Jeff Bezos' Open Letter On Patents 206
Several people, including Tim O'Reilly, the progenitor of this Amazon Letter Patent Discussion wrote to point out that Jeff Bezos has written an open letter on patents. It's a pretty cogent and intelligent letter which gives a defense of their patents, but also calls for software patent reform. Tim has written a follow-up letter already.
Patents etc. (Score:2)
Contact your senators. Contact their staff - these are the folks who appprove appointments. Make sure that patent office and patent commissioner appointments are not a rubber-stamp process. 'nuff said!
Bezos etc are symptoms, not the problem (Score:1)
The point that Bezos makes that I do disagree with is that the Patent Office is doing ok with the regulations and the resources that they have. Even given that they don't have much, they seem to be doing a pretty poor job, IMHO.
Too scared (Score:1)
Plus Amazon has spent a lot of money saying they are right, and to change face and say they were wrong would be a total waste of the money.
Patents and Copyrights (Score:1)
Mixed emotions: (Score:2)
Watching a bus-load of patent lawyers plunge off a cliff.
With five empty seats.
Very impressed. (Score:4)
I got a good feeling from reading this letter. Both at how much sway Tim O'Reily has, and at how much possible sway Jeff Bezos could have. The whole patent issue could be made much better because Amazon was called to the carpet on their One-click patent. Despite how upset I've been about this issue, I'm willing to give Jeff the time to get working on this and will back him and Tim up on this.
Bravo, Jeff. Good job.
"Fast patents" are a great idea. (Score:5)
As a tech savvy developer, I've had numerous ideas for Internet services that could be very profitable and beneficial to companies and individuals, but that weren't practical to implement. Why? Because although the idea was to offer an innovative service, without protection from competition, if there's not a hugely significant technical barrier to entry, there would be nothing to stop the giant "real world" companies whom I would be competing against from stomping me with their brand identity or somebody like AOL or Microsoft stomping me with tying agreements and sweetheart deals in other market segments to attract customers.
Given that I'd be crushed, I won't invest the sweat. But those big companies aren't thinking of the ideas on their own, and the public suffers from not having these services available. I'm sure many of us have had ideas like this. It's very similar to what happened to Netscape. They were lucky, though, and nobody realized what was going on until they had a great brand identity. Nowadays, although the Internet is far from tapped out on great ideas, there's such intense scrutiny that nothing goes unnoticed long enough to get a chance to grow with out some protection.
Although it looks like patents are being mostly used by big companies to bully little guys around, with a "fast patents" process they could actually help encourage diversity and the growth of new small players on the business Internet.
Re:Very impressed. (Score:2)
More confusing? (Score:2)
Jeff is very well spoken. He is one of the best spoken CEO's that I have listened to to date. There was just something that made me uneasy about the article that I can't put my finger on. Maybe it was just the sudden shift with the pat on the back that says "you're right, we didn't do this quite right, so run along now and we'll make sure that it gets taken care of."
Tim OTOH doesn't really seem interested in compromising. He's excited to go to Washington and lobby, but he doesn't quite seem convinced that change is enough.
The whole bit with Business method patents is abso freaking EVIL. I need to run down and file my patent on selling fruit from a cart near the corner of busy intersections...
chris
--grr more workday lost to thinking about stuff on slashdot, must be time for a cigarette.
very reasonable (Score:5)
No, Amazon needs to be able to show to investors a list of assets. Normally, companies put "profits" down as one of those assets, but in the internet world profits are as alien as WarEZ d00dz getting a date. So, they have to make do with assets like "public goodwill" "brand image" and, of course, patents. After all, patents "prove" that you have a technological edge over your competition.
Hey, I work for an Internet startup, and I know the pressures that exist there. Our investors want us to patent our software all the time. I'd much rather open-source it. Result: deadlock. But Bezos doesn't have that luxury, so he has to make statements like this.
Just my $.02
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Proposed 3-5 year software patents is great. (Score:3)
Tim's letter basically says that he now recognizes that the Amazon patents to represent innovative and unique claims (please read his letter to see why), however he still believes all software patents are bad.
I disagree with Tim. The main problem I have with software patents is a) the obviousness of some of them, and b) the 17 year time span. I think the if they lasted 3 years that would be acceptable. It would also help open-source by encouraging people to open up their truly innovative algorythms.
Jeff Bezos and Amazon are a company big enough to cause change, and since the represent the industry (as opposed to whiners saying "I deserver this."), I think patent reform could be just around the corner. If Amazon starts acting on these ideas, I will no longer participate in the boycott.
--Eric Guenterberg
mavpion@badspammers.usa.net
(I usually post from home where my browser's cookie is set)
What would have been nice. (Score:2)
That would have been so honorable... Instead, I'm not sure exactly what he was telling us... Like, if he goes to congress and they say no, they're going to let patents last for 20 years, does that mean he's going to hold onto affiliate programs and one-click ordering for the duration of time, or what?
A step in a new direction (Score:1)
I believe one thing is true; if Amazon had just decided not to enforce its patents, not a whole lot would have changed. It's possible that this may be a first step towards a better situation.
