Well... I'm not exactly sure about the copyright laws, but I would think that the courts could go either way... Part of what you are buying when you buy the video is the quality of that production (for example, VHS tapes are probably less expensive than DVD discs). So my thoughts would be that if the DVD costs more I couldn't get the DVD from a friend if I owned the VHS because then the movie company would be losing the difference in price between the VHS and the DVD. Now, if the price was the same I would probably think it would be OK, but maybe I'd destroy the VHS copy once I obtained the DVD copy.
As for the music, the same thing applies... if the CD costs more than the tapes, and I only own the tapes I wouldn't feel right downloading CD-quality MP3s because then they would be losing the price difference between the tapes and the CDs. Same situation... if they cost the same I'd have no problem. If I owned the CD already I would have no problem downloading MP3s from that CD and listening to them.
Perhaps the Patent & Trade Office comittee / reviewers treat "prior art" from different contexts (i.e. public road industry, vs. "hyped up" internet "information highway" -- hackneyed terms used to promote thought as to how they [the P&T Office] may think?) I would find this hard to imagine, as both are really the same thing, except "order processing system" is farther from you during the time of sale... Perhaps they actually make this distinction since patents are not supposed to be abstract?? I wonder if the people granting these patents actually think they are doing a service to the public. Perhaps we have not let them know and they are going on the feel of how the public views the internet (something new, cool, cutting edge,... leads them to think helping companies out with patents with further the economy and/or their favor with the people)??
Lets exercise our right (and duty!) as citizens and write not only to our Congressmen but to the people at the P&T Office. In fact, they have a public affairs office -- the phone number they give is (703) 305-8341 They also give a general info line number at 1-800-PTO-9199. Perhaps we should call and give them some intelligent and well thought out reasons and proof as to why these broader patents are severly harming the industry (granted that the judges enforce them... thank goodness for seperation of powers!). I would also try their more specific departments related to our technology at this office as well as this office. Like that posting about the political power of us geeks -- lets flex some politcal muscle!
Check out the other Y2K related patents (search for Y2K at US Patent & Trade Office's web site) and then look at the other referenced patents... (I count at least 14) It seems as though every common thing related to dates has been patented... What's next... patenting things like object oriented programming and data models??? -Kevin
I wrote this a while ago about the Amazon patent. I have inserted new comments regarding this even more obvious patent...
I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.
In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.
In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.
So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?
From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas (read: windowing for the Y2K problem) are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general. How is the idea of "windowing" not abstract and how can the person even prove he thought of the idea. I was reading through an IBM pamphlet on Y2k and it stated that they had been doing research about Y2K for years, including the windowing technique...
From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system. What about the windowing system?? I'm sure any decent programmer could have thought of that one... perhaps we need a few programmers in higher political places (alas, programming and politics don't mix well -- and I rather like it that way).
Notice also that the [Amazon] patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!
On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?
The economy has already been hurt by people afraid of Y2K (although arguably it has created more jobs temporarily etc), so why must someone come and try to create damage after the fact? Has anyone actually found the patent online? It would make for very interesting reading. Perhaps we should start writing Congress about these patents, eh?
The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?
I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.
In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.
In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.
So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below).So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?
From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general.
From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system.
Notice also that the patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!
On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?
The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?
Slashdot Mirror
Well... I'm not exactly sure about the copyright laws, but I would think that the courts could go either way... Part of what you are buying when you buy the video is the quality of that production (for example, VHS tapes are probably less expensive than DVD discs). So my thoughts would be that if the DVD costs more I couldn't get the DVD from a friend if I owned the VHS because then the movie company would be losing the difference in price between the VHS and the DVD. Now, if the price was the same I would probably think it would be OK, but maybe I'd destroy the VHS copy once I obtained the DVD copy.
As for the music, the same thing applies... if the CD costs more than the tapes, and I only own the tapes I wouldn't feel right downloading CD-quality MP3s because then they would be losing the price difference between the tapes and the CDs. Same situation... if they cost the same I'd have no problem. If I owned the CD already I would have no problem downloading MP3s from that CD and listening to them.
Perhaps the Patent & Trade Office comittee / reviewers treat "prior art" from different contexts (i.e. public road industry, vs. "hyped up" internet "information highway" -- hackneyed terms used to promote thought as to how they [the P&T Office] may think?) I would find this hard to imagine, as both are really the same thing, except "order processing system" is farther from you during the time of sale... Perhaps they actually make this distinction since patents are not supposed to be abstract?? I wonder if the people granting these patents actually think they are doing a service to the public. Perhaps we have not let them know and they are going on the feel of how the public views the internet (something new, cool, cutting edge, ... leads them to think helping companies out with patents with further the economy and/or their favor with the people)??
