Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

RMS writes to Tim O'Reilly about Amazon 186

Posted by Hemos from the stirring-up-the-mess dept.
Anonymous writes, "RMS sent this letter to Tim yesterday. His stand is that Amazon "fired the first shot", so they can't say they are only being defensive. The Amazon boycott stands, of course. " This is an extension of the recent Bezos-O'Reilly conversation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RMS writes to Tim O'Reilly about Amazon More

RMS writes to Tim O'Reilly about Amazon

Comments Filter:
  • You have an extremely simplistic view of a company's responsibility to its shareholders.

    A CEO has a responsibility to increase shareholder value. That does not translate into a requirement to sue anyone who can be sued.

    In fact, if enforcing the patent loses more revenue in lost sales due to annoyed customers than it gains in royalties or competitive advantage, the shareholders could just as reasonably sue Amazon because it tried to enforce the patent.

    Furthermore (IANAL), a company is not required to prosecute all violations of a patent, unlike a trademark. Refusing to prosecute a specific infringement does not prevent Amazon from prosecuting later infringements.


  • The problem is that 6-9 months will be a further cause in the deterioration of software quality.

    You thought things were rushed now, try getting some software out in 3 months so that you have 6 months to profit from the patent before the 9 month deadline.


  • you're thinking of christian country....

  • > It's purely subjective.

    > Therefore you are wrong.

    If time is purely subjective, then time is by definition what I think it is, and thus I am right. Are you telling me that I do not know what I think that time is?

    Semantics. Phunphunphun ;-)

    --Dan
  • Today's NYT magazine has an article 'Patently Absurd' by well-known science writer James Gleick
    First page illustration has this fake patent 'Procedure for simultaneously walking and chewing gum' :)
    hilarious.
    -ak
    reference: NYT magazine - (registration reqd.) [nytimes.com]
  • I assume you mean "Look how long it's taken the HURD to approach usability", there have been a number of commercially successul mach-based unices. It's been used in MkLinux, it formed the core of OSF/1, which was deployed by DEC, HP, and IBM....
  • Did anyone happen to read this post before the story fell off the front page? It's excellent. Nice defense of RMS.
  • Did you actually read the letter? He doesn't expect Amazon to give up their patents, just assure that they won't use them offensively. I agree that sometimes RMS has some radical ideas, but this is a realistic, level-headed solution to end the boycott.
  • Because the bad guys have 'em, and use 'em, the good guys have to have 'em, too. The trouble is, if you pull yours out and use it first, you're now a bad guy.
  • >Not only that, but he seems to think he invented Linux (see the stupid GNU/Linux issue). Go figure.

    RMS is pritty much the grandfather of the whole movement. He started the GNU half of Linux (or has he calls it GNU/Linux) I have a whole counter rant where I argue the correct name is 'Linux' Not GNU/Linux...

    Anyway... Linux is the kernel the rest is GNU.
    Being realistic Linux evolved.. Linus made the kernel and he is responsable for that but RMS made GNU and that was a vital component to making Linux work.
    ESR, Bruce and even CmdrTaco contributed SOME code to Linux.
    On the other hand... RMS is NOT the spokesperson. He hates that but it's true. BP and ESR dose FAR more busness level contact. RMS dosn't give marching orders.. it is up to us to kinda ignore him when he gets over the top. However this time he is on the ball....

    If he ever gose really totally psyco I'm sure ESR, BP and other Linux advocates [Like Emmit and CmdrTaco] will have a few things to say...
  • To correct a minor point; no, the X developers has never agreed to make X a part of the GNU system, and GNU has never agreed that X should be a GNU project. But yes, we like to use X because it serves the purpose well enough that there is no need to write a replacement.
  • If I remember correctly (this was some time back now -- maybe it's time to give the Amazon story it's own subdirectory on the GNU webserver? It seems to become a lengthy debate), RMS did post an authors comment to one or more of the GNU books urging people to boycott Amazon, but those were silently dropped by Amazon.
  • The relationship between BSD and GNU has always interested me. I think part of the problem is indeed the incompatibilities between the GPL and the BSD. The BSD is not incompatible with the GPL license, but the GPL is incompatible with the BSD. Let me explain this; BSD people work very hard to eliminate GPL code from their systems because they don't want the GPL to "infect" their systems. But GNU people freely uses BSD code because it doesn't "infect" our GPLed programs.
    This obviously causes some friction because some BSD developers (certainly not all) think that GNU is "stealing" code from them. Surprisingly, when you think about it, they advocate the BSD license for just this very reason; so that people -can- take the code and do whatever they wish with it.
  • What happened almost to X11? I suspect that ignorance about exactly things like these is what makes people dismiss FS as a luny. Many newcomers like me do not know the history. So tell me please.
  • I really can't agree with this entirely. Yes, I think that RMS is a bit radical. However, I also think that there absolutely must be someone out there who takes the stances that RMS does on issues.

    Free (as in speech) software is quietly coming under seige, in my opinion. For example, you have Red Hat [redhat.com]. These guys have a firm commitment that all the software they work on be released in a completely free way. At the same time, they just started shipping their "enterprise" version of Linux, which is basically the OS with Oracle 8i bundled in and easy to install. So you have one of the most "free" Linux compaines out there shipping a product which is designed to appeal to companies because it includes a massive, proprietary app. This kind of gentle errosion is happening all over the place. Except with people like RMS.

    So beyond all of his contributions in terms of coding, I think it's really important that people like RMS are willing to stand up and shout about their ideals, so that we don't all forget the mindset that brought us so far. We need to be careful not to loose site of these things as the business presence rushes in.
  • Free software isn't a popularity contest, it's about quality of code and *principles*. Period. If RMS has opinions that you don't like, and you think he should be prevented from saying them then GO LIVE SOMEPLACE WHERE FREE SPEECH IS NOT ALLOWED. Sheesh - how many of these fools who think software has to please everybody do we have to tolerate? If you can't see that microsofts one size fits all policy is flawed then stay with it, pal.

  • RMS is not a member of the Open Source movement. He founded the Free Software "movement" and has never changed his mind about that. I think that's his right. The reason he gets the attention he does is that the Linux project, whilst not explicily founded with the same goals, has always been based on GCC and released under the GPL. Linus said he was fine with the term GNU/Linux.

    Given all this, people who want to use all this great software but ditch the "tiresome" (my paraphrase) politics have MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT.

    "Go figure"

  • How come I can only read a very little % of Comments?

    The appalling state of the education system?

    Okay, not being very helpful, sorry :)
  • Whether the "1-click" technology is either basic or obvious does not matter here. The patent was granted, regardless of whether you or I agree with it, it was.

    Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, whether or not the patent was granted it is not valid if it is obvious.

    But my point has little to do with the validity of the patent.

    Okay....

    If you can honestly tell me that you believe B&N did not see Amazon doing it and then used the same technique at their site, then there is nothing more I can argue.

    They did by all appearances copy marketing / sales techniques fro Amazon. Since Amazon seems to be achieving some success with those techniques this seems like a good idea. No problem so far...

    It seems relatively clear to me that what B&N did was try to copy Amazon and in doing so used a technology patented by Amazon. And that is wrong.

    This is where I lose your thread.. what is it that you think is wrong? company A sets up in business, they start using marketing and sales techniques that apparently appeal to consumers and address a need in the market. Company B sees this, thinks "Good idea" and copies these techniques. This is what they're supposed to do, it's competition, it's what's supposed to happen. What is your problem? You're worried that businesses might all start adopting approaches that the consumers like?

    Unless your concern is that they're breaching a patent (and you meant "wrong" as a simile for "illegal")... but you explicitly said that the validity of the patent was irrelevant to your point.. so what is your point?

  • that's like saying that killing someone isn't illegal until i am caught

    No, that's the point. In both cases the court is being asked to make a decision about past events.

    In the patent case, the court is being asked to decide whether the patent was valid and whether B&N infringed upon it.

    In your hypothetical killing case, the court would be asked to decide whether or not you killed the person and whether or not your doing so was illegal.

