Slashdot Mirror
Wired on Amazon.com Boycott
TGmentor wrote to let us know that Wired has an article about Richard Stallman's boycott of Amazon.com for its patent policies. The patent question is the recent victory that Amazon won over B&N for its 'one-click' shopping patent. Good work on the part of RMS [?] - we need to show companies that just because they can patent something, they don't need to.
Uhhh....what banner ads?
I don't see any banner ads on their site...
The cake is a pie
"Have we all blocked web ads from our browsers because Doubleclick has patented online advertising? Nope."
Yes. Doubleclick is the first line of my Junkbuster blockfile.
My mistake.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
If the US patent office continues to hand out patents for trivial, obvious or non-original 'inventions', the US will have to face sooner or later a situation in which the Europeans and the Japanese cease to honour any US patents at all. We can't go on for ever offering reciprocal rights to a patent office which is neither competent nor responsible.
In a recent letter to my Member of Parliament I listed ten US software patents covering techniques my company (and hundreds of others around the world) had been using before the patent was filed (yes, the Amazon one was among them). This situation just cannot continue. Either you have to get your patent office to behave sensibly or you will have to face a situation where you effectively cannot export.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
And if this hypothetical other company X(company X) beat Amazon to the idea, then patented it and sued a competitor for infringement, would you then agree that the idea was obvious? Why? What's special about Amazon that makes any idea they are first to come up with and implement non-obvious?
Someone has to be first, no matter how obvious the idea is. It can't be turtles all the way down.
Yes, I accept that it's all very "obvious" if you're a web-savvy slashdotter ... just as the correct stiffness and springiness of wire would have been "obvious" to professionals involved in linking-pieces-of-paper-together industry at the time of the paperclip's "invention".
Amazon just happened to do it first
And that's why the patent system is supposed to encourage innovation ... if you think of and do something first (and you patent it) then you're free to enjoy a temporary monopoly of it's use.
Otherwise, where's the incentive to ever try something new? Naturally it's debatable whether the monopoly period for something as transient as software should really be as long as (what exactly?) 17 years? Even then, I'm sure that Amazon will be happy (or even legally obliged to?) grant licenses on the technology.
My original point is simply that patents have always been tough on the guys who didn't get there first. Things are always "obvious" in restrospect to other experts in the relevant industry. Now whether prior art can be proved is quite another question.
Regards, Ralph.
If not for Linux, we might have HURD by now. At least the important work has stayed GPLd so it's just a matter of integration.
This is wrong! We must publish to establish prior art. Not patent. We are in a different game...
...richie - It is a good day to code.
In addition to writing Amazon declaring your willingness to boycott them (and evangelize the boycott as well), consider offering them a suggestion as to an alternative approach. They would score geek points, plus make a "PR Event", if they dropped the suit (among suitable press hoopla), declared their support of OSS, and possibly even donated to EFF or some such organization. Of course, for this to work, the boycott itself would first have to become a widely-known event generating some bad press and investor questioning. Which it might ... everything starts small.
The internet is a great place to buy commodities. It's a great place to buy specialty items whose audience is way too small to support a store in your town. It is the worst place to buy books.
A bricks-and-mortar bookstore is more than just a place where you exchange money for dead trees. It is a place to browse, a place where you can get good recommendations, a place to meet people, a place that hosts book-signings and book groups and maybe other meetings. As Amazon and the soulless book chains (BN, borders, etc.) kill that off, we are losing a precious resource.
If you want to get some faraway friend a gift certificate for a book, go to booksense.com, the website for independent bookstores. (US site - sorry, I realize the world is bigger.)
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
I see it in a much simpler light.
/. sales lost will hurt.
Amazon got a patent for a commonly used technology.
They sued a competitor for using said technology.
I run a website.
I don't want and can't afford to get sued.
I have to figure a large
portion of
I know I did all my Christmas
shoppin elsewhere. If my lost revenue
doesn't have an impact maybe the
gained revenue of their competitors
will convince them to drop the suit.
-Z
I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going.
Julia Strutters recomends boiling oil.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I agree with the spirit of the boycott, however, what is this going to prove? Amazon had yet to post any sort of profit and is still somehow in business.
Perhaps a solution would be to form a non-profit foundation which could solicit patents and funding from concerned individuals and foundations, and apply for broad, 'silly' patents on ideas itself. Armed with a library of such patents, we could make them available through a variety of general public licence which enabled companies to use them to do the obvious things they covered in exchange for avoiding irresponsible abuse of the patent system themselves. The foundation would also have teeth to pursue offenders by suing them for infringement of foundation patents and by funding and centralizing searches for prior art.
Maybe the 1-click patent is bullshit; if it is, the court will rule that way (hint: the injunction against BN means that the judge thinks Amazon will prevail.) If not, don't whine about Amazon playing by the rules (indeed, the officers of Amazon are required, by fiduciary responsibility, to play by those rules and maximize shareholder value.) If you think the rules are flawed, the proper action is to write your congresscritter, not boycott the company.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
they are used not to protect R&D budgets against parasites (the original intent of patents) but to stake a claim in a developing market in order to prevent anyone else from competing.
w hatis.htm :
Actually, no, you couldn't be more wrong. Patents are *precisely* intended to protect the inventor from anyone else competing: The following is a direct quote from "What is a patent?" at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/
"The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention." (Emphasis mine)
That is why they have a definite 20-year term, after which they expire, opening the innovation up for anyone to commercialize. Now I'd argue that 17 years (the original term), while reasonable in the 18th century, is a too long for some of the faster-moving technology areas, but not all. (IMO, high-tech should be about 7 years.) But that opens the real can of worms as far as deciding which technology areas are "more equal" and worthy of protection than others.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Valid and fair?
I can't believe I just read that. I came up with an equivalent system over ten years ago when in my foolish youth I was dreaming how you would buy things in a futuristic world.
I was quite enamoured with my new Atari ST at the time, and I thought it would be quite neat if a shop came in a "window" with all the objects as "files". If you clicked on something it would appear on your doorstep the next day.
Clearly I'm kicking myself for not patenting the idea there and then. But the thing is, even as a twelve year old I though it was a tad obvious....
Being first doesn't entitle you to be considered original.
What is the substance of this patent? That the system can respond to a descriptor which uniquely identifies you and can be used to retrieve your shipping and billing information. We have had these for a long time: they are called account numbers.
What is new about One Click? They implemented this transparently using cookies. That is the kind of thing that cookies were designed to do.
Telemarketers have used essentially the same process for years: caller id (your phone number is the descriptor) gets piped into the database and your account appears on the operators screen when they pick up the call. Except that an operator takes your order, there is no difference.
Being first past the finish line with an implementation does not mean an idea should belong to you exclusively. Amazon just trivially combined three ideas that already existed and were implemented: web based fill out forms, cookies, and automatic customer identification.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So it's "difficult." You're either supporting the effort or you're not. ("There is no ``try''.")
The "editors" at /. have made a habit out of raising hell every time yet another stupid patent is issued. Time to put your effort where your mouth is !
Or does /.'s credibility mean nothing?
> Their duty (their job!) is to protect
> shareholder value.
So?
What you are saying then is that
Shareholder Value > Morality
I emphaticaly disagree. Yes it *IS* important for
them to raise or keep up sharholder value. That is
their Job. However, that does not mean that this
end justifies ANY means that do this.
Just because it is perfectly legal for Nike to run
sweat shops in third world countries, where people
are paid slave wages and made to work under
inhuman conditions, does not make doing it "OK",
even if it does raise shareholder value.
In my eyes, Amazon.com has done something to harm
the industry. The patent system is broken and they
are exercising it. Therefore, I will NOT buy a
thing from them. I refuse to knowingly support any
company that feels they have the right to do these
sorts of things. As long as an option exists, I
will go elsewhere.
> I know it sucks, but the heat should be
> primarily on the patent office for allowing such
> patents.
The system does need to be changed. However I do
not feel that just because the USPTO allows this
to go on, that companies that take advantage of it
should get off scott free.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
If this argument was enforced, any company using NT would be liable because there are cheaper (i.e. free) OSes out there. It's selectively applied - if you can keep pumping up the stock price, you wouldn't have to enforce ANY patents or worry about any other fiduciary duties. Note that shareholder lawsuits always focus on fraud or insider trading issues and never on management breaching fiduciary duty.
My, what a brilliant rebuttal to a intelligently satirical criticism. Bravo, bravo.
Making statements without backing them up is the worst mistake you can make. "if I cared about this issue, which I don't" just makes you look like a lazy idiot, and calls into question your ability to do what you claim is so easy.
Please refrain from this practice in the future (especially when your ridiculous extension of the analogy is quite stupid, even by slashdot standards).
B&N is bad because as far as 'real world bookstores' go, B&N and Borders have an effective duopoly. They're very quickly destroying the independant bookseller due to the fact that they can do discounts that can't be matched by an independant. This despite the fact that it's the rare B&N or Borders employee who has a true love of books and could help you with a request like 'i just read If On A Winter's Night A Traveler and found the storytelling style intriguing. Can you recommend a work I'd probably like that's not by Italo Calvino?'. I use this request as an example because it was my last request and an independant bookstore.
As many people on slashdot seem to forget, software companies are companies first and producers of software second. It is regrettable that company such and such does not file a patent for everything patentable because this unwillingness endangers its survival as a company.
