope that I am able to continue my relationship with you fine people. I also hope that some among you will come to appreciate my love for grits and Linux. Who knows. Maybe you too will pour hot bowls of grits down your pants. Remember. It starts with hominy grit.
Linux and grits down my pants. Does it get any better?
My latest round of book shopping was done at Barnes and Noble for exactly this reason. I won't be back at Amazon unless they drop this absurdity.
/.ers) feel this is in bad taste. Check out Brian Hook's(of iD Software and now Verant) take on the situation at http://www.voodooextreme.com/ask/rant.html#oct2599
You and I aren't alone here. I think a lot of software developers (not just
<begin repost>
Hi people. Before I pour hot grits down my pants, I would like to have a word with my adoring public.
In my absence the last few days, I've noticed a proliferation of people running around claiming to be the grits boy. While I was initially flattered , I quickly became saddened by the actions of seemingly noble minded slashdotters. While most imposters were able to muster up a weak facsimile of my legendary, humourous musings on life spent with grits down my pants, it became clear that they were missing an essential point. The point is this: I actually enjoy pouring hot grits down my pants. I seriously doubt that the imposters share such an affinity.
Why do I enjoy pouring hot grits down my pants? That is a good question deserving of a serious answer. I have seen several arm-chair pyschologists attempt to diagnose my predelection for tossing hominy down my trousers. Some have chalked it up to a perverse, sado-masochistic, sexual ritual. Some imply that my prose is the work of some bored child. The plain truth is I do it as homage to Linux.
Homage to Linux? Yes. Think about it.
Linux has five letters. Grits has five letters. There are instant versions (Redhat) of Linux and there are instant grits. There are industrial strength versions of Linux (Debian) and there are industrial strength, slow-cooking grits. Linux started out as a niche product. Grits, outside of the south, remains a niche breakfast product. Linux and grits both go well with eggs and sausage.
The synergy between Linux and grits is clearly evident. When I pour hot bowls of grits down my pants, I am professing my love for Linux !!!
You now know who the real grits boy is. You also know a little more about the grits boy. I hope that I am able to continue my relationship with you fine people. I also hope that some among you will come to appreciate my love for grits and Linux. Who knows. Maybe you too will pour hot bowls of grits down your pants. Remember. It starts with hominy grit.
</begin repost>
Linux and grits down my pants. Does it get any better?
Congrats to slashdot by the way, they seem to have silently switched to fatbrain. Weehoo!
/.'s source taco, and we'll stop saying first post all the time. ;-)
Now open
I'm developing an online shopping system for someone, and, of course, am trying to reduce the number of clicks it takes to do what someone wants.
I have never bought anything using Amazon or Barnes and Noble, but I might end up getting sued for independently coming up with a way of doing things that's too similar to their way of doing things.
I have a friend who worked for a company doing reverse engineering at some point. My recollection is that it was legal under certain strict circumstances. The people doing the reverse engineering had to make sure they didn't know anything about the device they were reverse-engineering, and that when they were done, all they did is write reports, which other people then used to create a device using the same technology.
Would something like that protect me in this case? I can't be violating their IP because I don't know anything about it?
How is storing an ID for a user innovative? Isn't that the whole reason cookies where invented?
This looks another high(ish) tech company adopting the M$ business model. It work likes this:- If by skill or fluke you become the market leader in your sector. You want to protect this position. You could of course do this by continuing to provide innivative solutions and excellent service, but this is hard work. Instead what you do whenever someone looks like challenging your postition you unleash a pack of lawers. The fact that legaly you don't have a leg to stand on does not matter -- your rival must respond to the suit which causes time and money, plus, you almost always get the preliminary injunction. For a small rival company the existence of a law suit will usually sink the company. For a larger target like B&N the preliminary injunction will disrupt your development plans , and, probably your sales and marketing as well. This disruption is not trivial re-scheduling and replanning your development efforts costs $'000s. M$ of course are famous for this type of stuff (e.g. copyrighting words like "bookshelf"). The only solution that I can see is too lobby congress and get all software patents and silly copyrights abolished.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
OK, help me figure this out. I know that there are several criteria that must be met before a patent can be issued, such as no prior art. As I understand it, one of these restrictions is that the invention to be patented should not be obvious to another person who is reasonably skilled in the particular field the patent applies to. So don't most of these patents that involve patenting an existing business model translated to the internet fall into this category where the invention is obvious? What part of the 1-click patent or other patents such as selling downloadable music or buying custom generated music cds over the internet is so non-intuitive to other business people and internet developers?