    The patent is valid, or invalid all along. You are guilty, or not guilty, of murder all along. this status does not change when the court makes its decision. That's the point. The court will be determining whether the patent was ever legally valid, not saying it used to be but won't be from now on.
  • It is now the court's job to decide if the patent is valid. Until the court decides otherwise, the patent is valid and infringement is illegal. Hence the injunction against B&N.

    NO, absolutely not. It is up to the court to determine whether the patent is valid and thus whether breaching it is illegal. If the court finds that the patent is invalid then they will be establishing that what B&N did was not (at any point) illegal. If the court finds that the patent is valid then they will be establishing that what B&N did was (from the begining) illegal. It is NOT a matter of it being illegal until the court determines otherwise, one side or the other is right and the court is charged with determining which it is. B&N presumably believe that it is they that are right, I certainly do.
  • I think you're failing to understand what he's saying. RMS does'nt like software patents at all. Given that they exist, however, he can see why people would want to hold them as a defence against other people suing them for infringement of other patents. That's not to say that the existence of software patents is a necessary evil, just that for as long as they exits it makes sense to hold some as a defence against others (i.e. holding them toprotect yourself may be a necessary evil given that others ma be able to attck you with theirs). Abolish them all together and this defence is obviously no longer required.
  • Why the heck would anyone actually buy RMS's ``books'' when
    they are just primnouts of the info files that
    are available with every software package??

    serioulsy, I was looking into the inernal gcc
    docs and coughed up $50 for the gcc manual from RMS, and was sorely disappointed because it was just a verbatim printout of the gcc info manual..

    I wound up giving it 2/5 stars (not on amazon)
  • He disagrees with the BSD licensing scheme since it doesn't try to obliterate the idea of making money from writing software.

    Have you read what he's written? He's not against making money from writing software - quite the contrary, he makes an explicit point of allowing and encouraging it (and certainly, there are many people making money from writing GPLed software). He's against the proprietarization of software. There's a big difference. BSD derivatives can be made proprietary, i.e., freedom to distribute source can be reserved to some person or group. Linux (and other GPL software) derivatives cannot.

  • B&N didn't do anything wrong, they just used a basic, obvious e-commerce technique. Amazon on the other hand attempted to use unfair methods to damage their competition.

  • Then you can do what Amazon is doing. But be aware that this is not defensive behaviour; You are trying to stop other people from using your idea, not protect yourself from being sued.
  • The word 'safeguard' here applies to safeguarding against lawsuits, not safeguarding the patents. Since company A is not being sued in case 1b, it is not safeguarding, it is taking the offensive.
  • RMS is a radical, and Open Source would not be where it is without out him. RMS is the revolutionary and Linus and ESR are making what was once revolutionary mainstream. Their is room for both.

    The points RMS made are valid.

    I for one support what Tim@ORA is doing and RMS in saying "Amazon
    and other software patent holders should abjure the use of patents for
    aggression, and adopt a no-first-use policy."
  • Why all this stuff about RMS and license arguments? The point is that RMS has many strings to his bow, and one is that he is a veteran campaigner against software patents - which is what this is all about. The fact is, he has been drawing attention to this problem for years. I first heard about the possibility of patenting software at a talk he gave in London ~ 1989-90. Now Tim O'reilly seems to be doing some very useful work dialoguing with Bezos. Cool! But as I understand it, its RMS who actually spoke out and advocated the boycot of Amazon. And that's cool too. that's what campaigners are. People who demand changes and ask people to do things rather than just sit around watching history float past them. I figure it's in his capacity as a campaigner and advocate of the boycot that RMS and his letter should be interesting. And I think that's pretty clear and reasonable. Emphasize that a) Amazon don't just have a patent but are using it to sue a rival. Something that was pretty glossed over in the preceding dialogue between Bezos and O'Reilly. Then b) state that while he welcomes someone of Bezos statue calling for reform, that is not sufficient to let Amazon off the hook. That's O'Reilly's position as well. What's wrong with that?
  • they lose money on purpose. that way they pay less taxes. accounting decisions can dictate wheter you see what looks like a profit or a loss. all the money they lose is money they spent setting up infrastructure. do you really believe they lose money selling books? and somebody cant just start a business and put them out of business, they are the 'brand' name that is out there. certainly theyre not going to dominate for all time, but they hold a unique advantage which, if they press now, theyll be really well off. so they are. but what they are doing (the patent stuff) is unethical. they arent idiots. just bastards

  • > Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets.

    I will swallow your "fiduciary duty" horseshit just as soon as I get through choking down Adolf Eichmann's "I vas just followink orders!"

    Don't hold your breath waiting, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  • Without boycotts and media muck-raking, corporations are, indeed, obligated to perform whatever atrocities are necessary in order to maximize profit and future profit for their shareholders. This is why it is extremely important that we continue the boycott en masse. It is one of the few ways that we can collectively speak out against behavior that we see as wrong. This is why some of us boycotted companies like Nike or Nestle who caused suffering in the third world. If you feel a company is acting irresponsibly, you must avoid its products.

    Of course, there is more than just negative reinforcement. I am protesting the present computer patent law system; I have no real grudge against Amazon. If Bezos promptly does the right thing, I will not only resume buying from Amazon, but I will visit their site even more frequently, to more than make up for my current boycott. By rewarding good companies while we punish irresponsible ones, we make our actions speak that much louder.

  • As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Defensive patents are mainly used for one thing which makes them defensive patents. They are used to make sure you can always use your technology, so that no one else can take it from you. That's it. Trying to prevent other people from using them is when it stops being 'defensive' and starts being offensive.
  • You are arguing whether it's a defensive use of patents or not. It's not. Defensive Patents is a phrase that has a specific meaning, and this doesn't match it. Defensive Patents doesn't mean right or wrong, or good or bad.

    It's a definition. This doesn't match. Period.

  • that replay i can't read so e-mail me at webmaster@mp3gallery.N0spame.com
  • I posted a long reply to this, which somehow <A href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/12 /0917223&cid=115">ended up</A> in the wrong thread.
  • I posted a reply to this, but it ended up in the <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/12 /0917223&cid=108">wrong thread</a>.
  • I replied [slashdot.org] to this, but it ended up in the wrong thread 8-(.

  • While, yes, it is bundled with gnu tools, I cannot think of any that couldn't be replaced (with non gnu free software at that). The GNU tools are not essential to Linux any more than a particular window manager is essential to X.

    Whether it is theoretically feasible to replace bits of the GNU system with others does not have anything to do with whether or not it is the GNU system. For example, it might be possible to adapt some BSD libc to work with Linux, or to write a new one for scratch. But why bother when there is GNU libc already? Similarly for GNU fileutils, gcc, binutils and many more that I have probably forgotten.

    I think it is rather telling of the differences in philosophy between the GNU folks and various others that RMS & Co. started out by creating the basic tools that you needed in order to be even able to create an operating system, such as a text editor and a compiler toolchain. These are tools that practically everybody in the free software movement uses, even those that otherwise have no relation to the GNU project at all.

  • DQuinn writes:

    Seriously, I think RMS is bad for the Open Source movement

    Yes! Richard has some serious issues. I had the privilage (?) to see him assault the tech list at openbsd.org a while back.

    I witnessed this 'assault' as well. The whole thread started with someone quoting an article (from Wired, I think) which stated that RMS had tried to, quote, sabotage, unquote the work of Symbolics, a software company which made a proprietary product based on work originating in the AI lab at MIT, where RMS worked. This 'sabotage' amounted to creating free equivalents of Symbolics' proprietary programs--the very same activity that, even today, most of the free software/open source work consists off. In any case, RMS mailed the list and said 'not really, sabotage (by the sound of it) is a serious crime and I've never done it' at which point Brett Glass (who, by the sound of it has got some sort of axe to grind concerning RMS and can be found spouting largely unsubstantial diatribes against copyleft in general and RMS in particular anywhere you care to look, try dejanews or just search Slashdot) accused him off being spiteful, vindictive, anti-commercial, trying to destroy the livelihood of programmers everywhere, and more to the point a saboteur). At this point RMS sent one more message stating that Glass' mail was full of complete bollocks (only much more politely--RMS is a perfect example of online civility, IMHO) and that those who really wanted to know about the event should read the book 'Hackers' by Steven (sp?) Levy, which I recommend as well. Anyone else who cares to have a look can just do a deja search.