A company can, as another poster has suggested, merely publish and leave patents unfiled. This is all well and good, but not really feasible for a company not founded in the public interest. As much as I'd like more companies to be in the public interest, I know that they are and will continue to be a minuscule proportion.
For that matter, perhaps it's especially important for companies doing research (for example, the FSF) in the public interest to file patents - after all, lacking large bankrolls to pursue litigation, they have little to trade except their patent portfolio. Publishing without patenting does not diminish litigation or points of contention; it would merely make the lines shorter at the patent office. Litigitous companies would be no less litigitous; ones less so would remain less so.
A patent itself is in the public interest. Companies are induced to publicize their advanced work with the reward of monopoly for a period of time. This is entirely consonant with, if not wholly inclusive of, the goals of free software. What we should fight is companies which seek to keep their research secret and out of the hands of the public. Trade secrets unpublished or unpatented are the real alternative to patents, not the trade or academic press.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
They *did* need to patent it so someone else wouldn't. What they *didn't* need to do was
legally enforce it.
This will be tagged as flamebait/troll I'm sure but I just have to say that I am sick and tired of the "freedom" community pissing and moaning all the time about copyrights, trademarks, patents and the like.
... how do you think companies would be able to make billions to pay you what you make if they could not ensure that they can make a profit from what they create without some fly-by nighter coming in, stealing it and reselling it below cost simply because they could?
Linus has a Trademark yet he's still a God to you guys
O'Riely books are copyrighted yet what they publish what is considered the gospel to this community
Slashdot lambastes people for not GPL'ing their code but where's a *current* GPL'd slash engine?
Transmeta has patents on embedded electronics and SOFTWARE that runs 'em yet they are the holy frickin grail.
ENOUGH WITH THE DOUBLE STANDARDS!
80% of you would not even have JOBS if it weren't for the USPTO and the US Copyright act
You guys can't see the forest for the trees and the undying need to complain makes you blinder each day.
I see that my previous post has been marked down to redundant.
It is not. *THIS* is redundant.
(-:
If you're going to troll you've got to do it right. You need to have some subtlety, make the post sensible as a whole except for one little bit of disinformation. Learn some technique!
which is why the boycott is the correct response. Amazon's attempt to enforce this patent shows how far things have gone towards patents being a form of anti-competetive corporate welfare - they are used not to protect R&D budgets against parasites (the original intent of patents) but to stake a claim in a developing market in order to prevent anyone else from competing. No open market system can tolerate this.
How this state of affairs can be in the interests of capitalism, the economy, software consumers, software programmers, web developers, the government, or the general public is beyond the ability of any rational being to explain or defend. The fact that most are either to ignorant or too amoral to care is no excuse.
Corporate bootlickers and other sycophants may disagree, but I urge all who believe in the freedom to innovate *not* to buy the big lie, and not to buy Amazon until it becomes their *fiduciary duty* to rectify the situation by taking proper initiatives.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
*groan*. now i'll be subjected to thousands of comments about the first line of a silly article.
maybe i'll just pour hot grits down my pants and be done with it.
-k. ^-^ ^D
Or more likely they were blissfully ignorant of the matter, not living in the connected, rumour-mongering, righteous-fury-generating world that we inhabit today.
Meanwhile, if you're looking for a good site to compare book, muics and movie prices then I can recommend DealPilot (previously known as Acses.) It's especially good if you're outside USA as it calculates shipping costs & delays and gives the results in local currencies. Of course, since it's backed by Bertelsmann, the third largest media company in the world, then perhaps we should be boycotting them too, as well as every firm on the web.
Disclaimer: I have no commercial or other link with DealPilot, blah, blah.
Regards, Ralph.
Even if the idea is obvious, somebody has to implement it first.
I don't see how that gives anyone ownership over the original idea. I don't believe that anyone should own an idea anyway, but that's beside the point.
This is Somewhat like the Russians claiming to be the only country with the "right" to put men in space.
Don't be a twit, who said anything about a conspiracy? It's a simple matter of Slashdot telling everyone to live the "right way," blasting companies like Corel when they make innocent mistakes, but when we take a look at Slashdot's own behavior, it fails to live up to the standards that it wants everyone else held to. This is just like Slashdot's refusal to release the latest Slash source, while always bitching about closed source companies.
Activism's always so much easier when you don't have to do anything yourself, isn't it?
Cheers,
I told my wife before Stallman suggested the boycott to not buy me books from amazon. It's not a big political statement, but I just don't want to reward them for their practices.
Yes. The US Patent Office. ;)
I would ask that anyone who actually does own any software patents and who wants to help form such a portfolio, (as well as wanting to benefit from the existence of such a patent portfolio), to consider licensing their patents under some option of the Open Patent License.
If you know someone who owns patents and would be interested in using them to help solve the problems (software) patents cause, please bring the subject up with them.
And if you have any suggestions on the Open Patent License itself, there's a mailing list for discussing the license. I'd be happy to incorporate any improvements.
You're
Fucking
Welcome
...a bitter and senile old man. He's just trying to find anyone he can to rally behind him in his "crusade of the week." Do your homework before you pick a hero to follow; RMS is getting crazier every day, and it shows. PLEASE people, don't give him a lot of your attention. It just encourages him.
I already have. I asked my wife not to shop there, and although she has no clue (nor wants one) about software patents, she agreed ...
... another great effort to be a part of ... if you are a DNS admin and want to know more please write me ...
It's very important that we take a stand against software patents.
BTW, there is also an effort going around to get anyone who is an administrator for any DNS server to add etoy.com in
Project GNU; maybe you've heard of it. Turns out we're using his purpose-built tools (for building a copylefted operating system) to finish precisely the job he started.
... the impact of negative comments. Not that many Windows users (in proportion to the total population of Windows users) log on to Slashdot or any other site where Mr. Gates is not all too welcome. Nonetheless, the feeling is gradually spreading and taking over.
Windows and Microsoft are generally not considered "cool" any longer. They don't get the credit automatically, that they would get if those *nasty* sites didn't exist. In the end it will start depressing their sales, especially if there are *perceived* alternatives.
The bottom line is always that 1$ in negative marketing can hardly be offset with 100$ in positive marketing.
If the boycott continues for at least the time to make sure that the mainstream knows it exists, it will undoubtedly start eating into Amazon's future revenue stream and total stock capitalization.
It's beyond me why the /. crowd is so opposed to Amazon's patent. This is a *perfect* example of a patent doing exactly what patents are supposed to do: prevent those with deep pockets from simply stealing the work of those that developed an invention, method, or improvement. (Keep in mind that Amazon was a tiny startup challenging the entrenched giants with nothing but a few web servers when they came up with this idea! We should be cheering them on!)
While it's true that some people try to abuse the patent system, PATENTS ARE A VERY, VERY, GOOD THING! They level the playing field and give the little guys a chance. Sure the big guys fund huge research labs to try to lock up the rights to improvements that are predictable (IBM is issued more patents by far than any other company), but the fundamental nature of important technology means that the most valuable ideas are inherently unpredictable (and therefore create a dislocation in the technology marketplace.) Keep in mind that patents are one of the very few effective constraints for very large, well-funded companies, especially if they are aggressive and willing to "play dirty". (Hmm, does this sound like any company you've heard of lately?)
Kill patents, and you've ensured that the huge monolithic multinationals will control technology forever, and that no rivals can effectively emerge...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
AT&T held the patent on the Transitor and licensed it for free. Nobody sued, and Sony made millions off pocket radios. This is simply a slap on the Open Source community. A lot of Amazon is based Open Source.
Point counter point:
One : Amazon.com has no size and makes no money. It relies on mindshare which is a volitile thing. We have more than enough people to effect a change in ideas
Two : The media is a whore and will follow any story. It has it's darlings, but destroys them will equal verasity. GNU makes code, the media can't manipulate code. If it's good code no one cares about how you _feel_ about it.
Three : I missed the line in the contract when I signed up to be a geek. Was there something there saying I'm not supposed to be politcal? Any one who reads slashdot and thinks geeks are not political has problems with their processes.
One key thing about most of these type of revolts is that if they are going to go anywhere, they need media attention. Since this has now been mentioned in Wired, I suspect we'll be seeing snippets of it in other publications (like CNN or Time soon enough), and then that will attract the needed attention to get Amazon's ball rolling.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
You never know until you try whether the boycott will work or not. If no one does anything, then for sure, no progress will be made.
It seems to me that the real key is publicity. Basically, what needs to happen is for the public at large to become aware of the USPO's and Amazon's folly. If only geeks and Slashdotters are aware of what's going on, then you're right; the financial debt to Amazon will be miniscule, because there are relatively few geeks in this world. If the public knows what's going on, then 1) there are far more people to potentially hit Amazon in the wallet, and 2) there is the possibility of public embarassment. If possibility (2) came to pass, that would likely be more potent than (1).
So, instead of sitting on our hands knowing we'll be doomed, maybe we could actually try letting our non-geek friends and neighbors know what's what. We may not win, but we will surely lose if we do nothing.
--
WorldServe Consulting
And when us customers have moved our purchases to other suppliers - how grateful will the Amazon shareholders be?
Amazon shareholders want Amazon to become valuable. Few companies have done that by earning the disrespect of their customers.
A patent would also offer another level of force for the GPL.
-cwk.