Who cares? I don't shop at Wal-Mart if I can help it. If I visit Amazon.com or any other book vendor, I'll do it to buy books, not read a bunch of banal book reviews or lame author interviews. I'll do a Google search if I'm interested in real author information.
Alright, this is probably going to be an unpopular post on a open-source haven like /., but I think that it's good that some of these companies have a way to protect themselves from competition. The best protection from competition is to give great service to customers, offer great products at a good price. In other words, do what is best for the customer - people will pay money for that. When a company competes by hindering the operations of competitors it is doing something that is undeniably bad for society as a whole. In otherwords, it's a bad corporate citizen. Not to mention that the patent in question is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a patent examiner and the judge and never should have been granted in the first place; this action should never have gotten to the point of an injunction. I'd like to get on my little soapbox right now and say to Amazon: I'm a customer, I've bought books from you, but I never will again until you toss this stupid patent.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Is there a good email address to use? Thanks
As someone else pointed out, they claim to have spent thousands of hours on what is essentially a fairly simple feature - adding the "one click" button to the UI and using cookies to determine the user (assuming the guts of "multi-click" shopping were already there). This makes it very likely that either their progammers aren't very good or their project management isn't very good, or both. And if so, the software's quality is questionable and therefore difficult to sell.
Then again, since their success isn't measured in actual profit, but rather in "percieved mindshare" inflating the stock price, they would prefer eliminating competitors to mearly making money off of them.
BTW, I totally agree that this patent mess is a Very Bad Thing(c). Moreover, I don't understand how or why these "concept" patents are granted in the first place. It's one thing to copyright the phrase "One click shopping" but it's another thing to patent the concept of not requiring a login to make an online purchase. It's equivalent to McDonalds not being content with copyrighting "SuperSize" and instead patenting the concept of offering food in a greater quantity for an small additional fee.
- bridgette
Hell, even a posting to the internet would do. Some nerd along the line probably thought it worth mentioning in some newsgroup that activating stored billing/shipping information automatically might be a good idea because, after all, we can write these wonderful things called "computer programs" and it is worth writing them because they can do repetative, mundane things automatically.
But really, isn't this missing the point? Amazon is damaging a world-wide infrastructure with their sleazy conduct. They should pay damages to all those who have suffered inconvenience as a result of their abuse of the patent laws.
For example, Amazon has made themselves so repugnant that I cannot visit their web site. So where do I go to buy things on the web without all the hassle?
Most of the people who shop on the web have time that is worth a reasonable amount of money.
I wonder if it is feasible for all the Barnes and Noble customers (and all the other web shoppers) who are now inconvenienced by the Amazon anarchists, hiding behind their legalisms, to file a class action law suit against Amazon?
Seastead this.
you'd think they could have taken the time to come up with their own cheezy buzz-phrase, especially considering the rousing success that it has brought ms so far
The patent is idiotic, the lawsuite is idiotic... I'll never buy from Amazon again and as a matter of fact, I specifically went to fatbrain.com to buy a book two days ago instead of amazon, just for this reason.
If B&N wanted to copy 1-Click, they could at least do it correctly. Has anyone actually tried to USE their "ExpressLane" recently? What a piece of crap. The programmers at Amazon look like geniuses compared to the B&N chimps.
I have in the past used B&N ExpressLane successfully. But a few days ago:
(1) Select the book I want and hit ExpressLane.
(2) A new page comes up asking me for various personal details. I sigh at the fact that this info seems to have been purged at some point in the last few weeks and enter it again.
(3) I do NOT get any confirmation one way or another at this point that the book has actually been ordered.
(4) I go to the "My Account" page, look there, and see no book.
(5) So we hit the ExpressLane button again. Aha, now the book is accepted.
(6) So now the other books should be easy, right? No, the fun has just started. I go on to the next book, and hit ExpressLane.
(7) I get the SAME enter your personal info dialog which I fill out.
(8) As before, this does not actually result in my having ordered the book, so, as before, I hit ExpressLane again.
(9) Now I get, for the THIRD time, the enter your personal info dialog.
(10) At this point I say, screw this, and go to "My Account" with the intention of cancelling my order ad heading to Amazon. "My Account" now shows NOTHING in my ExpressLane purchases---my attempted purchase of the first book a few minutes ago has disappeared.
(11) Trying to be as thorough about this as possible I call B&N, explain all this, and ask what the status of my ExpressLane purchases are. I am assured there is nothing there.
