Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Calls for Amazon Boycott
Ian Lance Taylor writes "Linux Today is reporting that Richard Stallman is calling for a boycott of Amazon because they are suing based on a software patent." RMS also says, "Amazon is not alone at fault in what is happening. The US Patent Office is to blame for having very low
standards, and US courts are to blame for endorsing them."
I hate software patents as much as the next person, but isn't RMS kinda on a rampage here? It's like anyone who makes money incurs the wrath of RMS these days.
This isn't to mention the squashing of software innovation that comes from RMS' activity. If I have an idea for some small software program that might make enough money to support me and a few other programs, if it's any good RMS will swoop in an destroy my company. Thanks, RMS.
RMS calls for boycott against Amazon -- Slashdot
ESR calls Fatwah against Mindcraft -- Suck Parody of Slashdot
I, for one, am amused!
--Nick
I think that RMS is really just making this official, more or less. I e-mailed Amazon about this one-click nonsense shortly after I heard it, and received, as I'd expected, nothing more than a form letter regarding my stated boycott.
I have not, of course, purchased anything from them since, and I actively encourage others to do the same. I know many of my fellow geeks are also boycotting Amazon.com, but I don't think that Amazon.com is really aware of how many people really are frustrated over this. Perhaps an 'official' boycott is what it will take.
Hi!
// Jens M Andreasen
I am european, and I have often been amazed by the claims of american patents. There is no way that any of these claims will ever hold up in court! All you guys are doing is making a laugh of your selves in front of the global community.
Please put an end to this abuse of the US patent system
mvh
send + more == money?
Certainly can't argue about that. Why don't we ever have official, Slashdot-endorsed boycotts that we can all get behind? We always talk about it, but noone ever does anything *official*. There ought to be a proper /. petition, so we can send them about a gazillion emails showing them who's not going to be buying their books over Christmas.
I applaud the effort, but will it make any sort of difference whatsoever? Realistically, only geeks would participate in a boycott called by RMS. Sure, our books are, in general, more expensive than the regular crop. It would have to hurt Amazon pretty badly to get them to even consider changing their policy, as the patent has to do with their 'one click' buying, and they must be making money hand over fist from impulse buyers. The patent office is to blame, as someone pointed out earlier, and they won't feel a thing. How far reaching is the 'one click' patent, does anyone know, does it cover more than just books. (especially as Amazon itself is not so limited)
I agree with most people here that patents are becoming overly silly. But, I don't think a boycott is going to be effective at all, except as a PR tool.
Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. - US PTO
All it's going to take is one decent lawsuit to get this patent revoked. Not only would this be considered 'obvious', I'm certain if we all tried we could find a mountain of prior art. (If it can be proven that this was done before, their patent is no good)
I really see nothing in their patent that's even remotely unique or novel. Take a look yourself here
Calling for a boycott isn't going to affect Amazon's bottom line a bit. However, it may get some attention to how silly they're acting. This isn't going to change a single thing until a business or some kind of Web-Business-Association or someone actually tries to get this patent revoked.
Thoughts?
This just minutes after I spend a couple hundred dollars at Amazon. Whoops.
I encourage everyone to vote with their dollar for the business that offends the least. It isn't difficult.
With Amazon, if you buy from them and select "Do not spam me", they will anyway. I boycotted them when they started sending me 'important information'.
So then I use Barnes&Noble, where I again clicked "Do not spam me". They recently sent me a 'holiday gift' for $5. So now I don't use BN. Merry Christmas.
I'm using FatBrain now, hopefully they won't screw up either.
Your dollar holds real power in the eyes of the suits. Use it, and if you convince a few people to join you, you lend your messages (email comments usually) real power.
And it's a no-brain and no-effort task with today's competition.
-tpr
I have to admit, there's some practices that Amazon engage in which I entirely support. They actively encourage deep linking (unlike a few companies we've been debating) and they've really embraced the idea of getting people to help them sell books in return for a share in the cash. And they give out some groovy free gifts (my post-it notes are even now proudly displayed on my desk :)
On the other hand, they spam, and they sue over damn stupid patents. What a schizophrenic company.
Come on Slashdotters, boycott them!