Somehow I don't see how this patent is infringing on your civil rights
;)
Errr... Amazon can stop me selling stuff on the web using a well-known technique ('cookies') to implement a well-known concept ('credit'). Are you aware of a small debate over something called 'intellectual property'?
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
But since I published the whole design in 1994 (even though the pages are currently off-line), this idea is still freely available to any person -- writer, publisher, whatever -- who wants to take advantage of it. And that's the way I want it!
So if you ever see anyone trying to patent backwards-publishing, or do batch subscription publishing, whether or not online, or if anyone tries to patent displaying a library/bookshop, clicking to view shelves, clicking further to display of a specific book, let me know and we'll stop them (prior art).
I think what we really need is to establish a center for posting "prior art" publications of ideas related to the Web or Internet or networking, etc.
This is the typical defense of any unethical action taken by a business enterprise, and probably by any unethical person trying to justify their behavior: "If I can do it then I should do it. It's up to the Patent Office/Congress/police to not let me." It's a bit like the old "It's not wrong unless I get caught." There is a growing movement in America today that decries the lack of personal responsibility many people take for their own actions. And yet many of the people expressing moral outrage at this lack of responsibility go on to excuse corporate unresponsiblity --- "they have a fiduciary responsibility, they need a competitive advantage, whatever..."
That argument simply is not a valid defense of unethical behavior.
Of course, the question here is whether the patent on one-click shopping is wrong or unethical. Or whether Amazon is justified in an injunction against B&N for their one-click shopping method.
If B&N did indeed just copy, verbatim, Amazon's method for one-click shopping, then I'd have to say they got what they deserved. They're a big company with plenty of lawyers and the two can duke it out in whatever way they want.
But you have to consider: is the mere idea of storing credit card & shipping information on a server, that does not have to be typed in every time by a consumer, up for ownership by an entity (individual or corporation)? That is essentially what a patent gives protection over. And I don't see how that idea is in any way revolutionary or innovative; and I doubt there really was an investment of millions of dollars to invent a system to do that. (I take that back, given the ridiculous salaries people make to write cruddy code, and given the billions of dollars being made over ridiculous business plans on the Web, maybe they did spend millions of dollars on it.)
I could create the same sort of system myself in probably a week's full time (though such a system would not be secure enough or bug-free enough for serious use). But I wouldn't be allowed to since Amazon isn't simply afforded the protection against blatant verbatim copying of their system, but is afforded the protection, basically, against any sort of system that allows customers to buy stuff by clicking a button once without typing all their billing/shipping info in again. Perhaps I could "innovate" and invent some convoluted method of performing the same thing (that would not, by the narrow standards of patent law, be considered the "same" as Amazon's patent). But one has to wonder: 1) how many variations on a theme can you "invent" that all basically do the same thing, and 2) doesn't this just end up reducing the overall quality of these "inventions" since you are prevented from using the optimal solution if it has been patented?
Taking the analogy to ridiculous ends?
I am sorry, I don't see how you could do that.
He did not say that "What amazon is doing is like
slavery". It is simply saying that the argument
that "Amazon must patent because of its duty to
its shareholders" is missing the fact that duty
to shareholders is no justification for morallly
corrupt actions.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
One thing to keep in mind is that in order for a boycott to be effective, you MUST let them know that you're doing it. If you are supporting this, make sure that you contact Amazon and let them know about it. The public campaign being waged by Stallman is going to help, but every individual makes a difference. Don't rely on his name alone. You can't count on them noticing a drop in sales (they probably won't). But, if enough people contact them TELLING them that they're boycotting and why, they might notice. I regret that I don't have an email address to contribute to help anyone do just that. Any help anyone?
Lord, what an unmitigated ass you've made of yourself.
My wife and I have a personal library that's more extensive than that of some small towns. And that doesn't even begin to address the CD's, tapes and DVDs. So much for blanket statements borne of unjustified assumptions.
And while it is true that the average intellect of /. community members seems to be sliding downhill at a precipitous rate (witness your own contribution), I'd wager that it's still a damn sight higher than that of the population average. So it's probably a pretty safe bet that my wife and I are more typical of the /. community than that which you assert.
Oh... and we will both be boycotting Amazon.
Thanks for the truly mind-bogglingly clueless contribution to the discussion.
Al Gore invented the Internet and now RMS invented Linux. I'm waiting for RMS to demand that we start calling Windows GNU/Windows, since many people use Emacs and GCC on Windows.
Even the name of the operating system, to which Torvalds contributed a small but essential part, acknowledges Torvalds alone: the Stallman part -- the GNU before Linux -- is almost always left out.
Poor baby - what are they talking about with "small but essential part?" Gee, I wonder how the OS would run without such a small part as the kernel. Hmmm. This is the biggest kiss-ass story I have read.
Excellent clarification of what a fiduciary duty is.
;-)
Essentially, the company's managers are making the argument that the shareholders gave them money while trusting they would behave like good businessmen.
However, this argument is suspiciously convenient. Claiming an implied, trusting contract with the voiceless shareholders falls into the same catagory as protecting the children; it is merely a way to distract attention from one's own motives. This is made clear by the typical ease with which executives take actions in their own interest and against the shareholders.
Fiduciary duty is not a bad thing, it is good. It is just a legal label for the duty of an executive to make reasonable efforts instead of just collecting his pay; it is saying that shareholders may trust in a basic level of performance from the people running the company. It is not the concept of fiduciary duty that I attack. I see fiduciary duty as a reasonable and good restriction on the powers of corporations.
But certain exploitations of certain types of opportunities don't fall under fiduciary duty. It seems to me that by bantering the phrase around carelessly, we risk letting ourselves be the tools of a propaganda effort that wants to spread the idea that any potential money-making effort by a company is required, and those executives are excused from normal moral and legal obligations.
A similar effort promoted the phrase "intellectual property", starting this whole thing. We need to kill the idea that there is anything but real property, made of atoms. Patents are just what the law defines them to be -- a restriction on the whole people in order to subsidize the reasearch efforts of a few, in order to encourage the advancement of the useful arts and sciences.
In a similar way governments encourage other economic activities by restricting the activities of everyone. An early example is when the King of England gave monopolies on trade with colonies to certain companies, so that the companies would have incentive to settle and develope those lands. More recently, utilities were granted monopolies because it was presummed developing the massive infrastructures necessary would not be worth it unless you had a very long period of no competition. Our (the US Federal) government has the right to hand out monopolies on products and processes in order to encourage people to think of more of them. By using the phrase "intellectual property", we subtly spread the notion that you can "own" the exclusive right to manufacture something, just as you can "own" land.
And now by careless use of the phrase "fiduciary responsibility" or "fiduciary duty" we are going to subtly insinuate that corporate executives have an obligation to take advantage of any weakness in society (such as the current weak patent office).
Unless we post vigorously and often whenever the creeping mis-application of the phrase appears
Prior art is only useful for stopping companies gaining patents. If they already own patents on technology that is implemented in open-source, we need a portfolio with which to fight back.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I'm not crying for Barnes and Noble just yet.
Of the two, at least Amazon is a bit more morally responsible (providing business to small-time local resellers/bookstores, etc.).
Amazon is still the David to the Barnes and Nobles print publisher-cum-distributor Goliath.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Unlike trademarks, where the strength of the mark is compromised unless vigorously enforced, patent assets can be enforced selectively without reducing the enforceability of the rights. "Jus Tertii" (the "Hey, they did it, why can't I" defense) is not available against a claim of patent infringement.
Many patents are routinely infringed with impunity -- and the patent owner is free to decide whether the substantial costs of proceeding with an action outweigh the benefits. Sometimes, a patentee will put several defendants on notice and take them on one at a time. All of these are fine, unless the patentee seeks injunctive relief.
The big issue, however, is that these internet stock market caps are (to some extent) based upon the false comfort given by patent ownership. If folks make the threat of a claim for infringement a joke by their own refusal to litigate, the stock may plummet to the extent its valuation was based on the "power" of the patents. This is a new factor in these matters, and not one to be sneezed at.
Just what the world needs: another holier-than-thou crunchy from Cambridge.
Just go back to your room, right some software, give it all away and leave everyone else alone.
But we'll be buying from Amazon no longer.
Time for a Boycott Amazon.Com graphic methinks.
You think with the millions of dollars that pass thru amazon.com every day they would care about a few thousand people who boycott them? get real.
I've bought many things from Amazon, usually CD's and tech books. I haven't used fatbrain yet, but..
So far, all of my experiences with amazon have been positive. Most of my orders have shipped the next day, prices are reasonable, and I'm generally satisfied with the books.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Hopefully, Amazon will get slapped with a court settlement (judges can be vicious if they sense a big corporation is abusing the system to the detriment of the court system's reputation and power -- let's hope Amazon has to pay court costs and punitive damages), or burned by the boycott, and we'll teach those shareholders to ask their directors to avoid these tactics.
That's a pipe dream.
The downside of bringing a meritless patent action would be an award of fees and court costs. There would be no award of punitive damages unless a counterclaim is brought in the case for which the same would be appropriate.
However, after obtaining a preliminary injunction, there is virtually no chance even of an award of fees and costs on the ground that the lawsuit was an "exceptional case," unless informatin was willfully withheld during the P.I. hearings.