(12) Needless to say, yesterday the book arrives in my mail---a duplicate now of a book I have already bought elsewhere.
So people, if you want to boycott Amazon go right ahead. Only be prepared to deal with more stupidity and incompetence you would have believed possible. Personally I will be doing all my book purchasing from Amazon from now on.
I urge everyone who is displeased with this to write amazon some email and let them know exactly how you feel. I sent email to amazon immediately after I first found out about their lawsuit and let them know that they had just lost a customer.
I also stressed that I was switching my business to Barnes and Noble, and why I was doing this. I then emailed Barnes and Noble and let them know that I supported them, that I was fleeing from Amazon and that I was now shopping from them to show my support. I then placed an order for a couple of books.
Don't just rant... I urge everyone to stop shopping at Amazon (and I've already put the word out to my entire family that any books they may buy me for the holidays better not come from Amazon). I also urge everyone to LET AMAZON KNOW just how pissed off you are. Please, BE POLITE, and BE ADULT, but also BE HEARD.
-- Gary F.
(Gak! KDE deveopers: please take note - my original post above was mangled by the KDE help browser-cum-webbrowser stripping all the html tags from the text in the preview screen edit box - PLEASE TRY posting to Slashdot yourself, you'll see what I mean. This is NOT the correct behaviour.)
/., but I think that it's good that some of these companies have a way to protect themselves from competition.
Alright, this is probably going to be an unpopular post on a open-source haven like
The best protection from competition is to give great service to customers, offer great products at a good price. In other words, do what is best for the customer - people will pay money for that. When a company competes by hindering the operations of competitors it is doing something that is undeniably bad for society as a whole. In otherwords, it's a bad corporate citizen.
Not to mention that the patent in question is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a patent examiner and the judge and never should have been granted in the first place; this action should never have gotten to the point of an injunction.
I'd like to get on my little soapbox right now and say to Amazon: I'm a customer, I've bought books from you, but I never will buy from you again until you toss this stupid patent.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
because they are in the business of selling computer books, and Amazon shift VAST chnks of stock
I stopped my rather voluminous commerce with Amazon.com back when Slashdot first posted the ludicrous patent claim, but I did not fly into the arms of B&N as a result. B&N are no better, and the only small comfort I draw from this silliness is that B&N are getting a taste of their own goods.
Remember when B&N first got into the .com market? They immediately tried to overcome the tremendous lead Amazon had built, not through better prices or service, but through a silly lawsuit enjoining Amazon.com from calling themselves "The World's Largest Bookstore". This in spite of the fact that Amazon.com stocked more titles than B&N (mortar or on-line). They claimed that since Amazon's "store" was virtual and the stock was all in a cheap wharehouse somewhere, that it didn't count.
So "no thanks" to both of them. I tried out Fatbrain for the first time a fortnight ago, and I'm not sure I'd go back to Amazon if they repented and donated millions to the High-School Geek Defense Fund. Fatbrain is consistently as cheap as or cheaper than Amazon. I've heard similarly good things about Bookpool, but they didn't have several titles I wanted, so I went back to Fatbrain.
But I don't doubt that Fatbrain will do something as fat-headed as B&N and Amazon at some point and I'll have to look elsewhere as well. Oh well. Negotiis non capitem habet nisi pecuniam.
--Uche"What thou lovest well remains, the rest is dross" -- E.P.
At Amazon the book was 20% less than list, next day shipping.
Where do you think I ordered? Now it wasn't some esoteric book, just the new Kent Beck XP book.
Still, I find it rather distasteful that Amazon would come up with such an obvious patent.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes is one of my favorite Onion articles. Every year, I give a copy to the students in my computer architecture class.
What do you think?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Also, even if your letter reaches a real person (and, with Amazon I have my doubts-- we get a lot of customers who tell us their comments, complaints and qustions just languish with those bastards), the person it'll reach is a schmoe like me, sitting on the absolute bottom of the corporate and economic ladder.
Don't bluster, don't threaten, don't write IN ALL CAPS-- just preserve your dignity. Walk away.
-"S"HM
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
While I don't like the patent or this lawsuit for obvious reasons, I'm not a big fan of one-click purchasing. It's impulse buying at it's worst.
I don't think I'll stop shopping at amazon though, their prices are simply too good on a lot of books. Pretty much any company that is large enough tries these kind of B.S. lawsuits all the time. Barnes and Noble isn't any better than amazon. If I were a Good Person I'd probably shop at a locally owned bookstore and be happy about spending a few extra bucks.
second
As if Microsoft didn't abuse it enough, I think 'innovate' is now officially in the lexicon of Corporate Weenuses who can't think for themselves. It joins other drone favorites, such as:
solution
proactive
resource
robust
e-*
Someone needs to roll down the window and hock a lugie at corporate America.
