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."
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?
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?
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 don't think that RMS targets anyone who makes money. After all, he's asking people to boycott Amazon because of their stupid patent. RMS isn't saying "boycott amazon because they make money."
Not that I wouldn't understand if the man did go on a rampage. The last few weeks have seen more pimping of Free Software than ever before. The efforts of RMS have spawned a great model of software development, but dotcom overspeculation has touched that model in an ugly way.
Yeah, I'm happy to see the redhat people and the va linux people and andover.net and all those folks making a ton of money off their efforts. I like seeing people I respect being rewarded. But right now is when open source software and the business world are really getting to know each other, and this relationship is really starting off on the wrong foot.
I'd have preferred to see open source really take off after the market crashes. I'm in no rush for corporate america to adopt my favorite operating system. I don't really care who uses linux as long as I get to use it. I just hate to see free software become prematurely adopted by people who shouldn't be using it yet, and then seeing them left with a sour taste in their mouth.
OK, that's enough ranting and raving for me for now, I guess.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.