When I first saw the article on /. that Amazon was suing B&N, I decided I would not purchase anything from them, and since then, I have visited B&N several times. I had never visited B&N prior to the lawsuit.
Now, I agree that this is patent abuse wholeheartedly. However, it does bring up a problem that we are likely to see more of - corporations grabbing commonly used techniques and "patenting" them. Would a way to prevent this be to defeat them at their own game?
What if something like the FSF existed that patented all software innovations and then released them under some sort of Public Patent License (PPL)? Could we beat the corporations at their own game?
Think about it. John Q. Programmer, Extrordanaire, makes a program called "ComputerWidgets" which, for purposes of this discussion, is GPLed. He then sends off to the PPL and informs them that he would like to patent this idea and release it to the public.
The same could be done with web-site setups and whatnot. After all, what is to stop another company from patenting dynamically served pages created in Perl? As ludicrous as this sounds, it's basically what Amazon has done with cookies.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Now if this isn't a story that begs for that jihad-penguin icon I don't know what is...
I can picture RMS, sitting on his "Throne of Righteous Indignation" thinking..."Hmm...haven't done something wild and radical recently...let's boycott something for not being open source or using a proprietary idea!"
This article was written today. The amazon patent story ran about a month ago. It just seems like RMS is going from "GNU-Linux! GNU-Linux!" to "Ban all GIFs!" to "Boycott Amazon". Is this really an effective argument, or is he just an extreme platform junkie?
Mycroft-X
A handy list of alternatives to Amazon can be found here . There is an article on technocrat.net discussing this, but it's down right now.
I do not have a credit card, so I wouldn't purchase from them anyway, but I do use them to decide if it's time to pile in a bus and visit my bookstore. I suppose taking page impressions away is part of the deal, so I'll try elsewhere for now at least, been meaning to check out the others anyway.
I think the patent is quite silly, but I still wonder if a boycott action is useful here. How may other silly patents are being muscled right now, and should we boycott all products from any such company? Is Amazon the most evil company deserving our attention? If we take multinational corporate ties into account, that could get to be a *long* list of products.
Most telling, I wonder if Amazon would or could drop their suit as a result. If the result is a suit by the shareholders for negligence w.r. to their intellectual property they haven't gained much.
Perhaps our lobbying and action should directed be towards those making patent law, and overseeing the patent office instead. If a corporation has a legal means to expand its marketshare or create licensing profit it is almost required by current law to exploit it. Just reducing the length of software patents from decades to years would greatly improve the situation and it's mildly realistic to hope it could be done.
Could someone explain *WHY* everyone so worked up about this?
I've read the patent in question. It is more than a simple database credit-card lookup. Read it for yourself without spoutting out the usual mantra.
Secondly, Amazon is actually sueing someone here. This is DISTINCTLY different than playing bully demanding money for the patent rights (eg, LZW/GIF debate). If the courts determine that Amazon's patent is prior art or vague - then they lost the patent.
Thirdly, patents *DO* have a place. People need to make money off their inventions. You can't make a living by spending years perfecting some hardware or software, then have your next door neighbor look at it and say, "Dang, thats obvious - i guess i'll rip off that idea and make millions without worrying about recouping the development expense. Thanks neighbor!"
Now, if you disagree with the *LAW* of patents (duration of coverage, scope, etc) Then don't complain/boycott Amazon. Write your congressperson and explain, in a calm manner, the problems you perceive with patents in a rapidly advancing industry!
Tom
But if you visit amazon and browse through books with his name on them, it seems that he hasn't done this himself. I'd respect his wishes here a bit more if he'd at least follow through on his own requests.
This seems very vitriolic. Making inaccurate comparisons to try to back your argument is not a good idea generally.
I think too many people (not RMS alone) get caught up in spewing forth invective on the subject of intellectual property. "Information wants to be free" - said who? The information? (sorry, couldn't resist that one)
Sorry, but I refuse to boycott a company (or anyone) defending their investment, be it this or something else (assuming it's "valid"), by any means possible.