Oop!
d.
/* The People's Republic of Chocolatey Delicious! */
It seems we are living in a pretty perverse age, where competition has finally become anathema enough to businesses that they would go to any repugnant length to prevent it. As the article mentions, more and more companies are trying to patent not only the technology, but the concepts, business ideas and processes that the technology serves. For me, it is unbelievable.
Imagine if McDonald's -- or whoever was there first -- tried to patent the drive through idea, or that of self-service. What if Coca-Cola had not only patented its chemical formula, but also that of the idea of carbonated beverage or that of a 'one-click container, where the user can operate the mechanism with the mere movement of one finger'?
Where doese the trend come from? Is this the direction capitalism naturally evolves in?
AC
It's time for us to act. We can protect ourselves against these kinds of overzealous corporations by starting our own Slashdot Blackhole List.
This would be a collective list of lowlife companies that all honest geeks should boycott. The only way to make these companies change their is to impact their bottom line.
If we do it well, we could educate the public as to why they should boycott certain companies. If a list like this actually went into use, companies on that list would see impact from the following places:
1) Harder to hire geeks. do you really want to work for a company on the blackhole list?
2) Harder to purchase advetising.
3) Stock by spreading word of mouth that a company has been blackholed we could truely hurt these penny counters where it hurts.
The list might look something like this:
1) Amazon -> for patenting the obvious "1 click" shopping system.
Who else belongs on it?
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
I like that alot. Sounds like that McDonalds commercial. :)
This sig is false.
If someone could provide an appropriate address and case number, maybe some of us could write to the judge with friend of the court representations explaining (i) that the patent is trivial, (ii) that Amazon know this, and (iii) they are just using this injunction, the patents system and the legal system as a whole as delaying tactics to obtain an unfair commercial advantage.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This patent by Amazon has made e-commerce illegal in the US.
Does anyone know of an organized effort to educate the American patent office? Better still, to lobby a review on the patent system itself. This blatent abuse of peoples rights to be productive means that the patents are flawed.
It should be possible to revoke bogus patents.
d
Does anybody remember the "press release war" these two had, when B&N acquired somebody, so then Amazon posted a press release stating "We're afraid of you becoming a monopoly and we hope there's room in the industry for the little independent booksellers". So then, B&N posted another press release in response stating "Don't whine, Jeff, everybody knows that Amazon has got more revenue than all of us bigboys combined. Little independent indeed." So then Amazon responded back in a press release with "Oh." (Or something like that, I wish I could remember the exact details)
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Amazon is a sinking ship. During the quarter ended September 30th, they lost over $197 million. That's more than $2 million per day. They have cash (and cash equivalents) of $905 million. At this rate, it is entirely possible that they could be bankrupt in another 12 months.
At the same time, the markets are trading their shares in the $80s right now, giving them a market cap of almost $30 billion. Many, many executives at Amazon (heck, many people manning telephones at Amazon) are dependent on an ever-escalating stock price for a large portion of their compensation. As a result Amazon needs to keep this house of cards from collapsing, lest they lose all of their staff and management team. The way to keep the stock price high is by manipulating the sentiments of the speculators who trade in Amazon stock.
I expect a variety of stunts and announcements from Amazon.com over the next six months or so. Expect to see a variety of "strategic partnerships" a la the U.S. Postal Service's arrangement with Amazon. Expect more "strategic" aquisitions, using Amazon's inflated stock. Expect many, many public maneuvers to convince the speculators that the future is bright, that Amazon is growing, and that Real Soon Now they will turn profitable.
Some legal sabre-rattling over a bogus patent fits right in with that approach. To Joe Daytrader, this will appear yet another validation of Amazon's brilliant prospects. "Look, they've even got a patent on this stuff!" he will exclaim. Thus emboldened, Joe Daytrader will feel that he is justified in buying even more Amazon stock at, say $95.
Eventually time will run out for Amazon. The mathematics are simple and stark: at this rate, they will have no more cash before the end of 2000. At that point, they will be unable to pay their debts. They will be bankrupted.
Get out while you still can.
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these lawsuits!
I won't ask you to disclose anything you shouldn't, but does your employer actually turn a profit? Does Amazon, for that matter?