    Does that constitue 'assault'? I don't think so. RMS simply responded--briefly and to the point--to a very insulting personal attack made in a public forum.

    An interesting sideshow to the main event was Theo de Raadt, who ordered RMS off the list using phrases such as "bugger off" and "go away, Satan". I have absolutely no other problems with Theo whatsoever; if he wants to dislike the GPL then that's his god-given right. But I really do think that this sort of behaviour is neither appropriate, excusable or more to the point good for open source/free software. If RMS had been in the habit of acting like a computer thug a la Theo, we would never have been where we are today. Have you ever thought about that?

    It was confirmed to me that Richard has some serious grudges against the corporate software world,

    You bet. RMS dislikes proprietary software, pretty strongly in fact. This is hardly a secret, and software such as GCC would not have existed without it.

    and the GPL is a direct attempt to destroy that world.

    Bzzt! Wrong. Copyleft and the GPL is attempt to create an alternative; to make it possible to use computers without having to give up the right to help your neighbour. I do believe that RMS has in fact gone as far as criticizing others (eg. the creators of the X Window system) for caring "more about users than about freedom". If RMS' sole concern was to grab as many users as possible and then put all proprietary software vendors out of business, do you think he would have bothered?

    He disagrees with the BSD licensing scheme since it doesn't try to obliterate the idea of making money from writing software.

    Once again, wrong. Of all the licenses out there, the new BSD (or more correctly X style) license has got to be one of his favourites. He prefers copyleft licenses, but BSD is much better than most of the alternatives.

    His ego,

    Funny you should mention ego--RMS and the FSF has taken a lot of flak lately for arguing that everyone should use the name GNU/Linux rather than Linux. If RMS and the FSF had simply taken the BSD road and required everyone who uses their software to stroke his ego, do you think he would have had to argue? He could simply threaten you with a lawsuit instead. Yes, I am refering to the "obnoxious advertising clause" here. The original UBC one has been removed, but there are plenty of others who have added their names to the list. In all fairness, there are many who have not, but I still find it strange that this sort of mandated ego-stroking is never questioned.

    victim complex, and irrational "manifest destiny" can do no good for the open-source community. I once followed him, but then learned better.

    Certainly unfortunate.

    Damned right.

  • Anonymous Coward writes:

    Debian looked into creating a distribution using the Linux kernel and FreeBSD user tools. Or the other way around.. perhaps someone else has more information.

    Not really. There were some folks who wanted to create a Debian port running on a FreeBSD kernel. Nothing much ever came out of it; at least I haven't seen it mentioned on the debian mailing lists in the last couple of months or so.

  • vanth writes:

    Why the heck would anyone actually buy RMS's ``books'' when they are just primnouts of the info files that are available with every software package??

    Hey, but the info files are good, man. I haven't seen the gcc one, but I have the emacs one in my possession--all six hundred pages of it. It's brilliant, and beautifully printed. In general, the FSF only sells hardcopies of those manuals which are in a fairly complete state. A lot of time and effort went into those files; referring to them as 'just printouts' like that is rather disrespectful of that time and effort.

    serioulsy, I was looking into the inernal gcc docs and coughed up $50 for the gcc manual from RMS, and was sorely disappointed because it was just a verbatim printout of the gcc info manual..

    You can't have been looking very hard into these things when you did, the fact that all of these manuals are available in electronic format, some even on the GNU website, is quite well published.

    I wound up giving it 2/5 stars (not on amazon)

    I don't think it makes sense to give the book a bad score just because it's also available online.

  • DQuinn writes:

    Yes, there is GCC which is a very important utility. But if it didn't exist under the GPL someone would have written one under another license because they needed it.

    This point in particular is one of the most annoying ones frequently made by anti-GNU revisionist. Much has been said about open source and the power of 'gotta scratch that itch' development. However, there are some problems which 'scratch the itch'-motivation do not solve very easily. No one would write a C compiler just to scratch an itch with the old one, at least not except for in the most severe of circumstances. GCC exists because RMS realised that it (or something like it) had to.

    If it were not for GCC, the best we would have had today would have been some mediocre free compiler, with a up-gunned 'professional' edition which you would have to use for anything but the simplest of development.

    If I were you i'd watch yourself here. Because it's guys like you, the Johnny-come-only-to-the-GNU-world people that are rabid FS advocates and haven't really learned the real history or the current world that make themselves sound rather silly by assuming that GNU is the only player in the free software world. Stop reading the GNU and Linux ads and start learning about other licenses and other areas that write free software.

    I don't agree with your premises or your conclusion, but I do agree with the advise given to newbies in general: go out there and familiarise yourself with the history of free software/open source. Tour www.gnu.org and www.*bsd.org. There is lots of information there. (Note to new readers: I did note write the comment that DQuinn is replying to.)

    In my experience, most newbies are of the 'wow it's cool to run all this stuff for free, but couldn't someone tell RMS to stop shouting GNU/Linux 'cos everyone knows that the Linux os was written by scratch by Linus & co'. But then again, my perspective is probably different.

    If you want to talk about disrespect, I have an email from RMS that states quite plainly that he doesn't care at all about etiquette and thinks that his ideas and opinions are wanted by everyone and he can infultrate any list he wants and say whatever he wants, even though the people involved have rejected the ideas he gives out by choosing a different open-source license. That's disrespect!

    Do you think you could post that email here (unless it's private) or at least forward it to me (gs234.at.you.know.what.goes.here.cam.ac.uk) if you're afraid of spamming Slashdot?

    It this email is the one I think it is, it is the recent opensd.tech/sabotage spectacle. I have to say that I disagree; RMS never tried to push his opinions there, he simply defended himself against some rather nasty, personal accusations. I think that he (and anyone else) has got the right to defend themselves against that sort of stuff.

    --
    Big Gaute (not to be confused with LG)
    "There was a time when a guy who died at forty was revered as the toughest
    and most doggedly ancient son of a bitch in Cow Ass Clearing, Shitoleshire,
    Engalond, back in the year dot." - Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan #25

  • Hard to tell now, isn't it...
  • You are right, and I agree with everything you just said. However, the whole reason this was brought up was because someone started by saying that the RMS must think he write linux since he insists on calling it GNU/Linux. I was defending RMS to begin with, in that he has reasons for calling it that. However, I don't always call it that (neither do most), and the impression that seems to be prevelant (although I assume it's false) is that RMS attacks anyone who doesn't call it GNU/Linux and only does so out of jelousy and spite.
    It's quite right that RMS is in the habit of correcting anyone who says Linux instead of GNU/Linux as a kind of knee-jerk response, particularly journalists. However I think (as do you, it seems) that simply ascribing this fact to jealously and spite is rather mean. I think it's much more likely that he thinks (as do I) that GNU/Linux is much more correct, and moreover that the distinction (particularly when the lay of the land is described to random journalists) is important. RMS in general serves as the community's collective conscience; always reminding everyone of the core values that free software; is founded on. I suspect that if everyone forgot about the whole GNU/Linux vs Linux thing and forgot him tomorrow but switched to free software only, he would die a happy man.
  • Unfortunately that measure has been made, Amazon SUED B&N for patent infringement on thier 1-click patent, in which a preliminary injunction has been issued for B&N to cease and desist using "1-click technology". This shows Amazon's willingness to aggressively use their patents.

    I actually think RMS's response shows quite a bit of compromise, he states that he understands why Amazon needs its patents (although doesn't like it) and only wants them to discontinue the agressive use of them against competitors.
  • Though some people might see your comment as a troll, I generally agree with it. I personally think that jwz [jwz.org] and ESR [tuxedo.org] are better OSS advocates. Having been in "real world", I think they've got better feet to stand on.

    OTOH, you gotta give props to RMS for his work founding the FSF and his contributions to it. How far along would be be w/o GCC?