Read no further if you dislike flamebait: the same people who scream bloody murder (bad pun) about attempts to infringe upon their freedoms when someone is attacking their property (the supposed right to blow them into their next life) also seem to be ones screaming about companies retaliating against attacks against their property.
note: this isn't to say I agree with the patent Amazon has. It's dicy. If it's dicy, it'll hopefully lose. Valid patents and IP should be defended. Who appointed us judge and jury?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
You make a number of good points, but I guess I disagree with you in principle. You're right, we probably won't have a significant effect on Amazon's bottom line. Large as we joke about the /. effect being, Amazon's client base dwarfs us. I don't think we should ignore the potential PR effect this could have, but I'm not counting on that, either.
I am proud, however, to say that I do things not because I think I will be in the majority, or because I think I will always win, but because I think they are right. I have personally been boycotting Amazon from the moment I heard about this. I'm just one man, and I'm sure Amazon doesn't even miss me, but none of that will make me change my mind. I believe what they are doing is wrong, and I am doing my part to make sure they know that.
Ben Franklin said "They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The words may not fit exactly, but I think the sentiment is right.
--
Ian Peters
itp at gnu dot org
Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com)
LiveBid.com (http://amazon.livebid.com)
PlanetAll.com (http://www.planetall.com)
And also boycott other business they are involved in.
drugstore.com (http://www.drugstore.com)
Gear.com (http://www.gear.com)
HomeGrocer.com (http://www.homegrocer.com)
Pets.com (http://www.pets.com)
I don't know about you but some of these I can't live without. (I.e. Imdb)
Happy boycotting.
Not ten minutes into the article's posting and I already see Stallman bashers calling the man crazy and/or outdated and/or stubborn for his Free Software crusade and actions.
Rather than rehash the old pro-Stallman arguments, which are basically naming his many accomplishments without justifying his beliefs, I'm going to pose his beliefs in the form of an ethical dilemma: Would you act differently than Stallman, given this dilemma?
Stallman acts on the belief that it is morally wrong to hold back information that was freely given to you. Namely, no idea is formed in a vacuum. Consciously, subconsciously, intentionally, unintentionally, the society around you bombards you with ideas to draw upon. Software engineers, for example, draw upon the ideas of friends, families, former educators, and in some cases mathematical concepts that have been in the idea pot since the Ancient Greeks.
It's patently (no pun intended) absurd to consider paying royalties to the Archimedes estate -- the idea just wouldn't hold water. (pun quite intended)
In other words, ideas aren't something which we have 100% control over. You can't will a good idea. Focus groups have proven this. You can will money and time into makeing a better environment for ideas to hit you, but the key here is that ideas come from the world around you.
If Microsoft were to acknowledge this, they would either have to pay The World a hefty royalty, or sue The World for patent infringement. And if we're all in jail, who will buy Microsoft products?
To all the Stallman bashers out there, consider this: do you consider your ideas to be truly, 100% yours? Every idea anyone has ever had has a basis either in another idea, or a social concept, or a form evident in nature. Now let's narrow the field down from the abstract of 'ideas' to 'software'. Most software performs a certain goal. The 'idea overlap' here is much greater in the world of software, because of common goals et al. It's not surprising that the originality of software comes not from the mind of the original but the sharing of information among many -- both because there are no truly original ideas and because the sharing is an extension of the above. That's why Open Source works. You hear something, you see something, and blend it in together with another random idea that hits you, and voila, instant 'idea'. Aren't you glad you don't have to pay royalties to everyone who helped you with the idea?
In economic terms, you can put it thusly: There is a scarcity of everything except desires. I guess you can consider an idea as a form of desire, namely a desire to make a thought tangible. That's great, thoughts are free and infinite, because ideas are born of ideas and interact with each other to make more ideas. Materials, however, are scarce. Here, then, is Stallman's consolation to the 'free idea' manifesto: ideas are free because they are infinite, and not sprung of one source; but implementations may be sold and owned by virtue of the fact that they are scarce.
In other words, you can't 'patent' selling CD's of Linux on it as original, because others do it or have the capability to do it. You can, however, charge money because not everyone can afford a CD press machine, or the time to burn all those CD's: that's scarcity in action.
But do the Stallman bashers feel ethically alright with charging money or defending ownership of something free and unlimited that comes not from one person, but from the interactions of an infinite number of outside and internal stimuli?