Not be a complete paranoid, but fatbrain (I think) will never support open-source software. In light of their agreement with Microsoft ( offsite link ... ) it would be very unlikely for them to appear open-source friendly. They probably are more concerned about the MSDN traffic than Slashdot traffic.
Im sorry, but the concept of fiduciary duty does not extend to willfully creating fraudulent patents. Nor does it extend to illegal practices of other kinds, no matter how lucruative they may be.
Exactly. Note that my original post said "in the current legal and business climate". The solution is to change that climate. Boycotting Amazon won't do a damned thing in that regard.
The only way out of this mess is to overhaul the patent system - but even that won't work immediately, as we'll have to wait for the current crop of patents to expire. They can't be invalidated by legislation, for that would be a government taking of private property without compensation and therefore unConstitutional.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Priceline has a patent on their style of reverse auctions. They don't bother claiming it's a new form of reverse auction, or even that they were the first to do it via client-server computing. Their patent is on doing that kind of auction on the web.
Actually, I stop using Amazon.com. In fact, I just sent feedback to them demanding that they remove my information from /all/ their databases or face any legal action I can muster. Wonder if we can get a class action if they refuse to do that with enough people.
/.ers. It is /.ers and those who value their opinions.
That demand letter was BCC'd to my parents and friends who would use Amazon.com for their purchases. I followed that up with an explination of why I was demanding the removal of my account from Amazon's databases. That letter will soon be chopped and sent to my other friends.
Will I return purchases from Amazon.com? No. It is other people's choice to purchase through that company. However, I did just drop $100+ at Barnes & Noble for my xmas shopping that would have been Amazon's until they decided to abuse the patent system.
You have to remember, it is more than just
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
I have no intention of "subtly insinuating" anything. What I'm saying is that, in the current legal and business climate, companies that fail to take advantage of such weaknesses (though many would call them opportunities) will find themselves the target of shareholder suits that reach directly into directors' and officers' pockets. Taking the "moral" stand, as so many in this thread have argued should be done, could well impoverish those who make the businesses go. I don't think demanding they do so is any more right than others think patents are.
By using the phrase "intellectual property", we subtly spread the notion that you can "own" the exclusive right to manufacture something, just as you can "own" land.
This passes the duck test: you can buy and sell those rights, just as you can tangible property; therefore, those rights are also property. This is why the government can't just eliminate all patents, or all software patents, with the stroke of a pen, for to do so would run afoul of the taking without compensation clause of the Bill of Rights.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
But what bothers me is that this does not make all software patents bad, nor even seemingly trivial software patents bad. If you use them to stifle competition, it is indeed bad. And I think that in this case Amazon is being somewhat out of line.
But I have myself applied for software patents that I thought were patently ridiculous (pardon the pun). Why? Because I could not shop my ideas, and demos around without it. In fact, I have had a supposedly reputable incubator firm try to steal a product and business plan from me. The only leverage I had was a couple of possibly unenforcible, or circumventable patents (not as ridiculous as one-click shopping.. that would be hard to do). Damn straight I waved those around as a deterrent to prevent these people from going ahead with what they said they'd do (pursuing my company without me). In a world without nondisclosure agreements, patents can sometimes be your only defense against other peoples' immoral actions.
Someone had to be first, but it doesn't mean they can hog the whole arena. The whole thing is just so blindingly obvious nobody else thought there was a race on.
Where is the idea in using cookies for identifying a repeat visitor? That's what cookies were meant for.....
+++++
+++++
The harder you look the less you see. That's what we're up against.
I'm not one to agree with most of Stallman's pronouncements. I'm a KDE-using, dual-booting, BSD-license-approving heathen.
But this. This. I had to do something, and not just stop shopping at Amazon for a while. No, I've stopped shoiping at Amazon altogether, and paved over my account to make sure I don't again without real effort.
I wrote to Amazon and asked them to deactivate my account permanently. After sending a list of recent purchases as identity verification, they've pulled the plug. And I've bought a couple thousand dollars worth of stuff there.. including gifts and personal and business purchases.
Boycott, my ass. Burn your account. Ditto for Priceline, eBay and eToys. Tell them to do the right thing and set up a strawman case and file briefs with the Supreme Court in favor of knocking down these frivolous "everything old is patentable again on the web" patents.
Barnes & Noble continues to pound on their high chair because they weren't innovative enough to get on the web before Amazon and now they've resorted to copying Amazon's technology. Methinks Stallman bought stock in the wrong company.
I say let's boycott B&N for being such winey-assed jerks that want to troll off someone else's technology.
While it may be their duty to protect their business model through the use of patents -- it is not their duty to use those patents to damage competition. Amazon is doing nothing but taking advantage of the system with so-called "innovative" patents.
Unfortunately, the same system that granted them the patent may uphold it in court.
If it is the case that these patents cost more business then they generate it revenue
Good luck. I sincerely doubt that the fraction of potential customers Amazon is running off by this action has even the slightest chance of being enough to outweigh the value of that patent, should it be upheld in court...and if they didn't think it would be upheld, they wouldn't have pursued it in the first place.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Think about it? Will any piece of bent wire do? Not really. It has to be stiff enough and springy enough, else the wire will just give and not hold the papers together. I would not be surprised to find that after the wire for the paper clip has been bent into the right shape that it would be treated somehow to stiffen it up, to compensate for weaknesses induced by the bending.
By comparison, what does 1-click shopping entail? CGI? Web fill-out forms? Been done. Cookies? I suspect any webmaster could have done what Amazon did, but that Amazon just happened to do it first. For the patent to be an honest patent, it should have been something that others in the field would not be likely to come up with. That's the rub.
Since this was on Wired News on FRIDAY, I guess we can see just how slow Slashdot is.......
We must publish to establish prior art. Not patent. We are in a different game...
Like it or not, you are in the same game as long as you operate in the United States. You can't just opt out.
Prior art is only useful to invalidate a patent if 1) it's really prior art for all of the important claims of a particular patent - something only a patent attorney is competent to render an opinion on, and 2) in court as part of a lawsuit to invalidate that patent. Got a few spare megabucks to go pick patent fights?
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Everyday, write an email to Amazon... cc to all their mailboxes. If 10000 people do that everyday, their whole customer suport system will be dead, and they'll loose other customers as well. The task could even be automated... how about a complain every hour ?
Cool. Thanx. Mine's been sent...
If you take a poll of whether or not the actual investors had wanted amazon to patent or not to patent I am willing to bet the investors would say file the patent.
Obviously, you don't understand what's going on here. Yes, right now the current attitude is "If it makes money, patent it!".
But, and I'll spell this out slowly for you, read along, if we start boycotting companies that apply for stupid and or destructive patents, then we (as consumers) will pull the rug out from under their reason for getting the patent in the first place (that is, to make money).
Vote with your dollars. Once investors realize that applying for patents like this are just going to get them boycotted and/or bad PR, I think you'll find that the stockholders and investors won't be so hasty when they're next polled ^_^
----
Dave
"I love chess! It is like ballet only with more explosions!"
- Dave
"A point made by John Walker (founder of Autodesk) in his Autodesk File (North American mirror) is that software companies are regrettably low on patents when compared to industrial or hardware companies of similar size. These patents are used defensively, in a cross-licensing scheme, if a violation is made."
What's "regrettable" about having less patents across the industry as a whole? Your suggested alternative is that all the companies spend a lot more money on registering patents, and then they all threaten to sue each other, actually sue each other, or enter into cross-licencing agreements that leave them in the same situation they are in at present. What would be so great about that? If they can all stick to their "regrettably low" level level of patents, or reduce it further, they save themselves a lot of expense and adversity.
Why is this news, Hemos? You guys had this up just LAST WEEK fom christ sake. So now is everything news twice? Once when you first hear it, then again when it hits Wired?
The officers of the corporation have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders to exploit the pathologies of the environment, statutory and otherwise. To the extent that stockholders benefit more than other citizens from such exploitations, they have a civic responsibility to expend their ill-gotten gains in correcting the environment.
It is therefore obvious to the most casual observer that Jeff Bezos, Time's "man of the year", is scum because he is not siphoning his ill-gotten capital gains from Amazon.com into, for example, correcting the pathological statutory environment that allows him to get away with this horseshit, or, for example, eliminating governmental systems that allow such horseshit to get spread about like so much parasite fertilizer.
Seastead this.
Once again, I have to bring up the concept of fiduciary duty. Not only does Amazon have a legal, enforceable duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets from misappropriation, they also have that same duty to maximize their value. Like it or not, in today's business and legal climate, Amazon had to not only patent a patentable invention, but also enforce its patent legally, or else their shareholders could have held the company and its directors personally liable for not doing so.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
they responded by telling me that they had spent thousands of hours developing their unique one-click technology.
EXCUSE ME!!! Thousands of hours!?!?! unique!??!!
Either that's a bald-faced lie or they are so incompetent it boggles the mind (or both.)
anyway...
> Richard Stallman is the original developer of what became the Linux OS
The author of the article seem to give credit to Richard Stallman for creating Linux.
Maybe he could at least have the record straigh and give Linus T. some credits.
A lot of people listen to RMS when he speaks. I write commercial software for a living, I'm what RMS calls a "hoarder," but I have a lot of respect for him. I've spent about $2,000 at amazon this year, but won't give them another dime. I'm glad he brought this to my attention.