    Of course, GNU/Linux is a stretch -- I've never heard someone say they use Adobe/MacOS or Lotus-OS/2...

  • Amazon review. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As many of you know, RMS has written a lot of books on various GNU software (gcc, gdb, emacs, etc...). So I went over to Amazon and check to see if Amazon was boycotting RMS. Nope, his books are still listed (don't know if they're in stock).

    I was almost tempted to post a review of some of his books (and to give it five stars). Something like, this book is the definitive guide to emacs, blah, blah, blah, Oh, and by the way, the author (RMS) says to boycott this company! Don't buy this book from Amazon because the author is telling you this! No, no, no, don't one click, aaaahhhh!

    The Amazon Gestapo would probably delete that type of review.

  • eMoney (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Amazon has always been a company that amazed me. First, I was blown away by the concept of ordering books over the internet. Then I was shocked that a company could lose the same order three times in a row. (after which I switched to B&N) Finally, I'm impressed that a company which has shown no proof that it will eventually be profitable is valued at 22 billion dollars. Amazon brags that it lost less money than normal less quarter. Gee, guys, that's terrific! You're losing less money! I supppose that one could argue that they're going to become the Walmart of the internet, but the great thing about the internet is that somebody can always start a competing business. It's much easier to put up an internet site than to buy a store the size of a warehouse. Business strategies from Real Life (tm) are not necessarily portable.

    So what does this have to do with patents? Amazon needs to use its patents aggresively to kill its competition. It can't simply sit back and wait for someone to sue it first; the existence of other eBusinesses stands in the way of Amazon's goal of becoming the one stop place for everything on the internet. If there are other merchants around, Amazon can never jack up its prices and start making money. Which means that all of the time they spent selling items at a lost to kill smaller businesses was wasted. (the money too) So expecting to see a kinder, gentler Amazon may be a little naive. Personally, my view is that business men are like politicians. They're all liars and our job is to pick the best of a bad bunch.
  • While, yes, it is bundled with gnu tools, I cannot think of any that couldn't be replaced (with non gnu free software at that). The GNU tools are not essential to Linux any more than a particular window manager is essential to X.

    Well, yes, they theoretically could be replaced, but so could the Linux kernel. In fact, it might take more time to write a complete replacement of gcc from scratch then it would to write a kernel work-alike from scratch...
  • Anyone else have ideas on making software patents palatable?

    Yeah: all potential patents are publicly peer-reviewed prior to issuance to ensure that they really are worthy of the status of a patent.

    Some will argue here that doing so would mean that the idea couldn't be used as a trade secret should it fail to achieve patent status. And they would be correct. But a patent represents a monopoly on an idea and should thus be issued rarely. If someone wants to go for the gold and attempt to get a patent, they should risk something in the process. What more appropriate thing to risk than the idea itself?

    Public peer-review prior to patent issuance would have two effects: it would cause people to attempt to patent only those things that they truly thought were worthy of a patent (i.e., likely to be patentable) and it would cause bogus patent attempts (there will always be people stupid enough to attempt to patent the obvious, even in such a system) to be shot down quickly.

    I see this as the fastest and easiest way to reform the patent system.


    --

  • try www.noamazon.com
    It is a list of internet shops.

    -ak
  • First, considering RMS's stands on these issues, I was surprised at how reasonable his essay sounded - it strikes me that in practical terms, RMS and amazon are not that far apart.

    It is my belief that the One-Click patent was created solely as a weapon in Amazon's long-standing legal fight against Barnes & Noble. I'm sure Bezos will never forget the lawsuit B&N filed over the "Earth's Biggest Bookstore" tagline; it could have crushed the online bookseller at a time when it was small, weak and vunerable. Does he want revenge? Of course. Does he deserve it? Probably.

    His remarks, before and after this imbroligo, indicate that he does not plan to enforce the patent on any entity other than B&N. As long as he does that, I don't believe he's done anything wrong.

    D

    ----
  • That should be (Score:5, Funny)!

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I agree, that patent judges are unsuited to determine the originality of software patents. This job would be much better handled by SW professionals.

    I think that a patent period of 6 to 9 months is too short for some SW patents (e.g. a revolutionary new algorithm for multimedia compression).

    /Crafack
  • As someone pointed out in annother post. This is a myth. Books by Nolo press also explain how this dosn't work.. I believe it is explained in "Legal care for your software" and/or "Patent it yourself". Of course.. check them out rather than take my word for it :) And they are douptlessly updated majorly in the years sence I have read them.

    While the "Poor-Man's copyright" seeks to clame ownership of said item... prior art only seeks to prove no one else dose...
    It retains ZERO ownership for yourself...

    Basicly all you do is... do it... just that simple. Once it's done and documented in some way that this is when it happend you have prior art.
    Then when someone patents it say 5 years later you say "I did it first"... Patent goes away..
    Or better yet.. never gets issued...
  • With stuff like this, Yahoo is your friend. A quick search gave me this [yahoo.com] link..

    I've used Countrybookshop [countrybookshop.co.uk] and The Internet Bookshop [bookshop.co.uk] myself.

    Lately, though, I've tried to avoid British bookshops because the pound is quite strong compared to EMU currencies - so if you want to save money, you might want to try German bookshops, like Bol.de [www.bol.de]. The selection isn't that great, though.

  • Well, this would be true in an ideal system.

    But, Amazon was able to patent 1-click even though it's a very logical extension of cookies and GUI design. Streamlining involves asking for less confirmation, especially if it's not fatal (formatting HD or something) and cookies let you know who the user is.

    Amazon really shouldn't have been allowed to patent this, it's not a technology, it's a use of an existing technology. Like patenting the use of a car in delivering pizzas.

    So, anyways, often a company will patent an idea just so they can show they have the right to use it, because even if they just documented their use of it, another company could still get a temporary restraining order against them which as we've seen in the EToys case (and MPAA, etc) is trivially easy to get and geared just to break the other party by running them out of money. And who cares who would eventually win, if the victim goes bankrupt long before that point?

    I'm in this boycott until Amazon promises in writing to *never* use patents except for defensive use, in *any* case. Anything less is just useless posturing. That Bezos cares enough to answer is proof that the boycott is working, a bit at least.
  • Not quite. It will prove prior art, if documented properly. I mean, it's the same as just having logbooks detailing your work from the period, except that you get it notarized before putting it in the envelope and then have the registered mail logs to prove the date it was mailed.

    Then if you need proof of prior art, you've got it.

    But, the problem with patents is that simultaneous (provable) independant invention doesn't invalidate the patent, like it should. (If two people can come up with it at the same time, how worthy of protection as unique, can the idea possibly be?)

    Anyways, this method isn't a specific defense against anything patent related, but can really help, because it makes what is otherwise an easily fakeable log book into fairly convincing evidence.
  • Why not say the shareholders have a right to profit, so Bezos was justified in mugging that nun?

    Fuck, you're a moron.

    Patenting something that isn't worthy of a patent deserves no protection. Using that fraudulently obtained patent to sue someone else isn't a good thing. (Claiming they 'invented' 1-click ordering is like buying a car, using it to deliver some new product and trying to patent the use of cars to deliver that product.)

    All your post proves is that you will believe anything a big company tells you, and that the word communist still scares ignorant people who think they live in a capitalist society. You're just showing your ignorance.

    Bezos is required to act in the best *legal* interest of Amazon. Fraudulently obtaining patents is not a legal means. Just because nobody has the money to fight them and prove that not only was the patent invalid, but they knew it was before they applied, doesn't mean that what they did was illegal.

    The clue for you is that illegal actions are illegal, even if you don't get caught of convicted.
  • Corporations aren't required to make a profit at all costs, they're required to make all reasonable attempts to make a profit. (Basically, it's a bit more complex, but not in a way we need to worry about.)

    Many corporations are 'green' or 'ethical' and invest in, and buy materials from, humanitarian-friendly concerns. Examples are shoe companies that have third-world factories but that still keep them at first-world safety standards, and that pay the workers a good wage. Contrast this to Nike.

    This builds brand loyalty among customers, and brings in new customers fed up at the outrages they hear about in the news, so in the long run, it's more cost effective to buy the more expensive materials.