I'm rambling, so I better quit. Personally, I'm playing Devil's advocate; I feel you should be able to patent software *implementations* (i.e, actual binary form) because the TIME spent in R&D and the TIME spent coding is in itself scarce. But, the idea of software, i.e, specifications for software, or protocol types, or source, patenting compression algorithms etc, is free and the result of other ideas in an educational chain that spans the ages, and to sever the chain and claim it all came from your own mindspring is both hubris and ethically questionable.
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
Can I officially call a boycott of eToys as well? While I am totally against Amazon on their whole patent dispute, and have made my voice heard over there, I am even more outraged at eToys using their marketing muscle against etoy.com. As the owner of an independent design website, this could have been me (or anyone else). I think with ecommerce, its the first time in history that we can actually speak out against such corporate malpractice and finally DO something about it!
I have already posted this in an other thread, but it's deeply netsted, Maybe it will go unoticed, so I dare to repost it.
Here is the trick just search for the books you want to buy in Amazon (I admit they they a damn nice service, and readers review) pick up the ISBN and then go buy search for the best deal in www.bestbookbuys.com with the ISBN. You will see that Amazon are far from beeing the best deal.
Sure, here ya' go. I won't make any jokes about this, it's just too easy:
-------------------------
Dear Waldo,
Thank you for writing to us at Amazon.com.
As you know, Amazon.com has filed suit against barnesandnoble.com,
saying it has illegally copied Amazon.com's patented 1-Click
technology.
The 1-Click feature securely stores billing and shipping information
so that returning customers need only click their mouse once to buy a
selected item. 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.
Amazon.com spent thousands of hours to develop the 1-Click process.
As our founder, Jeff Bezos, has said, "The reason we have a patent
system in this country is to encourage people to take these kinds of
risks and make these kinds of investments for customers."
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.
Best regards,
Titus G.
Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/
Earth's Biggest Selection
This always happens. I mean, I'm a fan of Stallman, he's brilliant, he's the original Guy Who Got It Done, I agree that software patents are generally not good. But a boycott such as this is sooooo petty, so naive, and he's always sounding off about soemthing.
Ya just gotta love somebody who's that sincere.
Here's the e-mail I put together, use if it you like. Hey, I ripped part of it from RMS myself. :)
It has come to my attention that Amazon has obtained a US patent (5,960,411)
on an important and obvious idea for E-commerce: the idea that your command
in a web browser to buy a certain item can carry along information about your
identity. This alone would be simply an annoyance; the U.S. Patent office
is regularly misled into granting obvious patents. But Amazon has used the
patent aggressively, to damage a competitor's business. This is unacceptable.
I was planning to do some of my Christmas shopping on Amazon.com. I also run a
fairly high-traffic web site, and was hoping to make a little extra money for
band by joining the Associates Program.
Instead, as of today, I am boycotting amazon.com. My boycott will continue
until (A) the patent gets declared invalid in court, (B) Amazon drops the patent
itself (C) Amazon goes out of business. (B) is clearly the most honorable
course to take. If it takes the court system to show Amazon that its actions
are wrong, I will have serious reservations about shopping there in the future.
This is a very interesting viewpoint on this subject, and I must admit I've never heard it stated so clearly before. I must, however, disagree with your viewpoint. You are correct in that ideas cannot happen in a vacuum, however, I must also point out that ideas also cannot spontaneously appear even in the best of environments. Bringing an idea to fruition takes work and pondering, and it's not just anyone who can do it. Intellectual property protection exists to reward those who can use their environment to create a new idea, and who are willing to use their talents and education to further it, hopefully for the common good.
I know it's cliched, but remember what Thomas Edison said: "Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration"
Comments welcome!
bp
woxy.com - Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll
Don't understimate our effect. If we can demonstrate the need for this boycott clearly and concisely we can have a very large effect. You have to understand who I mean by "we".
I don't just mean slashdot, I mean a huge, loose, globally connected network of people and groups. Slashdot is an important node in this network, a clearing house which reaches thousands of people. Many of those thousands of people hear about interesting things on Slashdot and turn around and tell their friends about it--with just one level of indirection the number of people involved becomes absolutely enormous.