I still think that Amazon's patent should not be valid in the first place. On the other hand, it is inevitable that stupid patents will be granted, and it is unlikely that all software patents will be eliminated. At least the proposed changes would help the situation immensely.
Fast patent troubles (Score:3)
1) A large company is going to be able to capitalize on a new idea faster than a startup. By the time the average startup gets moving, a 2-5 year patent would be half gone.
2) These days, it usually takes years for the patent to be issued in the first place.
do we need incentives? (Score:2)
Comments on his Overhaul (Score:5)
1. Software is different. Yes it is.
2. 3-5 year patents. OK if that's how he feels then when his patents become that old he should drop them. He can seek damages for sstuff B&N did before his patent expired, but he really should give them up when he thinks others should.
3. Retroactive lifespan. I don't think this would work. People applied for a patent expecting it to last 17 years. Now it doesn't? I think that would be kinda unfair. Yes the patents are probably also unfair. This would be akin to selling someone a 36" tv for $50, then giving them a 16" tv.
4. Early Comments. This would be sticky. And I really think the USPTO would have problems. Along with those who would be applying for the patent. If my patent application is rejected, then I can still develop it in secret. However, that secret would be out of the bag in this case. I think a better idea would be for the USPTO to hire more computer minded people. I'm not sure who is reveiwing these patents now, but I somewhat doubt they're using all the tools available to them before they approve a patent.
-cpd
Amazon vs. the Lesbians (Score:4)
PS: No updates on GNU's Boycott Amazon [gnu.org] page yet...
Re:Bezos etc are symptoms, not the problem (Score:3)
When I read this, I automatically appended "We will only enforce the patent on our largest competitors." Given the fact that they have already obtained a temporary injunction against bn.com from using a similar system, that seems somewhat justified.
I agree with Jeff that, if they didn't patent it, someone else would. Also, obtaining a patent on a business model is a lot easier than establishing legal prior use, but the point remains the same: Predatory business practices are not the way to go. The best businesses will survive on their own, others will fall by the wayside.
I am impressed by Jeff's response, though. I hope he and Tim succeed in their push for USPTO reform.
Eric
Re:Too scared (Score:3)
-B
get rid of 'business method' patents (Score:3)
Weren't these innovative ideas for their time?
To me, these are exact parallels to Amazon's 1-click patent, only Amazon managed to get a patent.
Re:Looks good to me. (Score:4)
There has been no resolution to this matter. All that has happened is that Jeff Bezos has shown that he understands the issues and is willing to work to correct the problems. But he still holds the patents and is enforcing them.
Before I will go back to shopping at Amazon I need more than this. Here are two suggestions.
Bezos can show that he is truly serious by announcing that Amazon will not now or ever enforce that one click patent. He can keep and enforce any other patents he has.
Alternately, Bezos can announce that he will only enforce Amazon patents for three years. After which anyone can use them.
But until he does something like this it's all just talk.
Cut the crap and toe the line.
A pretty chilling statement. Should we just rollover anytime we disagree with something? In my real world I work to change things for (what I believe is) the better.
Steve M
Re:very reasonable (Score:2)
I wish I could agree with you, but, in fact, this is precisely what Amazon did -- they sued Barnesandnoble.com (and got a restraining order issued against them) in the height of last year's holiday buying season. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Bezos's point of view if he hadn't gone on the offensive with his patent. As it is, I feel that I have to continue with the boycott.
After the ton of shit we poured on his head (Score:1)
Maybe it's another popularity trick- of course the online community will cheer up when a "high-profile" company proposes easing the situation of software patents.
Last, The 3-5 years proposal is still a proposal on HAVING software patents. I think trademarks are generally reasonable in the computer industry, but software patents (same for business models) does not seem right.
Re:Too scared (Score:2)
To put this in a way you may understand better:
What happened to Obi Wan Kenobe when he turned off his lightsaber?
No matter what shenanigans Amazon has pulled thus far, I don't want to see them get their asses handed to them by B&N.
Re:Anyone See The Fluff CNN Piece... (Score:2)
He drives an old car, lives in a modest house, and his office boasts a ratty chair and a desk made from a door.
Granted, he's richer than God -- but that alone doesn't make a person snobby. Consider what the man actually says.
3-5 yrs is still too long (Score:1)
Not the patent examiners fault? (Score:5)
Yeah, we saw something about that, but you have to realize, the examiner of
the application had something like 8-12 hours to research the application,
perhaps write a rejection, answer the attorney's arguments and decide
whether information found in their research suggested that someone do what
the application claims to be novel or inventive (no one had suggested doing
it). As former patent examiners of 10 years (my wife and I), I can safely
say that none of the examiners have enough time than to give a patent the
"presumption of validity" that the law says it has. I doubt there was any
"abuse" of the patent office by Amazon, only abuse of the patent examiners
and the public by the Patent Office.
Perhaps the people in charge of the office, setting the policy, and making the schedule should be blamed, rather than those poor saps doing the work. We bitch about examiner ineptitude, but maybe the problem lies with those appointed bureaucrats that CAN be affected by negative politics. Start writing those letters!