    Similarly, Amazon would be perfectly justified in passing up a bit of potential profit (not patenting things that aren't inventions, or they didn't invent) to build customer loyalty.

    What do you think advertising is? It's a big outlay of money that might bring in more customers. Same as charitable donations, they're there to make the employees and customers happy. A loss on the books, but a long-term gain.

    Think of delayed gratification (doing something now for a future gain) and enlightened self interest (helping someone else because you know it'll endup helping you later). These are valid strategies and a company employing these, as long as they have a valid reason, will not be in the wrong wrt the shareholders.

    (Not that you couldn't sue them in the states, for some stupid thing or another... I should sue microsoft for causing alien visitations... I bet they'd be forced to settle to avoid a long lawsuit. Gotta love the US legal system.)
  • The problem is the word "innovations".

    What do you think Amazon did that was innovative? Use cookies for that they were originally designed, and simply remove a verification dialog box?

    Not very impressive.

    It's not like that actually invented anything. They just want to patent the use of commonly available tools in certain cases. Like patenting the color green, with respect to computer cases. Or patenting the use of cars/trucks to deliver fozen yogurt, or whatever bullshit a company think they're the first to do, no matter how obvious it is.

    If Amazon actually *invented* a new *technology* then I could see them patenting it.

    They didn't.

    They *modified* an exiting *interface* by using already existing technology.

    That's not patentable in any sane system, but they pushed it through, and are now on the offensive with it. And we're supposed to think they're the good guys?

  • On one hand, RMS is right because we shouldn't put up with companies doing what Amazon did. That is not way to do business, and if you don't have anything to keep you on top except your patents, then you shouldn't be on top anyway.

    On the other hand, RMS called for the boycott, but it would be a lot more valid if he had offered (as Tim did) to sit with Jeff and try to work out a solution that would make everybody happy. It's easy to put someone down, but it's a lot harder to offer viable solutions to the problems at hand.

    (Btw, anyone knows a good bookstore in Europe apart from amazon.co.uk? I stopped buying from them -- and they lost a good customer because of their bullying attitude -- but I need to keep buying my books. I tried Bookpool but I ended up paying a lot more. Ideas?) David

  • um... Lucas wrote:
    Would Thomas Edison have existed if it weren't for patent protection? I doubt it. Or he would of but he would not have become the almost legend he is today

    Well, unless we're talking about the timeline diverging before his conception, in which case there's an extremely good chance that he would not have existed if patent laws had never come to exist, then of course Thomas Edison would have existed. As you say, he might well not have been the near-legend he is today. Is that a bad thing?


    From my point of view, that just means that he wouldn't be credited with inventing so many things that he didn't actually invent. I'm sure he was an intelligent man, and quite probably enthusiastic about invention, but most of his inventions were actually made by people who worked for him. When you get right down to it, he was just a business man in the right place at the right time.


    Let's not forget also that the invention he is most famous for - the filament electric lightbulb (other forms of electric lightbulbs like arc lamps already existed) - was already a well understood idea. Everyone knew it could be done, it was just a matter of developing a filament that would survive long enough to make it worth it. As it happens, the carbon-filament solution that Edison's researchers came up with was an identical solution to that of Joseph Swan who had invented the same thing the previous year.


    In light of that, I can't think of why it's a good thing that Thomas Edison is a legendary figure today. It actually seems like a bit of a tragedy that so many people who did valuable work have to be overlooked so that we can focus on a single "hero". I usually don't feel so bad about this when the one "hero" is someone who does, in fact, deserve a lot of credit even if they don't deserve all of it. Personally, I think that Edison gets more credit than he deserves.


    The same sort of thing happened with Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell. Bell submitted (actually his father in law did it) his patent application before Gray. Later on, Gray sued unsuccessfully, partly because Bell had submitted his patent application without any working model, and partly because it looked a lot as if a lot of Bell's stuff had been more or less copied from Gray's.


    It's actually kind of interesting to note that both Bell and Gray (and Edison's group too I think) were all working on the idea of a telegraph multiplexer (multiple messages along the same wire was a holy grail of technology at the time) first and those projects developed into a quest for voice transmission (which had also actually been demonstrated in crude form by an italian named Meucci years earlier). This seems to suggest that they were all more or less copying each others work as they developed their own. In the scientific world, this is a good thing and is expected, although pointless replication of effort can often be avoided through cooperation. However, with patents thrown into the mix, things turn nasty pretty quickly and the idea of scientific community dissolves because all researchers are seen as potential theives rather than kindred spirits. Soon, we get to the point where we are now where groups of scientists and researchers aren't supposed to communicate ideas to one another without an intervening layer of lawyers. And all of this is a good thing?


    I understand the "financial motivator" idea behind the patent system. But I find the concept that human curiousity and inventiveness is driven by greed to be completely ridiculous. I also understand the argument that, without patents, certain types of costly research wouldn't bring sufficient returns to justify the research since the company that did the research would be beaten in the marketplace by another company that just copied the product. That argument is somewhat compelling, especially in the pharmeceutical field where research is so expensive. The trouble with that argument though, is that it points to the single evil of not having patents without really weighing it against the evils of having them. Let's not forget that a successful drug product for a pharm company is often an enormous cash cow. Those are sick people paying all that money. I think it's kind of sad that a different model isn't explored.


    I'm in favor of tax money being used to fund most research. After all, we all ultimately pay for pretty much all research somehow, we might as well do it directly with fewer middle men. That way, there wouldn't really be a reason for patents on the technologies developed. I know a lot of people have ideological complaints to do with free markets and so forth, but there are large flaws in that model as well. To go back to the pharmecuetical industry, orphan drugs are a good example of the problems with a pure free market. An orphan drug is a drug to treat a disease that doesn't afflict enough people for a treatment to be a big money-maker or even to pay for the research involved. So, the government provides subsidies for such drugs to pharm companies. Now, some people don't like this idea and think that it would be better just to let these people die, but let's not forget that we're talking about a government that will wage quite expensive wars for the sake of maybe a few hundred of its citizens, and is occaisionally willing to spend a fraction of that to save thousands of its citizens. Is there actually anything wrong with that.


    Actually, there's quite a lot of government money already spent on research which is then patented by the company or university that does the research. Maybe we would be better off if government money meant that the results belong to all of us rather than the lucky recipients of the funding.


    Realistically of course, they're not going to drop the patent system any time soon and decide that scientific research is benificial to all and should be open and free. I hope that it is obvious to just about everyone that the system as it stands now just isn't working well enough, however. Some sort of reform is going to have to come about before things get worse and we have to wait 17 years (ignoring the fact that patents can be renewed) for them to get better.

  • But in any capatilistic society the customers protect themselves by deciding *not* to buy. That is why we have boycott's. For American's, boycotts were one of the many factors in forming our country.

    Boycott's don't happen in communist countries.

    So what are you talking about?
  • The Edison lightbulb patent was eventually denied, because of the evidence of prior art.
  • This point in particular is one of the most annoying ones frequently made by anti-GNU revisionist. Much has been said about open source and the power of 'gotta scratch that itch' development. However, there are some problems which 'scratch the itch'-motivation do not solve very easily. No one would write a C compiler just to scratch an itch with the old one, at least not except for in the most severe of circumstances. GCC exists because RMS realised that it (or something like it) had to.

    Why do you think that no-one else would have started a compiler project if RMS hadn't?

    Come to think of it, why do you think that no-one else woudl have started a compiler project even if RMS had? You can get lcc from here [princeton.edu] or bcc from here [freebsd.org].

    Granted, I belive that gcc is a better compiler than bcc or lcc, but that's mainly because it is the most popular, and much work has been put into improving it by various parties. If gcc had not existed, and say bcc had been the standard compiler most people chose, then I'm sure that it's code generation & the number of targets would be as good as gcc's.

  • There's a very simple alternative to handle a situation like this:

    Host your E-Commerce server in Canada (or any other country for that matter).

    This will take money out of the US economy, which concerns politicians and lawmakers.