Just a short question, when the next book review article comes along, is there going to still be the link to amazon.com to buy the book? Or is it going to be canged to a link to buy it from BN.com?
Here we are, a large group of concerned people annoyed at the direction that a particular corporation is taking. We're part of their target market. We're the people they (ultimately) need to sell to. Does it make any sense that they can ignore the way we feel about what they're doing? How can it possible be that the value of "good will" is now zero?
The argument "Amazon has a legal obligation to be greedy bastards" is nutty. Annoying the hell out of your customer base is not the way to make money. Some hypothetical investor law suit could almost certainly be shot down, if not this time, definitely in the future after we show them what happened to Amazon when they tried to flex their patent muscles.
The idea that Amazon is too big to be shot down by the slashdot crowd is similarly nutty. If you believe this, you've got an exagerated idea about how big Amazon is, and how small slashdot is, and you have no clue about how much leverage a small dedicated group of people have in running a boycott. It wasn't that long ago that the Nike corporation was forced to backpeddle on it's overseas hiring practices because of pressure started by Global Exchange (a small non-profit with a few dozen employees). Recently they've turned their sites on the Gap Corporation for using what amounts to indentured servitude in a US territory, and the Gap's sales are now flat. The same people helped organize the protests of the WTO in Seattle (heard about this one, yes? Mass action organized by the internet... ha, what a silly idea, eh?).
And yes, Amazon is currently running sales at below cost, so why should we try and reduce their sales? That doesn't make any economic sense does it? Probably not, but this is because the simple straight-forward economic reasoning is completely besides the point. Amazon's stock is a bubble waiting to be pricked. If investors lose confidence in them, they will be in the toliet in a second. Let's see, if you're holding a lot of Amazon stock, how would you feel about an organized consumer uprising calling for a boycott of Amazon? Will you say to yourself "Good, this will help Amazon save some money?" The thing is that it doesn't necessarily even *matter* how many people chose to support the boycott, just the fact that there are a lot of people talking about it is enough to put some pressure on Amazon. If they've got half a brain, they'll be looking for a way to gracefully back out of this one.
One final point: Is this the right way to do it? Wouldn't it be better to implement a political solution, and restrain (or eliminate?) the patent office? Sure that would be better, it would also be a lot harder. In a winner-takes-all Democracy, if you can't get 51% behind you, you're a mere minority. In the market, if you get even ten percent behind you, you're a force to be reckoned with... proportional representation is a built-in feature.
Blinking cursor? I feel certain that the Apple II represents prior art in that department... now Ethernet, that might be a different story.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Have we all blocked web ads from our browsers because Doubleclick has patented online advertising? Nope. You have the right to boycott Amazon, however it is rather silly. Yes Amazon should have sued Barnes and Noble instead of patenting, but they shouldn't necessarily be punished for their lawyers' recommendations. There are worse companies than Amazon out there.
"In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." -Nietzsche
No, you are not required to enforce your patent. You are thinking of Trademark, where you must enforce it or lose it.
The only thing that can happen (of course, IANAL), is that by knowing about infringement and not enforcing it, if you come around later to enforce it, the damages you can claim would be severely limited.
ie: you still have the patent, you could make them stop using it, or possibly pay licensing fees, but if you watched them grow for 20 years in the first place, you couldn't claim 20 years of damages...
Amazon gets a lot of hits through the associates program. these are smaller targets. Let the webmasters at these sites know what you think. Suggest they opt out of Amazons program, and switch to B&N's program. I can suggest 3 Amazon associates. Linux online,Be.com, and SLASHDOT.(Are you reading this Rob?). Check out the Amazon site for more.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
s/desired effect/desired effect on the internet/ There! :)
Amazon.com censors some comments which are posted. For example, one book Amazon.com was selling was priced at $34 despite the fact that the list price is $24.95. I've tried twice to post a comment to tell people to try Fatbrain.com instead since Amazon.com's price was above the list price. My comments have never appeared.
RMS says that authors of books should post a comment regarding boycotting Amazon.com. Certainly, if my comment didn't make it past their censors, the authors' comments wouldn't either!
In a way, it's kind-of sad that Amazon didn't patent a whole load more. Why? Because this is clearly a case of politicians, corporations and the general public perceiving it as "not bad enough", "not their problem" and "only affecting others".
IMHO, software patents will remain until some company makes it so odious for so many people that it's no longer possible to pass it off as an irrelevent foible.
And herein lies a possibe course of action: If you are a software developer, computing scientist, or anything else of that nature, and you come up with something innovative, patent it. Patent everything. And if someone want to liscence that technology, refuse (or charge an exorbitant amount of $$ for the liscence). Eventually something'll have to give. And since we know the problem is only going to get (much) worse before it gets any better, this won't hurt more than doing nothing, it'll just hurt faster. Sure it goes against everything that is Good and True in computing, but sometimes a good solution to a bad problem has to hurt.
And I know the chance of us nerds ever banding together to solve this problem is slim, but one can hope...
Now, before you go off and insult me for suggesting something so stupid, realize that I know this is insane. But, maybe we need to take real action rather than whining about how the industry is going to shit. What are the possibilities? Any suggestions???
In the case of Linux/UNIX, OS == kernel + utilities. Saying otherwise is like saying that the GUI isn't part of Windows 98. In a strict academic sense, yes, the Linux kernel could exist in a vaccuum, but let's just see you *use* it for anything.
It's time we let the web-sales slime know that stupid software patents make us angry (they do make me angry). Amazon's as good a place as any to begin. Hopefully one in a series of many boycotts.
RMS is right on this one in my opinion.
Wired just all credibility in my book as a news service. Where are they getting their information?
As far as the boycott goes, I have joined the ranks of the many who will not shop at amazon.com until they realize that they are patenting something that is not really a new technology.
Consumers, unite! We control the market!
Given that Amazon.com sells many books at a loss, i.e. their business model is "we lose a little money on each sale, but we make up for it in volume", perhaps a better strategy would be to find out which items they are losing the most money on, and buy them... lots of them!
This boycott can only truly be successful if it hurts Amazon's pocketbook. The problem is that Amazon doesn't make any money! Even if they lost some revenue from this boycott, they're still a large company with corporate/investment backing. A boycott won't be successful on it's own, unless it has some pressure from other sides as well. I suggest letter-writing and phone calls. I have no info on who to talk to, but if someone does, please post it.
"Where do you get off thinking any OS is superior to DOS?"
People who are mean, suck. The opposite is not true.
So, this is a link to a Wired article that quotes someone from a Slashdot forum... More coverage of Wired's coverage of Slashdot coming soon, I'm sure.
We all know that they meant GNU/Linux. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, because we're the only ones reading it!
The opening line of the article reads: "Richard Stallman is one of the original developers of what became the Linux OS..." That explains all of those emacs references in the kernel code! I'd be interested in seeing how many people see a parallel of RMS's attempts to take credit for Linux (oops, sorry, I meant GNU/Linux [not]). RMS does want to be paid, just in the coin of his choice. As long as the patent law is enforced in an inappropriate manner, companies would be stupid to do otherwise. The boycott of Amazon is lame.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. [H.S.T.]
However, if the Patent Office is granting patents like this, they are required both to patent and to attempt enforcement, even if they don't expect to prevail! The SEC requires that officers of a company protect the monetary interests of minority (as in "not much stock", not ethnicity) shareholders. If patents and enforcements slow down the competition, they are pretty much obligated to try or they leave themselves open to shareholder lawsuits.
However, they also need to take boycott and negative public opinion into account, so RMS's proposed boycott is still a good idea if you want them to change their policy. I do.
I've never looked at one of their quarterly reports, but I'm sure they make money on the books they sell. They lose their money by paying their employees and advertising beyond their means. Have you seen the ten thousand christmas ads they've had on TV? Those all cost money and their sales cannot recoup that money.
So, when will Slashdot sever their relationship with Amazon?
Come on boys, put your money where your mouth is or shut up.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
If this boycott will have the intended effect. I mean, the problem is that RMS (and /. for that matter) are preaching to the converted. I guess it may be an unfair assumption on my part, but I imagine that a large percentage of the geek population doesn't shop at amazon anyhow, they probably look to sites like fatbrain which cater more specifically to their interests. So even if RMS got 100% geek support for the idea, it might not dent amazon.com's hits in the least.
"so blindingly obvious nobody else thought there was a race on."
This is the single most intelligent thing I have read in this thread.
You said it all pete.
I don't think the boycott is a good idea, but, the patent IS stupid.
This would be the same as someone filing a patent for "web page 'navigation frames'...consisting of a series of 'hyperlinks'..."
Excellent thought sir.
I just thought of the most obvious thing that could possibly be patented now that they're allowing processes and thoughts to be patented:
The Process of Elimination!
I'll issue a press release:
Process of Elimination patented by Foo Corp.
Blah blah blah.
If I had enough money, I'd do this in a heartbeat.
A method of troubleshooting by eliminating all choices but one by using a process of trial and error (patent pending) to find which choices give the desired effect and which don't.
WalMart started this whole thing by suing Amazon for stealing it's patented business model.
Now, with that precedent set, of course Amazon is going to both patent as much as possible, and stick it to it's competitors. It has been demonstrated to them that this is a valid form of competition, and a good way to raise the barriers to entry in their market.
The idea of one-click shopping is perfectly patentable. If no one else was doing it that way, then they have every right to both patent it and enforce the patent.