Obviously, if enough people walk away, it makes a difference. I just think that it's important that businesses know why people walk away. Otherwise, walking away will make even less of a difference.
All I wrote them was "I won't be buying from you in the future, and here's why:". No caps, and no threats.
When people commit murder do you blame the shoddy legal system?
It doesn't matter what the patent system says they can do, we are perfectly justified to hold Amazon accountable for their own behavoir.
So they follow their profit motive, so what. I do too, but I don't abuse the patent system in doing it.
The fact of the matter is that the only thing that hurts online booksellers (esp. those of Amazon's caliber) is bad press-- like that which Slashdot is stirring up. Bad press makes investors wary, and if the investors get skittesh folks like Amazon will go belly up. In a very real way-- and this is counter-intuitive; to most old-school businessmen it sounds impossible-- places like Amazon aren't about making money through actual sales. They live off of hype, stock sales and advertizing. Sure, that's gonna change, but it hasn't yet.
If you cut off Amazon's hype-supply-- via bad press (witness that "buying circles" fiasco, or their current Mien Kampf debacle) they'll dry up like amoebae on a dry table top.
"S"HM
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
Just to make it clear, I never suggested that anyone call Amazon employees "the stupidest idiots on the planets", or insult them in any other way.
There are civilized ways to express your dislike of someone's business practices, and I see no reason why people shouldn't use them.
Bzzt, thank you for playing. The claim can be debunked by finding where a description of such a site was published (meaning, published somewhere available to the public, not an internal company memo, for example). It doesn't matter if you've been doing it for 50 years. It doesn't matter if you've been doing it very openly and publicly for the past 50 years. If a description hasn't been published, it's not prior art.
I'm not saying that's how it should be, but that's how it is.
CONTRACT
1. Individual Inventor hereby gives EvilMegaCorp exclusive permission to produce, distribute, market, and sell Invention X.
2. Individual Inventor agrees not to give rights to Invention X to anyone else.
3. Individual Inventor will allow EvilMegaCorp to prosecute patent infrigement of Invention X on his behalf. (Or perhaps you would prefer that individual inventors have to undertake patent infringement suits all by themselves without the help of corporations???)
4. EvilMegaCorp will pay Individual Inventor $1,000,000.
Now, how again is this different from the current system?
Or was your proposal to prevent even the licensing of patent rights to corporations?
If so, what happens when EvilMegaCorp simply ignores Individual Inventor's patent? Is Individual Inventor going to undertake the patent infringement suit against EvilMegaCorp all by himself?
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, please see a lawyerin your own jurisdiction.
While there is no final finding of fact, one of the conditions of the preliminary injunction is that the plaintiff show a substantial likelihood of ultimately prevailing in the case.
Irreparable harm is another consideration, but this surprises me here--damages to amazon from the patent violation can be compensated later with money; they don't seem irreparable. However, damages to B&N would seem irreparable (how do you figure out the lost business?)
(that "stupidest idiots on the planet" thing is a direct quote-- and not a horribly exceptional utterance, either.)
"S"HM
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
That was the funniest post I've seen all day. Too bad this is such an offtopic thread.
I tend to think that if B&N were in Amazon's shoes, they would do the same thing. Do you really thing that either of them truly supports freedom of information? I highly doubt it. This is just a ploy to hurt B&N during an important selling period. BTW - The same goes for FatBrain. Do they really support freedom of information? Face it guys, this is a movement without a cause.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
I don't like shopping at Barnes & Noble, because they use very Microsoft-like tactics in the bookseller industry (though they keep it in the "real" world, at least).
At the same time, this dispute just cost me the last of my respect for Amazon. I don't intend to shop there again until they decide to stop this silly abuse of a patent system that could really use a total overhaul anyway.
Where am I supposed to get books online now? Granted, there are more than a few very nice bookstores in my area (including a very nice Border's) but what do I do when I can't find what I need there? This is an honest question; if anyone knows of other good online booksellers I'd love to hear about them.
Welcome to the world of software patents. Apparently, for every loop in your code, you are supposed to do a patent search to check to see if you're infringing on anyone's patents. Ideally, software development is supposed to be something that doesn't require a lot of capital -- just brains. But the patent system is set up so that the only way you can be safe from liabilities is if you charge about $1000 per hour to write software. Yep, that is fucked up.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I personally have never purchased anything from Amazon, mostly because I can usually find what I'm looking for elsehere (Barnes & Noble, or Book-a-Million), and for less. Now it looks like I have another reason.