This is how organizing social action on the Internet works. It's not some single website that co-ordinates action against some adversary; nor is it even a single person. Richard Stallman may start the ball rolling, but MANY people care about the abuse of the patent system.
Protest actions organized over the net have the potential to grow exponentially, and reach a huge number of people in a short amount of time. The effect of such an action has been described by the Rand Corporation as an "overwhelming pulse" or a "swarm attack" on the target. A huge number of loosely connected people, groups, organizations, politicians, mailing lists, individuals, etc., all descend on the target all at once, overwhelming it with a short, massive burst of action.
So Slashdot by itself may not be able to succeed in pressuring Amazon--but we can play an important role in generating a huge internet-style swarm all over these morons, overwhelming them before they really figure out what's going on.
Read it on slashdot, then tell your friends, families, co-workers, etc.
Hierarchies and business have not yet really figured out an effective way to respond to this kind of action.
From a commentary by Tim Phillips on the unconstitionality of the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act. This commentary, and the entire site at http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ are well worth reading.
Jefferson did not oppose patents and copyrights altogether, but viewed them as a means to provide incentive to invent such that society benefits. It seems that recent political rhetoric has leaned the other way, viewing intellectual property protection as the natural right of the corporate author rather than a temporary priviledge bestowed by society. This is particularily true in copyright law where at the current pace of copyright extension seems designed to prevent Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
And, make no mistake, you should be concerned (perhaps even "worked up") about the privileges being extended to these patent holders. What these people are doing is restricting the kinds of programs that you (yes, you) can write. They are saying that if you use "their" idea, then you (yes, you) have "stolen" that idea, even if you never saw or heard of their implementation when you wrote yours. They are claiming ownership not only over their own programs, but over broad classes of programs not yet written. In short, software patent holders collectively are doing their level best to ensure that nobody can write software except on their terms. When you think about it, these are powerful privileges indeed that we (that's right, us; ultimately the authority to grant patent privileges comes from none other) are granting patent holders, and in exchange we should expect some significant benefits. The truth is, that by and large we aren't benefiting from extending patents to software; in fact, it likely hurts the industry more than it helps it. It certainly favors established companies over new ones, as well as proprietary software over free (both of the "speech" and "beer" variety) software.
So, if software patents are pernicious, then what is to be done? Writing to lawmakers, as you suggest is one possibility, but the legislative wheels turn slowly under the best of circumstances. Relying on the courts is no answer; they are too time-consuming and too expensive. You shouldn't have to go to court just to write software anyhow. Fortunately, we have another resource available. When we see a company behaving unethically we can and should refuse to do business with them. We can and should inform them (always politely, of course) of the reasons for our refusal to do business with them. This is the course that RMS is advocating, and everyone who cares about ending the abuses of the system would be well advised to follow it, in addition to any political action they might be planning.
Of course, a boycott might not work. It may be that Amazon is to big, and we are too few. That is life; there are no guarantees. Nevertheless, pursuing the boycott costs us little: a few dollars more on our holiday shopping bills, if even that. It is a pittance, when you consider what is at stake. We cannot afford to let this pass unchallenged. We cannot afford not to stand up for ourselves.
-r
Guys, don't just boycott a company. They might lose a little buisness, but they won't necessarily realize why. If you tell them you're boycotting, you can actually get your message across. Hell, I suppose you could just tell them that you're boycotting, and then keep buying, but that seems sleezy.
I sent a message to info@amazon.com, feedback@amazon.com, and suggestions@amazon.com
Here's a copy. If you send a message (and I suggest that you should) PLEASE don't copy and paste my message. Paraphrase. Form-emails mean SO little. It's hard to get them to listen to email to begin with, without people copy-pasting.
I'm sure you guys have heard about Richard Stallman's call for a ban on Amazon.com. If
you haven't, I've taken the liberty of attaching the related web-page. Stallman is often
outrageous and extreme, but I believe he's got a very good point here. The idea of even
applying for that patent, much less having the nerve to try to enforce it, is absolutely absurd.
Last year, my online book purchases totaled a little over $700. (One of the many wonders
of ordering online is the ability to scan through my archives of old orders.) I think you guys run
a nice page, and provide a good service. However, I think this boycott represents a legitimate
cause, and there are too many alternatives for me to buy from a company I disagree with so
strongly.