As an aside, the computer players of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" show an interesting comparison. I believe that one of the more successfull programs was one that played nice until it got screwed, and then got vindictive until it got even. Hmmm, seems familiar.
Jason PollockThis idea is about as orginal as the express line at the grocery store. The implementation uses the exact same techniques used in any online purchase. If the patent continues to be upheld, it just signifies how inept our justice system really is when it comes to technology.
Don't make a statement like that and end without giving some examples. You can cause folks to discuss your cause that way... Mark
If you mostly buy tech books, you ought to give bookpool.com a try - I have yet to find better prices on most tech books (although that is all they sell, and sometimes it takes them a week or two to get the newer releases) - just fyi.
Their orders take 2 days to process, the stuff ships at a snails pace after the 2 days. Talk about a company that is going to go bust. Patents will be held by a dead company.
FYI: borders.com has a better UI, and always has cheaper prices for books and music than amazon.
Lovely day at /.: Hooray for rms! Down with patent lunacy! Die, Amazon, die! Then I wander over to the Cryptonomicon review, where I find that /. gets a cut if I agree to buy from Amazon. All in a day's business, I spose. Got that market cap to protect now...
This is the typical defense of any unethical action taken by a business enterprise, and probably by any unethical person trying to justify their behavior: "If I can do it then I should do it. It's up to the Patent Office/Congress/police to not let me." It's a bit like the old "It's not wrong unless I get caught."
Unethical, no. Wrong, maybe, but who's to judge? Certainly not you. And it's definitely a murky area at best. Given the current state of affairs, yes it is the responsibility of a company to do everything they can to protect their intellectual property. It's not justification, it's survival in a brutal corporate world. These companies, Amazon included, are simply playing by the rules to the best of their abilities. We all write them, they are using them. Which do you think is more effective, changing the corporate attitudes or changing the rules by which they play?
Your "all information and ideas should be free" attitude doesn't hold water, at least not until the rules change.
And yes, you could create a one-click shopping system just like theirs. Would you ever have thought of it if they hadn't done it? Hell no, not very likely. That's what they are protecting, their right to come up with the idea and be the only ones to use it.
I personally feel it and many other patents are pretty weak, but certainly worth more exploration. Change is probably needed. But once again, would anyone have thought of one-click shopping if they hadn't? Is that grounds for a patent? Close, maybe, possibly not, maybe so, but certainly not unethical or "wrong".
-- I lived through the IPO Rush of '99
I'm boycotting amazon.com, sure. I wrote them a letter and told them why (and received Canned Reply for my efforts). But what amazon is doing is a symptom of the problem - they are not the problem itself. My goal in boycotting them is to get them to realize what it is they're doing and turn around and make a point about software patents.
Obviously what is needed is some serious reform at the USPTO level. They're giving out software patents left and right for things that are obvious, things where there's tons of prior art, etc etc. How do we get them to stop doing this? I know that the intent of patents is to encourage innovation, but I think it's obvious (and this case has been made hundreds of times) that patents do *not* help software development, mainly because of the way the USPTO goes about issuing them.
So, I *will* boycott amazon.com, and I think it will help if more people do so (and tell amazon why), but I don't think it's a good idea to stop there if you want to see software patent reforms.
I suggest we disinfect the Witless General Apathy Virus. It may be fashionable and a "sign of professionalism", but it has to go.
Second tell me how it's patentable. Even the USPTO's rules vaguely mention the question of something being non-trivial. Only a web illiterate would see this as non-trivial.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
How effective will this be, really? I mean, yeah, a boycott is a fantastic way of protest, and I think this is a very worthy cause to protest. But really, when RMS speaks, who listens? Us. The geeks. The social idealists. The people who are 90% likely to be shopping from smaller independant retailers than someone like Amazon anyway. I know I try to feed as much of my purchases through the little guys as I can, and even when I DO go through a corporate monolith, I've only bought one or two things at Amazon.
So the message we're sending to Amazon is that people who didn't give them money will continue to not give them money? Again, it's all we can do, and a very commendable action, but will it really be more than a drop in the bucket? If anything, the publicity can't be great for them, but it'd be interesting to poll Amazon customers to see how many a) know who RMS is and b) cares what he has to say.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
The patent system forms a high barrier to entry, to make software look more like traditional capital-intensive industries with only a few unresponsive competitors where two bright guys in a garage can't accomplish anything. The scorched earth (patent everything!) defense accomplishes nothing but reward the PTO for being criminally negligent.
Hemos says, "we need to show companies that just because they can patent something, they don't need to."
This makes me wonder which "we" he's talking about, since Slashdot still carries 1) An Amazon.com slashbox, and 2) links to buy books from Amazon in the reviews section.
Put up or shut up, guys.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Are there any other sites that people should avoid?
Thanks in advance,
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user: bite me!
--weenie NT4 user: bite me!
"Computers are nothing but a perfect illusion of order" -- Iggy Pop
I ordered about $100 a week on average from Amazon, and now am switching to B&N. Amazon didn't HAVE to patent that anymore than B&N had to. The point is moot, anyway; the boycott is a good idea because obvious patents on ideas are a bad idea. I am behind RMS on this one. These ideas extend far beyond the world of computers.
Since they _LOSE_ money on each sale, not buying from them _HELPS_ Amazon.
However, since losing _LESS_ money goes against the official internet business plan, the stock price will probably plummet.
What to do, what to do . . .
The second problem is that amazon is a high publicity "can-do-no-wrong" media darling. A boycott will be taken in a negative light... and while it will generate lots of publicity, it will hurt the credibility of the GNU project if/when the boycott fails. Strike two.
The last problem is simply one of practicality - geeks are not a political bunch. Infact, many pride themselves on avoiding politics. And to quote another well-known member of the community, trying to get this to work would be like "trying to herd cats". What's worse - many geeks already believe (perhaps rightly so) that the USPO is a complete joke and that simply ignoring patents like these would be easier. Eventually somebody else will correct this broken system now, right? Strike three.
You will need to patent what you consider a "unique" idea. It provides protection from your commerical competition from filing against you.
A patent costs (low end) $4000.
Lawyers run $125 and up an hour.
How many hours to just FILE a protest to a patent? (hint $4000 is cheap protection.)
From a business standpoint, it is cheaper to file and have the patent office throw it out/get it accepted, than it is to get sued when someone ELSE files and gets accepted your idea.
Now, Amazon didn't need to beat B&N over the head with the patent, but it is a business weapon they can use to hobble B&N, and they have used it. Do not believe for a moment, if B&N had this patent, they would have not done the same to Amazon. Or Apple to anyone selling/offering web-sales software (buy webobjects, get one-click shopping). Same for Microsoft. Or IBM.
The problem here is the patent office. They issued a patent for something very questionable. If YOU want to work on getting this patent thrown out, you need to:
1) find out if B&N or someone is protesting this patent.
2) Help that entity that is protesting the patent. Supply prior art, if you have it.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Patents are fine, especially on processes. However, they should only patent the METHOD and not the IDEA. One click shopping is an idea you can come up with at any time, and any dipstick can implement it. This is not a patentable idea. The method and plan to execute it is. We could have had 1 click shopping as a pipe dream in the sixties, before there were "clicks"! It is certainly not unique. Many companies tack on the notion of "on the internet" or "in electronic form" and the USTPO buys it hook line and big fat sinker.
Take flooz for example. The formula:
1) real world gift certificate
2) Internet medium
3) restricted channel (56 sales sites)
4) "patent pending"
If they are awarded this, I'd eat my hat if I owned one. Putting something on a server on the net is pointless, and just a distribution medium. I just doesn't seem that great to me.
Lowmag.net
Depending on how you interpret what was written (the article did NOT say he invented the Linux kernel), that statement is as true or as false as you choose to think of it.
As for Amazon, this is proof that software patents are neither desirable nor useful. In a way, it's kind-of sad that Amazon didn't patent a whole load more. Why? Because this is clearly a case of politicians, corporations and the general public perceiving it as "not bad enough", "not their problem" and "only affecting others".
IMHO, software patents will remain until some company makes it so odious for so many people that it's no longer possible to pass it off as an irrelevent foible.
Sad as it is, people in general don't give a damn until something affects them directly, and personally. Some remote super-giant company that can afford to pay the bill isn't going to earn any sympathy with anyone.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
As long as the patent system ask to be bused, it will. There is an other reason why a corporation would patent something. This way it can build a patent folio to protect itself, by exchanging it's exclusive right with other coproration which might not be as scrupulous.
I believe the Open Source community needs to create a patent pool to protect itself the same way, this is the reason sites like www.openpatents.org where created.
An other point is not understand that it's _paramount_ for all open source projects to keep _all_ the CVS archives, as this the best way way to proof prior art, many obivious inventions have been patented because the source code history was lost. I think that sites like sourceforge.org can help do that.
It's their job to patent everything that can be patented that pertains to their business. It sucks, but it's true. Their duty (their job!) is to protect shareholder value. If the Patent Office will allow such a patent, then the company has to go for it, instead of holding off and taking the risk that this patent will fall into the hands of the competition.
It's similar to when giant corporations apply for huge tax credits. They don't need the money, and they look like hogs at the trough doing it, but if the shareholders found out that the opportunity existed and was not taken, there'd be hell to pay.
I know it sucks, but the heat should be primarily on the patent office for allowing such patents.