For the likelihood of success on the merits, the judge needs to believe that the patent is likely valid and infringed. For patents that have never been in a law suit before, the issue of validity can be a problem if you can find evidence to raise substantial issues. The patent is always presumed valid, but it is better to have fought over the validity of the patent before and won than merely rely on the presumption.
Irreparable harm means that there has to be something special. Loss of market share, or damage to reputation are things that money can't necessarily buy back. If the plaintiff makes a strong showing on the likelihood of success, irreparable harm is presumed in a patent case.
The balance of harms considers whether the plaintiff is more hurt by denying the injunction, or the defendant is more hurt by granting it. The harms measured are usually not monetary. If money can make the plaintiff whole, he will get damages at the end of the case. If money would make the defendant whole if the injunction was improvidently granted, he will usually be paid because the judge almost always requires the plaintiff to post a bond in case the preliminary injunction was erroneously granted.
The judge also has to evaluate the impact on the public. This is usually most important in areas like public safety and public health, not considerations like market price. The impact on the public is usually not a large factor in patent cases.
A preliminary injunction is usually not that big a deal if it is denied (as it usually is). Where a preliminary injunction is a big deal is where it is granted. You can appeal immediately, but if the appeals court upholds it, the judge has pulled the plug on the defendant's activity until trial. That could be 1-2 years. Some high-stakes cases are exceptional, but cases usually settle if a preliminary injunction is granted.
First, both parties are still a lot of lawyers fees away from ending the thing. Possibly millions or in the most extreme cases, tens of millions of dollars.
Second, the defendant just got a message from the judge that the judge thinks the plaintiff is likely to win. In patent cases, it is usually the likelihood of success, not the harms issues that motivates the injunction. Let's face it -- nobody is going to die in these cases, nobody is losing a limb, nobody is being jailed for two years, etc.
The thing that is most likely to give both sides the jitters is that nobody knows how the court of appeals is going to interpret that patent. The Federal Circuit disagrees with the trial court judge almost half the time on that issue.
Because the distraction of 1-2 years of litigation also will burden both sides during a period in which they want to focus on growth, and given that 1-2 years is forever in Internet time, I wouldn't expect any Internet patent case to continue very long if a preliminary injunction is upheld by a court of appeals. It is just very hard for it to make economic sense.
Greetings, all. I recently wrote feedback@amazon.com to berate them for their use of overreaching software patents. Following is the response I received. (I suspect it may be a form letter -- has anyone else received the same response or was I blessed with a message from a real, live public relations agent?)
Regards,
The bad part is that it's just as likely B&N will simply make their ordering system a "two-click" setup than fight with Amazon over a patent issue.
What's more likely is that Amazon and B&N will settle out of court and B&N (and any other big corp) will pay Amazon some money (also known as contributing to the Amazon Frivolous Predatory Lawsuit Fund, probably costing them much less than it would cost them to fight the patent in court) and get a license to use the 1-click method for all time. Then B&N (and/or any other big corp) gets to use the 1-click method and Amazon gets to beat the competition to death with a stupid patent without facing anyone with deep enough pockets to successfully challenge it. Ain't the system great?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Unfortunately, publicly traded corporations are legally bound to make the most profit that they can through legal methods for their shareholders. If they aren't breaking the law, and if their action is more likely to produce increased profits rather than a loss for whatever reason, they would be hard-pressed to justify to their shareholders why they didn't do it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Flamebait?
That would be true if this were a Copyright issue where a "clean room" implementation is OK. (This was the big issue for BSD in "cleaning up the code" to allow it to be released under the BSD license without any encumberance from the original (AT&T?) Unix license. It's also why Linus was able to GPL Linux.) A patent is on the IDEA, so implementing it your own way doesn't protect you. B&N have three options that I can see: 1) Defend on that basis that they didn't violate the patent by proving they didn't use the idea of a one click checkout, 2) Defend on the basis that the patent is spurious and the idea obvious, or 3) License the "1-Click" idea from Amazon (Amazon might actually show a profit from this).
I did the same, telling them I disagreed with this particular patent and that this kind of business practice would influence me to avoid using them over their competitors. Here was their reply:
Thank you for writing to Amazon.com.
The patent system is designed to encourage innovation, and we spent
thousands of hours developing our 1-Click® shopping feature. This
feature securely stores billing and shipping information so that
returning customers need only click their mouse once, without
re-entering or re-confirming that information, to purchase selected
items conveniently.
In recognition of the innovative and unique nature of the 1-Click®
technology, the U.S. Patent Office awarded Patent No. 5,960,411 to
Amazon.com on September 28, 1999.