I'm sorry to take my business to competitors, but your actions leave very little choice.
Sam Greenberg
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/13652.html
Well, I've read the patent too.
Sure, it's far more than credit-card lookup -- it basically describes an order entry system. Such a system may be exotic to the intern at the patent office who approved this one, but anybody who's been involved in transactions in any way other than as a retail customer won't find this original.
If you call LL bean on the phone and order a pair of "Beans Best Red Suspenders (TM)", it's a fair bet that the person on the other end taking your call knows all about you -- where to send your order, what your monogram is, your waist size and inseam, etc. The only difference is that the Amazon system is self-service -- as all web commerce sites are. They take combine of a few public domain mechamisms that were specifically meant to create relationships between the client and server of various durations and -- voila! -- a patent.
As far as the originality of the specific idea of storing credit card information to speed the transaction along, I can personally attest that the idea is definitely not original, having persoally been involved in numerous arguments over the years about whether this feature should be implemented. The marketing guys all have this idea and think it's wonderfully original because it isn't (or wasn't) all that commonly done. The accounting guys hate it because it makes them vulnerable to employee fraud -- which is why it wasn't all that commonly done back in the days when we still cared about protecting our customers from fraud.
I can understand Amazon's complaint that it took thousands of hours to do there system -- good order entry systems are always hard to implement. However just because it is hard doesn't make it patentable.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Many others of you have expressed your own incredulity as to the obviousness of the technology. This suggests another and probably a better way to combat Amazon: get the patent struck down as invalid. Software professionals are in the best position to provide evidence that this idea is obvious to someone in the field, and that it is hardly a new idea due to prior art.
I've no idea whom you would send such supporting technical data, but if you can help provide tangible evidence of why the patent is invalid, this would appear to hold the potential for a more effective strategy than a passive boycott or mass-mailed letter-writing campaign could.
It's very unlikely that Amazon will be harmed by the loss of money caused by boycotters taking their business elsewhere. It is possible, but still unlikely, that the negative PR impact of a boycott might hurt them, or cause them to change their ways.
What a boycott will do is make you feel better about yourself. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't shop at Fry's because their service sucks and I am offended by the body-cavity search they give you on the way out. I don't rent from Blockbuster because they won't rent NC-17 movies. And now I don't shop at Amazon because I don't like their predatory business practices.
It's completely rational to choose not to do business with companies that behave badly. Just as it is completely rational to choose not to do business with people who are rude, or stores that don't have the products you want.
The really sad thing about this is that Amazon doesn't need to resort to such underhanded tactics. Amazon really does have a good store, and I think they would be successful on that basis alone, without having to resort to such dirty tactics.
So I stopped shopping at Amazon the day I heard about their patent suit, despite the fact that one of my best friends is the guy who implemented ``one-click ordering.''
Here is the letter I sent them:
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:57:53 -0700
To: feedback@amazon.com
You have finally gone too far.
When you started spamming me, I was irritated, but didn't much care, since at least you gave me a way to unsubscribe. When you started selling your customers' private information down the river, I was irritated, but didn't much care, because I'm not overly concerned about my privacy. But now you've finally lost me as a customer.
Why? Because you asked for, and were awarded, a 17-year monopoly on the concept of "one-click shopping", because that idea is apparently such an innovation, such a breakthrough, that you never would have gone into business without the incentive of federally-mandated exclusive rights.
As if that wasn't bad enough, now you are sueing Barnes and Noble for adding a similar feature to their web site. So much for the bullshit apology one often hears of "we only have patents for defensive purposes, in case someone bigger and stronger sues us for patent infringement first."
Amazon.com is a great web site, far better than any other online store I've used. But I will not be using it again. I will either use other web sites, or make more trips to physical stores from now on.
Convenience is nice, but I don't feel good giving my money to anticompetitive parasites who succeed because of their lawyers rather than the quality of their products and services.
The real shame of it is that your services are *good*. You don't need to compete this way. It's sad, and sickening.
Software patents are far more of a threat to competition and innovation than anything Microsoft has ever done.
Goodbye.