I agree completely that Amazon.Com's attempt to enforce this b*s* patent on (essentially) electronic commerce is nonsense. And I agree that we need to take action. I suggest that a boycott might not be the right answer.
Consider this: Amazon.com has yet to turn a profit. In fact, Amazon.com probably loses money on every book they sell. If the goal of a boycott is to harm the business economically in order to adjust their behavior, then the logical course of action would be to buy lots and lots of books from Amazon, all at once, and bankrupt the company. I therefore propose that we set up a "Boycott Amazon" website and set that website up as a partner of Amazon.com.
This reverse-boycott has other benefits to it. For one, we would increase the workload on Amazon's shipping infrastructure, potentially slowing other, less costly orders, from ever shipping. For another, if people buy books from the "Boycott Amazon" website (with the little link to Amazon), then each purchase will only hurt Amazon's pocket more by reducing the revenue of each sale by 5%. These proceeds can then go (for example) to the Free Software Foundation.
Comments?
The Kulturwehrmacht
Finding God in a Dog
I tend to boycot the 1-click feature. Not because of any patent issues, but because it's dangerous. I'd buy *way* too many books if it was left switched on.
I believe that if you have a patent you're required to enforce it and protect it against violations and other infringements. Otherwise, you may be deemed to have surrendered or otherwise nullified it. That doesn't mean that they couldn't have licensed it to Barnes and Noble for a token sum, of course, but I fail to see why they'd want to.
A point made by John Walker (founder of Autodesk) in his Autodesk File (North American mirror) is that software companies are regrettably low on patents when compared to industrial or hardware companies of similar size. These patents are used defensively, in a cross-licensing scheme, if a violation is made.
Consider this example: company A uses technology possibly patented by company B. Company B sues. The lawyers will work out a deal where company B is licensed technologies of equal value from company A's patent portfolio - it may go all the way to a full exchange of licenses for all marketable technologies from both companies. Intel and Digital did this relatively recently.
The problem is that if company A doesn't have a strong or viable patent portfolio, it cannot protect itself against patent infringement suits. It may be required to actually shell out cash to settle a suit, which is against the interest of the shareholders (and may lead to the sacking of the management, besides).
While Bezos may be the largest single shareholder, he isn't the only one, and his share will decrease over time. Not to mention that he probably has no desire to lose his shirt in the short term, either.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
... is Amazon's founder, Jeff Bezoz. Saw it on CNN last night. Waxed profound about his "vision" and other adoring goo. No, I don't have a link.
Bah!
-M
--J. Random Plantation Owner, 1855
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
WTF are you talking about? When I lived in Bellingham, WA (about 2.5 hours north of Seattle) I usually got the books THE NEXT DAY.
Now that I live on the east coast they take about 2-3 days total. That's business days from the point of "one-click" to where I am sitting down reading the book and using normal shipping.
In fact, I'm torn on whether to participate in this boycott because except for this one item I love Amazon.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I get sick myself. What I would like to know is:
1. Where does the USPTO get off not having an email address? It takes minutes to set it up.
2. Where do we go to pressure them to change?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
In general, boycotts are fairly useless in and of themselves. The goal of any boycott is to try and remove enough demand from the product that the person (or people) selling the product will either stop selling it or try to resolve the issues of the boycott.
There are a few boycotts that have succeeded, but generally those were a part of a much larger political movement where the boycott was used mainly as a Public Relations vehicle to express outrage at a particular idea.
For example, I doubt the boycott of beef purchases by Vegans against the Texas Cattleman's Association is going to be effective, but at least it is consistant with their politcal philosphy.
I salute Richard Stallman in at least being consistant, and I would encourage people to make purchases consistant with their political, ethical, religious, and moral beliefs. In a larger picture, on a broad political movement, protesting against Amazon will be effective in the sense that he is bringing awareness to the issues of intellectual property that affects the everyday lives of ordinary citizens.
The point that Bill Curry of Amazon makes is an important one. If 1-Click was such an obvious technology, as RMS claims, why is it that no major e-commerce site came up with it and implemented it before Amazon?
Sorry, gang, but I can't support this boycott.
And where would Linux be without GNU?
Of course we can also wonder where would GNU be without Linux?
Es ist egal.
-M
Speaking of fatbrain.com:
When you buy an "e-matter" publication from fatbrain.com, it's delivered as a Windows executable with an encrypted PDF inside it. Does anyone know of a way of getting at the PDF file from Linux/*BSD, short of through Wine or VMware?
(I asked the support staff at fatbrain.com, but they said I had to read my book in Windows.)
I have a suggestion, although an expensive one, but a better one than Stallman's, as what to do about this whole patent issue. I propose that people or companies dissatisfied with the current patent system try to overload the patent office with patents on ridiculous things like a fix for the Y2K bug or for putting a website menubar on right side of your screen as opposed to the left. Hehehe. Everyone, if the Patent Office accepts crappy patents then give it to them!!!
Thank you for not swearing.
What the heck were you thinking when you said, "we need to show
:-).
companies that just because they can patent something, they don't need to. "
If they can patent something, they absolutely DO need to. It's up to the Patent office to not allow patents of ridiculous things. It's up to the companies to patent everything they can to be as competitive as possible.
Somewhere there needs to be a balance, and the way to control the balance is at the "server" (patent) level and not the "user" (amazon?) level.
Our company holds what I think is a completely unenforcable patent, so I will tell you what it is. We made some charting software, an add-in for Excel. The patent was on part of the actual process of making charts! Specifically, charts that display annualized data alongside monthly data, e.g. 3 yearly bars followed by 12 monthly bars. There was some other errata and bs in the patent, but that was the gist of it.
Pretty pathetic, eh? Of course we filed for a patent. We wanted to keep anyone else from displaying their charts in that format, since that was one of our major selling points (as well as having an Altman's Z-score chart built right in
IMHO, we never should have received that patent. Likewise, if there was actually a market for the type of charting software we made then we probably would have actually tried to enforce the stupid thing.
--
-- I lived through the IPO Rush of '99
[read subject]
for the sake of argument that we agree that the real problem here is
that the patent office is willing to issue patents for things that
shouldn't be patentable. If we accept that premise, there are two
ways to go about changing this:
get revised
pocketbook
I have always maintained that "the law" isn't what is written in the law
books, the law is what actually occurs. As an example, even though the
posted speed limit might say 55 we all know you can drive about 62-63
without really worrying about getting a speeding ticket. What this
points out is that a law or policy can be effectively "changed" by nullifying
its enforcement (or use). In the patent case, suppose we chose to take
the political route - I for one am not confident at all that the patent
office's policies could be affected for the better in non-geologic time -
after all our government is more typically known for its elephantine
rather than its nimble nature. On the other hand, suppose
any company that sought to patent an obvious idea was certain that as a
result they wouldn't profit a dime. If this were true, whether the
formal patent office policies changed or not - we would have accomplished
a de facto policy change. There is a reason many out of date laws
remain on the books and that is because non-enforcement == removal for
all purposes that matter.
Finally, turning our attention back to amazon - one problem I do see with
the boycott is that amazon is generally viewed in a favorable light.
I personally have generally been a big fan of amazon - their selection is
vast and their service is typically outstanding. I am currently boycotting
them partially because I dislike their behavior with regard to this
ludicrous patent but also because I have found that they basically are
*never* the cheapest vendor of the books I want to buy. I have taken the
approach of first telling people about price comparison utilities,
such as this) excellent one (note how often amazon shows up with the *highest* price) and then mentioning their idiotic behavior with respect to this blatantly obvious patent. This approach has proven very effective, hopefully amazon will
chose to mend their ways (and lower their prices
future.
there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
Is this article typical of the quality of Wired.com? It was inaccurate, insulting, and inflammatory. They made Stallman out to be a raving madman (some say he is, some not, but it seems a new report ought to let the man's words speak for themselves).
And Stallman created Linux? Huh?
And the comments from the Amazon guy were laughable.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
Software patents are not like slavery - they may be a dumb idea, but comparing the two belittles the horror of slavery. The people who make that sort of comparison should be ashamed of themselves.
I think Amazon's patent on one-click is VALID and FAIR. It IS a unique idea, unlike most of the bogus software patents mentioned on Slashdot. Amazon has had one-click for a long time now (by the Internet's standard, at least), and B&N should not be allowed to copy it.