We're pleased that the court recognized the innovation underlying our
1-Click® feature by granting a preliminary injunction barring
barnesandnoble.com from using it while our suit is pending.
I hope you'll understand that we are unable to discuss this case any
further as we are currently in litigation. Thank you for taking the
time to share your views with us.
I would quibble with their claims of innovation in this case, and I also care little how many hours it took them to implement it -- patents aren't for protected implementation effort.
--
...think about it... because of this entire patent fiasco, 99% of Slashdot readers are dropping Amazon, and taking their business to B&N instead.
Who Wants To Date A Norwegian?
So do my personal boycotts mean anything to UPS, or (sliding back towards topic) amzazon.com, or Microsoft, or (leaving topic again) Proctor and Gamble? Maybe not. But I'm going to mention my boycotts to friends, family, and co-workers. I'm going to put my reasons for boycotting up on my web site. If every unsatisfied customer can cause 20 people to take their business elsewhere (impossible a few years ago, but with the web now...who knows?) it just might have an impact.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
We share everyone's concern over this completly bogus patent.
One of the problems in switching from Amazon is that everyone is so used to simply typing Amazom.com.
To help with this weaning-off process, we've setup up an alternate website that links to other retail sites that don't use patents as a cowardly business strategy.
Instead of "amazon.com", now just use "noamazon.com".
We have listed alternatives to Amazon for all of the types of products that Amazon currently sells. We intend to keep it up to date for whatever products you normally buy from Amazon.
Note that we gain nothing from the NOamazon.com website - we just do it as a service to help everyone get off Amazon.
Jeff Roberts
Casey Muratori
does anyone know of another site with an associates program daveo can use that has cds, books, etc?
-DAVEO
I hope that the reason the court has accepted this lawsuit, is so they can have the opportunity to
ream amazon.com.
I am thinking about sending back my amazon.com
coffee cup, saying "thank you for the nice gift, but I have a fundamental disagreement with your
business strategy and can no longer stomach being
your billboard, regards, your former customer, yadda"
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Unfortunately, publicly traded corporations are legally bound to make the most profit that they can through legal methods for their shareholders. If they aren't breaking the law, and if their action is more likely to produce increased profits rather than a loss for whatever reason, they would be hard-pressed to justify to their shareholders why they didn't do it.
And if pulling sleazy legal shit like this is likely to produce a firestorm of consumer resentment, then they owe it to their shareholders to knock off the legal shit.
So boycott Amazon. Why is this such a hard concept for people to get?
And just fill out the form.
monkeyjump.com/anti-linux .. dogs playing poker too!@#)@$
Stop arguing and making inflamatory remarks. It will get us nowhere. As Slashdotter's we need to rise above this and look at how ridiculous this claim by Amazon is. Now on with my rant.
How can you patent 1-click technology? If that is so then shouldn't CGI scripting and HTML forms be patented. Doesn't Amazon owe money to the WWW consortium and the writers of Perl if the same logic is used?
1-click is a cascading of events: form fill-in, credit card transaction and any other logging required. Each of these events, to my knowledge, doesn't have a patent nor will it ever. So how do all three together have it? As well, there are numerous types of databases and web servers that are used in conjunction with this process. There is just too much at work here for a patent to apply.
A patent protects the rights of a specific process or item. Algorithms are patentable because they don't change regardless of what programming language you choose. One click changes by what web server, scripting language and event logging system you use. It is just to hard to define to be patentable.
The 1-click name is copywritable but the process is not patentable. The patent office made a mistake on this one.
I'm not a Lawyer I believe that under current law there isn't a distinction between corporations and individuals. I may be wrong though
treke
Which buzzword irks you the most?
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I'm going to patent the process of surfing the web using a mouse.
Start learning those keyboard shortcuts, fellas!
+++
NO CARRIER
Hey really whats a magic grits....
You can buy Neil Stephenson's Cryptonomicon at B&N at B&N URL http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results. asp?title=cryptonomicon&match=exact&opti ons=and&userid=2UTEZHA05P&srefer= / slashdotorg0f/ /. have them. /. add some non-Amazon pointers as well?
You can buy it at Amazon for the same price at Amazon URL http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380973464
and if you look at that URL you can see that it's tied to slashdot, presumably some kind of affinity program. Similarly, the URLs for The Perl Cookbook had the same thing, and presumably most of the other book reviews on
Is this what we want to do, or can
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If Amazon wins this lawsuit I'm pulling up my stakes and finally leaving this god-forsaken,
misguided country to the wild dogs that have run all over it.