Lets exercise our right (and duty!) as citizens and write not only to our Congressmen but to the people at the P&T Office. In fact, they have a public affairs office -- the phone number they give is (703) 305-8341 They also give a general info line number at 1-800-PTO-9199. Perhaps we should call and give them some intelligent and well thought out reasons and proof as to why these broader patents are severly harming the industry (granted that the judges enforce them... thank goodness for seperation of powers!). I would also try their more specific departments related to our technology at this office as well as this office. Like that posting about the political power of us geeks -- lets flex some politcal muscle!
--Kevin
Well, either patent you look at is just as bad!
Check out the other Y2K related patents (search for Y2K at US Patent & Trade Office's web site) and then look at the other referenced patents... (I count at least 14) It seems as though every common thing related to dates has been patented... What's next... patenting things like object oriented programming and data models??? -Kevin
I wrote this a while ago about the Amazon patent. I have inserted new comments regarding this even more obvious patent...
I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.
In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.
In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.
So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?
From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas (read: windowing for the Y2K problem) are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general. How is the idea of "windowing" not abstract and how can the person even prove he thought of the idea. I was reading through an IBM pamphlet on Y2k and it stated that they had been doing research about Y2K for years, including the windowing technique...
From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system. What about the windowing system?? I'm sure any decent programmer could have thought of that one... perhaps we need a few programmers in higher political places (alas, programming and politics don't mix well -- and I rather like it that way).
Notice also that the [Amazon] patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!
On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?
The economy has already been hurt by people afraid of Y2K (although arguably it has created more jobs temporarily etc), so why must someone come and try to create damage after the fact? Has anyone actually found the patent online? It would make for very interesting reading. Perhaps we should start writing Congress about these patents, eh?
The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?
-Kevin
I was reading through the transcript of a public hearing on prior art. It sounds like when a patent is submitted people look for prior art in current patent databases (including some foreign databases). They also try to review what they call "non-patent literature" (NPL). This information consists of abstracts from "technical journals" and, if needed, an "information specialist" can assist the person in researching prior art. They did mention that in the field of computers the NPL databases may or may not contain evidence of prior art.
In the public hearing it was stated that there is a law "so-called Rule 56, which requires that that material prior art, of which the applicant is aware, be disclosed to the Office." It was said that they understand that it may be hard to comply to this rule. I looked through the patent but I could not find any references to prior art. Maybe someone else knows where these types of things are posted (if they are disclosed)? It was said that most patent submissions include (on average) about 4 documents of prior art.
In the transcript Keith Stephens nicely explains the need to disclose all prior art... It would be interesting to know how much prior art Amazon.com submitted for this "1-Click" patent.
So it seems even if there is prior art that this does not stop it from being patented if it is "sufficiently different" (see below). So exactly what role does prior art play in the patent process then?
From the excellent document What can be patented it states that abstract ideas are not patentable. So if "buying things remotely with one action" is an abstract idea, then the key in Amazon's patent must be the interaction between the client, server, and "communication medium" as well as supporting technologies (ex. read in the patent about combining single orders into one order: "expedited order selection"). So it may be that these less abstract ideas are enforceable, but then again at the top of the document the "claims" that were made were very general.
From the same document referenced in the above paragraph it also states that "The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention." So another question I pose is when did Amazon "invent" this type of ordering system? Surely "sufficiently similiar" systems could be found before Amazon "invented" its ordering system.
Notice also that the patent states that "one skilled in the art" will appreciate that the patent also covers other ordering mechanisms such as email. This is incredulous... this means that the patent convers all automated email-based order processing systems!
On a side note, on the US Patent and Trademark Office's web site in the definition of a patent they state that "US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions." How exactly can this relate to the internet? What if a U.S. company contracts with a foreign (ex. European) company to create an e-commerce web site that remembers users credit cards and allows buying an item with one click of a button. Would the patent affect the web site because a U.S. company sponsered the development of the site OR would it not be under the umbrella of the patent since it was hosted in the foreign company?
The issues of patents is a tough one, and hopefully we can work through (around) situations like this Amazon patent and somehow manage to let innovation flourish still. The idea of (software) patents is really against the entire concept backing Open Source. The real question is, what should be done about it?
-Kevin