Between that and the fact that I think RMS is a fruitcake, I have to decided to INCREASE my purchases from Amazon.com. I recently purchased two books, and I'll be looking to buy more after Christmas.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I wasn't the oringial poster, but where do we start in naming worse companies. Well, let's start with Barnes and Noble. They are well known for buying up publication offices and distribution chains. If smaller, independent book stores want certain titles, they have to a) see if the BnN owned distributors will even sell them the titles, and b) pay a higher wholesale price then BnN gets the titles. This has led to the shutdown of many small independent owned bookstores. Well, next lets take Tower Records. They have done almost the same things as BnN. Furthermore, Tower took this action even further. They set up ofiices INSIDE some Tower stores for distributors, namely ADA (home of many pseudo indie type labels). If a small indie record store didn't feel comfortable calling up TOWER records to speak to their ADA sales rep, of course they have the alternative of calling a larger one stop distributor, but then they are paying a significantly higher wholesale price because that one stop bought the item first off of ADA, whoops I mean Tower, so how could they possibly compete with Tower's prices. And why would a small indie record store not feel comfortable calling up Tower so they could speak to their Tower housed reps? Well, many indie stores sell used CD's. Occasionally, some indie stores buy promo CD's from an individual and resell them. Tower is well known for scouting out indie record stores that resell promo CD's, reporting them to the appropriate major record label. The major label then punishes the record store buy either a) making them pay a higher price for their product for a limited time or b) delays shipment of "hot" new releases for up to two weeks for a limited time. I know this because I worled at an indie record store for years that was targeted by Tower Records. It nearly shut us down. Then, we could target Best Buy, who deliberatley takes a loss on ALL the CD's they sell just so they can get you in the store. That nearly shutdown several small Mom and Pop indie record stores too. Or how about Starbucks and their practice of opening up coffee shops DIRECTLY across the street of well established indie owned coffee shops. The newly opened Starbucks is willing to take a loss for up to 2 years (its their buisiness model) just so they can run the indie owned coffee shop out of buisiness. So there are many examples to name. What do all these examples have in common you ask??? They are ALL using perfectly legitimate ways to cut into their competition. They might not be the most ethical, but friends, I have NEVER seen a completely eithical and profitable large corporation. Sadly, it is the nature of buisiness to turn a buck ANY legal way it can. Otherwise it won't survive because somebody else would be willing to do it. So, if you are gonna boycott Amazon, consider all the other buisinesses doing similar actions that should be boycotted. One of the things that has gotten America frowned upon in the world eye is only selectively taking up human rights causes. Not that any of this is human rights causes, but the selective choices are the same.
The implication of both your post and the original post is that we should just suck it up, buy from Amazon and write letters to the patent office. Assuming that's the subtext of your note... Our primary goal should be to vote with our cash. In this case not buying crap from Amazon tells them we're unhappy with their decision. Who gives a shit what they "need" to do. They did not do what we wanted them to and we have plenty of other options (in addition to fatbrain bookpool.com is good and cheap). Let the shareholders and the corporate goons worry about their end, we just need to worry about ours (i.e. wield the stick and don't stop till it hurts).
It seems that the links have been to fatbrain.com lately anyway, so it's not so much of an issue. Of course, they're running NT with Active Server Pages, so there goes Geek Idealism
:-) would improve the efficiency of their service, and how much it would make you want to come back again. (let them figure out what the best and cheapest version of Unix is for themselves) Let alone saving them piles of money on licences.
Not necessarily. When you buy a book, comment on their service. Take the opportunity to comment on how much Apache on Unix
We should them know politely that we care about exactly which server they use, that we're aware of it. They'll get the idea pretty quickly. Everybody is trying to repackage themselves as open-source friendly, and we just have to remind them exactly how they could go about doing that.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
..my father orders through Barnes & Noble online.
It's not a political statement. He doesn't know fo this patent issue and likely doesn't care. Despite Amazon's "one-click" stuff, when he tried Amazon, he was so turned off he decided he wouldn't try it again.
Maybe B&N losing the patent dispute but STILL having more usability in some folks eyes says something about the utility of the patent.
I'm not inclined to take this action by Amazon as a general indicator that they'll actively protect all their patents against all competition. Here's why: Barnesandnoble.com have imitated Amazon at every step of their evolution. After a lousy original design, the B&N.com site was redesigned in their v2 to be a complete Amazon rip-off in look and feel. [I haven't visited lately so this may have changed in the last year.] Amazon may feel that B&N have been imitating their success long enough, riding on the coattails of Amazon's trial and error process to make e-commerce work; this patent was a good chance to push back a bit. Time will tell whether Amazon is going to enforce it against others as well.
Another thought: while B&N are allied with Microsoft, Amazon widely deploys open-source software on their site. Amazon may well be a future source of code contributions to those projects; it may in the community's interests to court Amazon.
Didn't you see the Salon article in /. the other day?
RMS says that after the next revision, Emacs will incorporate a full Linux distribution, written entirely in LISP.
Just kidding.
Insofar as Al Gore invented and patented the Internet, every domain name must pay Al royalties to use his invention. Al Gore for President. Hillary for Vice.
You got your LINUX in my GNU!
Ok, ok, funny time over. Everyone back to work!
Why is it that no major e-commerce site came up with it and implemented it before Amazon? Because it has, by many minor websites. The concept is the same. They just don't call it "1-click technology". Most of them don't call it anything special. I'll search the comments archives if I where you.
Just because Amazon were the first to implement something doesn't mean that noone else had thought of it, and more importantly, that someone else wouldn't have the same idea. It's a quick, neat idea with about a day of development time, not years of slaving and investment in a garden shed.
:(
There are *millions* of programmers on this planet who have good ideas every day and their ability to innovate should not be restricted by companies who can AFFORD to patent something in the first place. I for one have programmed LOTS of things that haven't been done before, but I have no right to stop others from doing the same.
Patents were designed to protect innovation and their inventors - not shareholders and investors. This scenario is a clear example of a faliure of the patent system.
Thank god you can't patent a procedure in the UK (although legislation is being pushed that way
B&N, Tower, Starbucks. They're usually easy to find 'cause they're all in the same strip mall, usually near a Circuit Shitty or Best Buy...Personally I make a point out of directing my freinds and acquaintances to the smaller shops.
Now, have you ever tried to write to Amazon with a protest about that lawsuit? I did, and got back a (presumably standard) reply, saying that they must protect the effort invested into implementation of one-click shopping. Here's your answer: the IDEA is trivial, the IMPLEMENTATION is not. Even Amazon in their canned reply does not bother to claim that the idea is non-obvious. But implementations cannot be patented. Algorithms can be patented, but the actual code cannot. So, unless B&N have actually stolen Amazon's code, the boycott looks totally justified to me - they ARE trying to protect an obvious idea, the only reason they were first and only one for a while is that it may have been hard to implement.
I'm already boycotting Amazon for their new policy of sending me ads for power tools just because I bought a book from them. I can't boycott them -twice-.
Calvino's IOAWNAT is one of his books where he is most influenced by OuLiPo, a French literature movement dedicated to writing works that conform to playful (often mathematical) constraints. Calvino is one of the more approachable examples of Oulipan literature, and certainly bears a lot of exploration in his own right, but if you want to go deeper there's lots of room. Try Harry Matthews, the only English-language member of the core group; his oulipo compendium will give you lots of further leads.
Another recommendation (which you're probably aware of as a slashdotter): Samuel R. Delany's Neveryon series
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
Some people have mentioned that their reviews did not appear. If you plan to submit a "review" informing Amazon.com users to go elsewhere, forget it. Here's why (hint: they censor):
Review submission fine print:
* All submitted reviews become the licensed property of Amazon.com as set forth in our Legal Notices.
* Your reviews will be posted within five to seven business days.
* Submissions that do not follow our review guidelines will not be posted.
Extract from review guidelines:
Amazon.com is proud to provide this forum for you to air your opinions on your favorite (or not-so-favorite) books. While we appreciate your time and comments, we respectfully request that you refrain from including the following in your review:
* Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks.
* Time-sensitive material (i.e., promotional tours, seminars, lectures, etc.).
* Single-word reviews. We want to know why you liked or disliked the book.
* Comments focusing solely on the author.
* No spoilers! Please don't reveal crucial plot elements.
* Phone numbers, mail addresses, URLs.
* Availability, price, or alternative ordering/shipping information.
Any review in violation of these guidelines may not be posted.
Okay, spell flamer, since when has "themselves" been singular? I think you meant "himself".
First, this looks like satire through exaduration. The author is exposing Amazon's lame excuse for it's audatious actions for what they are by using the same excuse for a far more heinous action. Amazon's use of the patent system amounts to judicail coersion and extortion. It's not as bad as murder or enslavement, but the fact that it makes money for shareholders does not make Amazon correct.
Second, Amazon's usurpation of common practices does violate everyone's fair use of that practice. While this may not be as ugly as race bassed civil rights violations, it is not much better. Race based snubs bother sugroups. Actions like this affect everyone. People who allow themselves to be violated will be enslaved by someone.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Ok, who let him out of the ward !
Sure, like gun looney ER is a 'social idealist'. It is embarassing to us people outside of the USA to have a gun-psycho crazy like ER talking for Linux. Bruce Perens probably went out and bought a bullet-proof vest after being threatened by ER...
Somehow I don't see how this patent is infringing
on your civil rights. Sorry but your not even close to reality.
Anyone who doesn't know who put together the first Linux OS, needs some grits.
But company A could also point out prior art, if it exists, and invalidate the patent. And instead of filing patents company A could publish its ideas for everyone to use.
The really sad part is that the lawyers of both companies make money from the litigation, no matter which way it goes (are you the suer or sue-ee) and there is little incentive to change the system.
Pardon me if my cynicism is showing...
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Yes,
The same people who won't spend 1 cent for software, and when they see a book review, the first thing they do is ask "Where can I download the text for free and print it to my laser printer?" are boycotting Amazon.
You people consume aka freeload, you are not paying customers. No one cares. The Stallman cult strikes again. He commands, you follow. Kinda reminds of the people who post that Bill Gates and Microsoft are innovators over on ZDNet.
Microsoft speaks, and they follow.
It would be a major miracle if any of you could truly think for yourself. Hurry up, Stallman is passing out the kool-aid.