    This takes it out of US jurisdiction, which concerns politicians and lawmakers.

    This adversely affects US hosting companies, which may or may not include Amazon's own upstream provider, which definately concerns Amazon.

    Although this does not address the main issue, it does raise awareness, and forces many more companies into the fray to protect their wallets.

    Just a thought
  • > Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets.

    At first I thought you were just another rmsophobe, but you have a point there.

    > If they didn't, Bezos and the rest of the Amazon board could and probably would have been sued by their shareholders.

    This, though, is absurd. All kinds of companies have patents, which are only used defensively. Their shareholders don't sue them. You could ask me for an example, but I think the burden of proof will lie with you once I point out this fact: legal battles are expensive. And, there's little chance that Amazon will ultimately win. They probably will come out of this worse off than they went in, or if the mind-shattering horror of having to click a second time drives enough of B&N's customers into the arms of Amazon, maybe they'll break even.
  • Everyone else has already, erm, shredded (or close) your Edison example, so I'd just like to mention that the purpose of patents isn't to "protect" something until every possible trace of profitability in the patented item has been used up, it's to make sure that the idea is released to the public while it's still worth something. I've always understood it as a sort of compromise between the public and the inventor - release the idea to us, and we'll make sure no one else uses it without your permission for a few years.
    --
    "HORSE."
  • My point is that that are people that want to use all this great software and ditch the "tiresome" politics of it all, they're called users. You know, those multitudes of people who are currently running Windows98 and who don't hate Microsoft (we can't all be perfect).

    OK, now give us a list: how many of your typical user friends have wanted to use free software but have been scared away by RMS? Of the Linux users I know, some agree with RMS, some don't. The ones who agree (myself among them) might refer to RMS's arguments when explaining why they use free software. The ones who don't have other reasons, but I've never heard them say that RMS was an obstacle in the way of their becoming Linux users.

    We have to understand that there are going to be people who don't care whether the source code is available or not.

    But might it help to have people like RMS trying to persuade them that they should care whether or not the source code is available? If you're trying to sell someone on a particular piece of free software, why not mention, among the other advantages it may have, that it is free? It isn't too hard to explain why this would be an advantage, especially today. How many people do you know who

    • have experienced the disadvantages of being "locked in" to a proprietary product or format?
    • have spent lots of money on a piece of software only to find out at the end that it couldn't quite do what they needed it to do, or that they would have to buy more software to make it do what they needed it to do?
    • have been frustrated by silly copy-protection schemes?

    You could argue, perhaps, that open source development methods, or some such magic, insure that open source software will in the long run always be technically superior. Therefore we can just sit back, wait for Open Source to conquer the world, and explain to everyone why this is a Good Thing afterwards. Perhaps this is true, but I'm not so optimistic. Don't forget the advantages enjoyed by purveyors of proprietary software; for example:

    • It's easier for them to apply for and to litigate patents.
    • The UCITA may allow them to deny responsibility for defects in their software.
    • They can use copyright and trade secret law to prevent third parties from writing software that interoperates with their software. The DMCA may make this easier than ever.

    Free/open source software will be at a great disadvantage as long as it is impossible to release free/open source software that plays DVD's, that uses standard encryption algorithms, that makes GIF's, that handles popular streaming audio formats, or that drives ecommerce sites. If, in the end, we are able to legally distribute free software that does all these things, then it will be partly because people like RMS have made ordinary computer users aware of political issues.

    ---Bruce Fields
  • While I agree that Amazons use of 'one click' is nothing more than an obvious implimentation of an existing standard, I would ask, why is it that patent life software in one particular segment of industry be so differant from any other industry?

    The start up capitol (seed money/finacing) required to, for example, make a copy of a Boeing 777 is much greater, and the need for protecting IP much less. The automobile industry is another example of of the high resistance to entry (you need to buy factory space, fill it with machine tools and assemply equipment). Why should software (which has an microscopic barier to entry [Netscape 1.0 was done in 8 months with a dozen programers]) be singled out?

    If you're going to propose a shortening of the patent life, I would suggest taking a broader view out side the world of software 6 to 9 months would be laughed out of Detroit.
    _________________________

  • But isn't Amazon's conduct ultimately damaging for a retail e-commerce firm? Amazon's agressive use of its patent portfolio ensures that no one standard will be adopted - we'll have Amazon's methods, we'll have B&N's method, we'll have the Pets.com method... and the users will scratch their heads and ask why it alll has to be so complex.

    If Amazon is truly intersted in growing the market and facilitating retail e-commerce, they should encourage the adoption of a standard client interface. The easier it is to shop online the more people will shop online. Creating barriers and obstacles to customers runs against Amazon's long-term interests.

  • >Once again, RMS has missed a truly crucial point: Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets.

    And what do you think is Amazon's most valuable asset?

    I'd say it's its brand. The only reason for their market valuation is that they managed to get their name recognised by more than 60% of americans AND their reputation is excellent.

    Now alienating even a fraction of their core consumer base is NOT a smart move and actually disminishes their corporate assets.

    So on one hand they gain an immediate advantage over the competition by preventing B&N to use one-click shopping, but on the other hand their all-important image is damaged.

    So boycotting Amazon and maybe even more important getting the word out on them and their offensive patent use IS a valid tactic, and one that can make Amazon's management and Amazon's shareholders change their tactic.

    Michel
  • Are you insane? RMS is responsible for your so called open source movement.

    And i wonder where RMS got his god complex from.

    Are you serious?? The open source movement was not started by RMS, and would not die without him. There are lots of (arguably) better licenses out there besides the GPL. Have you ever installed a BSD at all?? Yes, there is GCC which is a very important utility. But if it didn't exist under the GPL someone would have written one under another license because they needed it.

    Johnny-come-latelys to the open source scene (like you) disgust me by disrespecting the people...

    If I were you i'd watch yourself here. Because it's guys like you, the Johnny-come-only-to-the-GNU-world people that are rabid FS advocates and haven't really learned the real history or the current world that make themselves sound rather silly by assuming that GNU is the only player in the free software world. Stop reading the GNU and Linux ads and start learning about other licenses and other areas that write free software.

    If you want to talk about disrespect, I have an email from RMS that states quite plainly that he doesn't care at all about etiquette and thinks that his ideas and opinions are wanted by everyone and he can infultrate any list he wants and say whatever he wants, even though the people involved have rejected the ideas he gives out by choosing a different open-source license. That's disrespect!

    I used to be in the dark about the state of FS, like yourself. And i used to advocate GNU constantly. Whether he knows it or not it's RMS that actually turned me into a fence sitter that may be leaning towards the BSD side of things and leaving the GNU side of things behind.

    I would really like you to expand your knowledge of free software before jumping down someone's throat like that.

    Cheers,
    DQ
  • Just reading through the patent [gnu.org] I noticed one or two things
    1. The patent is only valid for a system returning HTML? I guess a system returning XML wouldn't be covered.
    2. It's only valid if it outputs (partially) my id, billing and shipping address when I'm done?
    3. Amazon takes my name / address / payment details, issues me a cookie and from there on in does everything automagically whenever I click / highlight / press on a button? Does this mean that if I change the cookie somebody else will get billed for and have delivered 4000 copies of the Kama Sutra?
    4. I'm also a bit curious how in sections 6 and 9 the client and server systems respectivly include shopping cart components, yet section 11 (the actual method) specifically says "the item is ordered independently of a shopping cart model"

    If anybody can clear these up....
  • Today's New York Times Magazine has an interesting piece [nytimes.com] by James Gleick on Amazon, software patents, the whole shebang...
  • 3 to 5 years for a software patent is an utterly unreasonable proposal made by amazon. It guarantees whatever "technology" that is patented is obselete by the time the patent expires.

    The fast moving software industry cannot be bogged down with patents, most will already agree.

    But there is *some* need to protect truly unique ideas.

    Instead of 3-5 years, why not let software patents last 6 to 9 months? It's enough to allow the inventors of any "innovations" gain from their idea for a good portion of time before others are allowed to copy it. The user base of this idea will be well established in 6-9 months.