I really think Shakespeare had it right when he said, "First thing we should do is kill all the lawyers."
Now I'm gonna have to move to Antigua damn it!
How can Amazon have the balls to think it rights to a one-click purchase! That is just pure stupidity any way you shake it.
I'm gonna patent the no-click purchase. Just put in your credit card number and I'm going to just start billing it until its credit limit is exceeded.
How much do you think that patent is worth? Maybe 15-20 with good behavior???
It's 20 years from filing the patent application, not from invention.
ah.. the smell of hypocrisy
I'm only a cgi / db / perl novice compared to some of the folks here, but it seems to me we could whip up a real frenzy of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Amazon's system.
I know that, I, for one, would NEVER use it.
What is happening here is that a well-known site is setting and retrieving a cookie (plain-text, if I'm not mistaken, regardless of any session encryption involved) on the shopper's machine.
Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I can easily envision a sniffer daemon running on the user's machine that could conceivably nab a credit card number as a specific *consequence* of amazon's system. That would open amazon up to a metric shitload of lawsuits from irate consumers.
What we actually have here is a business model that works *against* the best interests of amazon's customers, and the stockholders of the originator of the patent, and *for* the interests of internet scammeisters.
Major security f**k up.
Get my drift?
Class action, anyone?
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
There has been no trial, no finding of fact, and no consideration of the merits of Amazon's case by either a judge or a jury. Don't get too worried too quickly.
A preliminary injunction can only be obtained after making a substantial showing of likelihood on the merits. In the present case, it is highly likely that a hearing was held, and some evidence presented in addition to argument.
As a practical matter, the readers should understand that it is usually very difficult to obtain a preliminary injunction in a patent case -- far more difficult than with Copyright, Trademark or trade secrets.
In part, this is because even the flimsiest showing of invalidity can undercut the "substantial likelihood of success," notwithstanding the presumption of validity afforded a patent at trial. Ordinarily, technical arguments of invalidity are useless, except to make a record for the Federal Circuit. However, at a P.I., these arguments are golden sources of "no substantial likelihood."
Secondly, a defendant can usually blow a cloud of smoke concerning the claim construction of the patent in question -- particularly for software patents -- even for the broadest sounding claims.
Finally, it is often the case that a showing of irreparable harm is effectively countered with the argument that money damages can be adequate, or with a balancing of harms argument; particularly when balancing the injunction against the costs of pulling a significant commercial website.
As a practical matter, getting P.I. in a patent case is a legal slam-dunk -- a rare and significant accomplishment. Amazon's attorneys did very well for their client yesterday. Obtaining P.I. in a patent case tends to change the entire tenor of the proceedings. This case may well settle soon.
So, can anyone tell me, has the PTO licenced gif technology from Unisys (unlikely - have you licenced it?) or are they breaking their own rules? I would suggest that anyone wanting to break the system could start by using the PTO's own system against them ...
Roddy McLachlan
That was kind of my point. Nobody seems to care about this sort of thing, so their actions are more likely to produce increased profits rather than a loss. That's why they do it. They know they can get away with it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You only need to be sucessful with a few boycotts like this before corporations will start thinking about getting less trigger happy with the lawyers. In my opinion, this will be eaisier than convincing the US government to fix the patent laws.
It's probably a bit easier to harness public outrage over working conditions than over the broken patent system. Working conditions evoke images of human suffering. Patent problems don't tend to generate much emotion. Trying to start a boycott of any significant size based on those problems would probably be difficult.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Yes, that's a point, but it's also worth noting
that boycotts can be effective even with
relatively small percentages of people
respecting the boycott.
The nice thing about the free market as a
"democracy with dollar votes" is that
proportional representation is built-in.
A consumer revolt that reaches 5% of the
market cuts that companies income by 5%.
Whereas a politcial revolt that only gets 5%
of the votes is likely to leave the same
weasels in power, feeling no immediate
penalty.
(I almost said "profit" rather than "income"
above. Then I remembered we were talking
about Amazon.)
If this works, it's open season, any idiot can patent any obvious technique and harass anyone they don't like through the court system.
The web has been relatively free of this kind of crap up to now, but in other areas there is a big problem, if you're a little guy and can't afford the patent searches and lawyers whole areas are just out of bounds to you.
Can I really go to a customer and say `i can build you a system, but in a few weeks you'll get jumped on by 20 silly legal cases which you can't afford to fight'?
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named