    A commitee of software industry personel would oversee all new patents to determine if they are truly *unique* and *original*. Current patent judges are ill-equipted to determine originality of software patents.

    That's just one proposal.

    Anyone else have ideas on making software patents palatable?
  • You can be pedantic and quibble about the difference between Open Source and Free Software all you like. You can't have Free Software without it being Open Source.

    My point is that that are people that want to use all this great software and ditch the "tiresome" politics of it all, they're called users. You know, those multitudes of people who are currently running Windows98 and who don't hate Microsoft (we can't all be perfect).

    The Open Source/Free Software idea has the potential to change every user's experience, from the geeks that work in air-conditioned backrooms with clusters of servers, to the bricks that sit at their workstations and type up memos all day.... but for that to happen, it has to be approachable by users. Unfortunately, as a community, we aren't very approachable. In one corner we have people like RMS, who wants to take credit for anything and everything; and in the other corner we have the "armchair hackers" who seem to run around all day and threaten our friends like Corel with lawsuits because they went to the bathroom and didn't release the toilet paper under the GPL.

    We have to understand that there are going to be people who don't care whether the source code is available or not. We have to understand that big name companies jumping into this Free Software love-fest might make a couple mistakes. We shouldn't jump down their throats and scare them off. In order to change the world, we need these people.

    RMS is the "schoolyard bully" of Open Source/Free Software. He can't even keep all of us on his side, imagine what he's doing to the non-geeks that look at what we're doing. How many potential friends of Open Source/Free Software do you think he's scared off?
  • If such a law were to come about, just as the gov't decided to "grandfather" such drugs as aspirin as something that had been in existence before the law (whereby every company back when the Food & Drug laws were first passed, claimed they "invented" aspirin), so too should alot of these computer-based techniques (such as Amazon's claim for the cookie) be "grandfathered". &nbsp Then you can begin again from that point.

    We have seen time and time again, software companies applying for patents for internet technology that has been existence for years. &nbsp Something has to stop this practice now and allow everyone to start fresh in a level playing field with patent reviewers who are a bit more knowledgeable about the technology.

  • As of yet I haven't heard of any software patent that seemed like it should have been granted.

    However, I do agree that the originators of new ideas do need some protection against others stealing their work. I think the current copyright system which allows for Fair Use and restricts Derivative Works would be a far more palatable tool.

    For ideas that are too simple to protect under copyright, keep them a trade secret. Obfuscate code if needed.

    Ideas or software which cannot be protected by copyright or by being kept secret, are probably so obvious that they shouldn't be protected anyway.

  • Please stop with "Tim O'Reilly" (Score:3)

    by Shaheen ( 313 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @09:19AM (#1208623) Homepage
    He obviously deserves to be transformed into a TLA by now. We should be calling him TOR on Slashdot.
  • "Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets."

    True. So?

    Since when do shareholders have a _right_ to profit? They are SPECULATORS. They are allowed to make the wrong decision. I would suggest that holding Amazon stock is the wrong decision based on Amazon's difficulty in turning a profit. I would suggest that the shareholder's right to have Amazon rape the U.S. intellectual property system and basically ruin the future (along with many other abusers) is _less_ than my right as a US citizen to at least have my country not get any _worse_.

    Yeesh! What needs to happen is for this big stick to get _taken_ _away_ from the corporations, not for people to sit around finding ways to justify its further use. This argument equates to 'right of a shareholder for profit justifies any act on behalf of the company, and is more important than right of a citizen to not be damaged by acts of a company'. That's a crock!

    People have said for years, beginning with Shakespeare, "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers". That's fine, but apparently not enough.

    Kill all the shareholders! :P

  • First - please consider that Software patents
    right now are protected for something like 17 years(or whatever the number is) so 3-5 years is a vast improvement. Bezos is asking for reform and is prominant enough to be listened too. Example: Mr. Phil Karn has been yelling about this for a few years now but no-one has listened to him. Phil's is really only known in certain internet engineering cirlces and amateur radio. Bezos is known on Wall Street. WAY DIFFERENT level of celebrity. My point is that baby steps are more likely to be acceptable.

    Now onto the idea itself, Bezos' claim and RMS.

    Bezos' claim about use of "defensive patents" is an idea of heard before, and seen in action. Look into the history of many of the high tech patent battles and you'll find suit and counter-suit. If they get settled out of court ( the nominal pattern ) you finally see them trading stock portfolio rights. It's a little like having a war chest for patent fights. This DOES happen.
    The measure is - will Amazon be the first to go to court. If not, then indeed they are taking a defensive stand.

    (Note - none of the above is trying to defend the relevance or whether the concept of their patent is reasonable or obvious..just that companies behave this way, and he isn't any different.)

    With respect to RMS, he has never been known for being willing to compromise, so you'd expect less from him? In this case his response is as predictable as the Sun rising.
  • Would Thomas Edison have existed if it weren't for patent protection? I doubt it. Or he would of but he would not have become the almost legend he is today.

    Bad example! Edison was a fraud who profited by ripping off other people's work and using misinformation to destroy his competition. In attempting to sell to the media his Direct Current method of electrical distribution, he invented the electric chair and used to electrocute animals in order to "prove" that Nikola Tesla's Alternating Current was too dangerous to use - even though Direct Current can also kill.

    Though Tesla's AC was eventually proved superior, and was ultimately chosen as the standard method - Edison is regarded by the establishment as the father of electricity.

    Oh and BTW, even the DC method he was pushing was invented and developed by others before his time. Like so many others today, Edison used patents to garner for himself that which never really belonged to him.

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • Hmmm what technology has lasted for 3-5 or more years without disappearing into obsoleteness?

    RSA encryption
    Cinepak compression
    The rest of Apple's QuickTime
    Postscript
    Java

    SQL
    HTML
    C
    C++

    Some of those have been protected by patents. Some haven't. It's one thing when a patent is obviously a rip off of previously released work, which i think that Amazon's well publicized patents are. It's another thing when a company spends hundreds of thousands of dollars coming up with a new idea, only to see it pilfered away from them.

    I think overall, in theory, patents are good. Inventors, be they individuals or R&D departments of corporations, have every right in the world to be the first to profit from their inventions. They also, i think, have a right to be insured exclusive use, if they so desire. Otherwise it really takes away the financial motivator to think of new tools to solve existing problems.

    Would Thomas Edison have existed if it weren't for patent protection? I doubt it. Or he would of but he would not have become the almost legend he is today.

    Having them last less time the 3 or 5 years would just be ridiculous. Very rarely is something implented correctly the first time around. People would basically be stuck in a proposition of they'ed have the ability to release something that was aweful just so they could hope that it caught on, while competitors sat on the sidelines waiting for the patent to expire.

    Likewise, there would probably be a HUGE increase in software upgrade cycles, as inventors of new technology wouldn't want to spout about it until the last possible moment, because again, they'ed have an extremely limited window in which to recoup their monies.

    3 years is almost too quick
    5 years would be ideal
    7 years, still, would be pretty good
    17 years is just too long.

  • RMS misses the point...film at 11. (Score:3)

    by Jay Maynard ( 54798 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @06:16AM (#1208628) Homepage
    Once again, RMS has missed a truly crucial point:
    Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets. Those include patentable ideas.
    Further, they also have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to guarantee their corporate value does not get diminished by others.

    Put this together, and Amazon did exactly what they are required by law to do: Suing B&N for patent infringement. If they didn't, Bezos and the rest of the Amazon board could and probably would have been sued by their shareholders.

    Companies have a legal duty to protect themselves, and the legal system is an excellent example of "the best defense is a good offense".

    Of course, in RMS' communist utopia, such things wouldn't exist, but this is the real world...


    I think I'll go buy a book from Amazon in RMS' honor.
    --

  • I think that a patent period of 6 to 9 months is too short for some SW patents (e.g. a revolutionary new algorithm for multimedia compression).

    Really? Then you're happy that you're not able to watch Sorenson encoded video on Linux? Even though it's rapidly becoming the encoding alrgorithm of choice for high-quality video on the internet? And that, except for a potential (maybe, maybe not) port of Apple's closed-source, horrendously buggy, resource-hogging, pop-up-ad-spewing Interface Hall of Shame member [iarchitect.com] Quicktime 4, you never will??

    Yeah, let's hear it for long software patents. After all, Linux users won't mind having to wait 17 years to watch the new Mission Impossible 2 trailer [akamaitech.net]. (Caution!! 17.9 MB download!! And no Linux users allowed until the year 2015!!!)

  • Re:WTF? (Score:3)

    by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @06:48AM (#1208630) Homepage Journal
    &gt Someones work may be respectable, awesome, and even legendary. But if he acts like an asshole, he is an asshole.

    How is he acting like an asshole? Can you please explain this to me. His open letter says

    Bezos's letter reaffirms Amazon's continuing intention to engage in unrestricted patent warfare, saying that the decision of when and where to attack will be decided by "business reasons". I would gladly join Bezos in supporting a bill to limit software patents to 3 or 5 years, but I believe we must continue to criticize and boycott Amazon until such a bill is actually adopted--or until Amazon makes some other suitable change in its own conduct to justify a change in ours.

    I read his open letter thrice and the above paragraph is the only one I saw that could be considered even mildly asshole-like. But what does it say

    Amazon is abusing the patent system by primarily using patents as a weapon against competitors as opposed to a way to actually safegaurd their innovations.

    He agrees with Jeff Bezo's that the length of software patents should be shortened and will support him in proposing reform.

    Just because Amazon says they have changed doesn't mean we should just drop everything. We should wait first to see if their actions are as loud as their words.

    &lt sarcasm &gt Yep, he sounds like a real asshole . &lt /sarcasm &gt

  • Variable Length Patents? (Score:3)

    by illuin ( 113072 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @11:15AM (#1208631)
    There seems to be considerable debate about how long software patents should last: should it be 17 years? 5? 3? 6 months?

    Perhaps the solution to this debate is some form of variable length patent. When someone applies for the patent, a length would be assigned to it, based on what would truly be helpful to the community. An exceptionally amazing innovation could receive the 10 years it needs to be fully developed and profitable, where as some of the more borderline patents would receive a much shorter time.

    Of course, this would have some complications. First, we would be assuming that the patent office would be able to accurately judge the usefulness of a patent, which is quite an assumption in some peoples mind. The patent office would likely end up needing more staff and more technological training to accomplish this.

    There is also the problem of appeals. If a patent applicant is not satisfied with the time assigned to them, should they have the right to appeal, thus adding more complication to an already overburdened process?

  • slightly OT... (Score:3)

    by Nastard ( 124180 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @05:52AM (#1208632)
    One click shopping (TM?) is great and all, but I use lynx, and dont click at all. Therefore this patent is useless to me.

    Unless of course they specify keyboard clicks as well. Then again, I use a clickless keyboard. How specific is this patent, and how wide are the loopholes?

  • Comment removed (Score:4)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @05:58AM (#1208633)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • RMS is advocating a "Poor-Man's Copyright" (Score:4)

    by opencode ( 28152 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @05:50AM (#1208634) Homepage

    .... which is certainly THE way to go.

    I play string-bass in a Christian Blues band, and all the original tunes we write are protected by the "poor-Man's Copyright" -- quite simply, placing an original manuscript/recording in a package, date it, seal it, mail it to yourself, receive it in the mail, notorize it,and then DON'T open it UNTIL/UNLESS someone steals it from you.

    Once the offending party meets you in the Deposition Room in a Court of Law, open the package (and notorize a statement claiming the package was untampered and inspected before offending witnesses). The defendant pays all court costs, and you win (you might not receive any punitive damages for "pain and suffereing" -- but then again, you didn't suffer any pain, did you ??) ....

    Re-package the manuscript/recording, and include all notorized statements, INCLUDING one more stating the package has been re-sealed without tampering with the contents, and start over, in the event someone tries to pull this stunt on you again ....

    It's free, it's painless, it's legal ... and no one gets short any $$ unless they're pulling something that's otherwise protected by Copyright Law ....

  • WTF? (Score:4)

    by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @05:53AM (#1208635) Homepage Journal
    Are you insane? RMS is responsible for your so called open source movement. Without GNUs free tools (approximately 11% of your average linux distro including the free compiler gcc ) and the GPL there would be no Linux (because Linus wouldn't have had a free powerful compiler and no GPL to make sure code was distributed free (as in speech not as in beer).

    Johnny-come-latelys to the open source scene (like you) disgust me by disrespecting the people who created and enrich the movement you claim to be a part off. Without RMS with his belief in completely free software inspiring us directly and indirectly (including yourself I'm sure) there would not be an open source movement there would be open source software (that has existed for decades) but it would not be the movement it is today.

    That said I believe that even though Amazon fired the first shot they did so probably because they have been embroiled in conflict and various acts of litigation with B&N for a while now and they saw this as firing yet another salvo at B&N without realizing the broader ramifications of their actions. Jeff Bezos' recen t comments [amazon.com] seem to confirm this.
    We probably should give them the benefit of the doubt (i.e. don't assume they are evil yet) until their future actions prove otherwise.

  • Time is absolutely irrelevant. (Score:5)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @07:29AM (#1208636) Homepage
    I would rather function in an environment where the vast majority of incompetently assigned patents are never enforced upon an otherwise free market, rather than suffer a vast number of patents that never should have been validated in the first place be actually enforced.

    A three to five year limit on software patents is ludicrous. The problem is not the timespan--the problem is the standard. One Slashdot poster mentions Unisys's patent on a basic linked list. Memepool posted the patent on (and I'm not kidding) using a laser to entertain a cat. Amazon's patent abuses are well documented.

    The American software industry cannot be made to live in fear of an agency which has repeatedly argued its own infallibility in assigning patents in the face of widespread evidence to the contrary. The simple fact is that the market, not the courts should decide what providers prosper and what providers fail. Establishing monopolies out of the sheer act of provision is antithetical to everything we've learned about writing quality software, encouraging quality business, or even running a quality society.

    The time allotment on a software patent is nothing more than a red herring. If somebody points a gun at me, and threatens to shoot me in the head, I am not going to try to negotiate for a less vital organ to be shot, or perhaps that the bullet could be of a lesser caliber. I'm going to fight, or I'm going to run, but I'm *not* going to stand there and agree that it's OK for me to get shot.

    Accepting software patents, no matter how obvious they may be, for "not that long of a time" simply means that the jackpot for the patent claimjumpers has a quicker payoff.

    This is the wrong direction to move in. Period. Remember, the status quo is that, for the most part, software patents do not exist. They are only defensively registered. Preventing the need for such a hidden tax is critical.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  • Wow, straight talk, no marketing double-talk (Score:5)

    by weave ( 48069 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @06:05AM (#1208637) Journal
    Wow, what a refreshing read. RMS goes straight to the point, says what he wants to see, and that's it.

    And he's right. Amazon is the agreesor. He even agrees that holding software patents is a necessary evil.

    O'reilly's messages were long winded marketing double-speak. You know, Amazon and O'reilly need each other. One makes the (damn good) books, the other sells 'em . They are not going to screw one of their sources or distributors too much.

    RMS is right. Amazon should state that they will stop using patents as a first-strike weapon. Until then, no coder is safe out there....

  • RMS is right, and a few thoughts (Score:5)

    by lance_link ( 97462 ) on Sunday March 12, 2000 @05:42AM (#1208638)
    RMS is right. I could quibble with his wording, but his basic point is spot-on: the political goal of substantive patent reform requires sustained pressure. A continued boycott campaign - that is, half boycott, half outreach to explain the hows and whys of the boycott - will help Amazon (not just Bezos) focused on following through.

    There's no question that the ideals, methods, and social networks of the OS movement have an intense political potential. Some of that expresses itself in derivative ways, for example, by forcing businesses to reexamine their financial assumption, therefore act differently, therefore affecting employee/buyer/vendo, practices - "trickle-down" social impact. But even more important is to find ways to express those ideals, methods, and networks directly beyond the field of software.

    A lot of that goes on already, but the more the merrier.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close