Re:Looks good to me. (Score:1)
But your point in being in this discussion is just to stir things up, isn't it?
Re:More confusing? (Score:2)
That's what prior art is for. But if you really and truly invented a new method of doing business, then it would be worthy of a patent. Imagine that someone invents a radically new method of selling sprockets such that customers get better sprockets and more are sold. No-one has ever even conceived of such a sprocket in the past. This is genuinely new work. This fellow deserves to profit from it for a short while. That is why we have business method profits.
You always see people thinking that it is possible to patent anything. It's not; you can only patent new things. The real problem is that the USPO is not as good as it should be at ferreting out prior art. The proposed public commentary period should help.
As an example, Sun has a patent on online dictionary lookups originally made by Jakob Nielsen. There must be a huge amount of prior art; CS profs have been assigning such things for decades, I should think. That patent should have been denied.
But something new (e.g. the Amazon Associates program) deserves a few years of protection before the competition can run away with it.
Remember that patents are meant to give a company an opportunity to establish a foothold and to make some profits. After they expire, then anyone can use the patented tech. In some ways, it's a primitive Ghostscript license...
Re:Too scared (Score:2)
My one simple suggestion was this: drop the suit. Use the patent if you must to cover your ass (so someone else doesn't come and sue you for infringement on something dumb like this), but don't use it to bash a competitor.
Jeff, just drop the suit. That's all I ask. Then, I can start buying books from Amazon again (and there are a bunch I want to buy).
--Corey
Re:Looks good to me. (Score:4)
I don't see any freely downloadable books at oreilly.com
Did you look? How about Open Sources [oreilly.com]? Or Using Samba [oreilly.com]? Don't forget Learning Debian GNU/Linux. [oreilly.com] Maybe even Docbook: The Definitive Guide [docbook.org]? (The latter is an O'Reilly book, but the downloadable version is hosted elsewhere.)
--
Time Magazine Man of the Year (Score:3)
Re:Too scared? Bullshit! (Score:1)
Wrong, grasshopper. Amazon has a preliminary injunction against B&N. As others have pointed out, this means the judge thinks Amazon will prevail at trial. Even with their vast resources, B&N couldn't find any prior art which called the 1-click patent into question.
So, while you may disagree with the current patent system, Amazon's legal position with respect to their 1-click patent is very strong.
Re:very reasonable (Score:1)
Re:very reasonable (Score:2)
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Jeff, Make It So (Score:3)
Thanks for the letter. It is refreshing to see that someone understands the issues and is willing to work to fix the system.
That said, I will continue to shop elsewhere until such time that you put your money, or should I say patents, where you mouth is.
In order to show that you are really serious about this I propose that you do one or both of the following.
Suggestion number one, announce that you will not enforce the one click patent. You can keep and enforce any other patents. This is the most high profile patent you have, and will send a strong message to everyone involved that you really mean what you say about reform.
Alternatively, you can announce that you will only enforce your business method and software patents for 3 to 5 years (you choose). You don't even have to do it retroactively. Put up a web page showing the patents you hold and the date you will let them expire. Again this will send a clear message that you are serious about this.
For the second option I suggest that you invite others to follow your lead. In addition to a prior art database there could also be a database of voluntary patent expiration dates.
Thanks again Jeff, and I look forward to your taking action.
Steve M
Re:Too scared (Score:2)
What happened to Obi Wan Kenobe when he turned off his lightsaber?
He became more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Illiad still has it right... (Score:2)
Can't help but get a giggle out of this cartoon...
Re:Fast patent troubles (Score:2)
You don't have much experience with large companies, do you?
The startup will be in second round-financing or bust before the large company has got enough managers to agree to approve a costing for a feasibility study into a pilot project.
Generally they prefer to let the start-ups do the risk-taking and buy the successful ones.
Re:Bezos etc are symptoms, not the problem (Score:1)
I see this as an abuse of a system that is currently in bad repiar.
When I read this, I automatically appended "We will only enforce the patent on our largest competitors." Given the fact that they have already obtained a temporary injunction against bn.com from using a similar system, that seems somewhat justified.
I agree that if Amizon didn't do it somebody else would, but I find it hard to stomach. It is little more than a legal smoke screen to stall B&N on-line sales for the time being. I find it to be a shady business practice and as a result I seek out other on-line book sellers {*}....
Re:Too scared (Score:1)
Re:Too scared? Bullshit! (Score:1)
Wrong, grasshopper. Amazon has a preliminary injunction against B&N.
How is this wrong? Just because Amazon is legally right doesn't mean that they are really right. I think the original poster meant that Jeff should know that 1-click is a patent which is wrong in principle and should not be enforced. I don't know if I exactly agree with that, but I wouldn't call it wrong based on what a judge says.
Almost there... (Score:1)
I will support him however I might in his attempts at patent reform, and I applaud all of our community for pushing amazon on this issue... I don't think he would've about-faced like this if we hadn't gotten so outraged, and I applaud Tim for pushing him over the top.
<b>HOWEVER</b> it's not enough. I hate to say it, but it's just not enough. Jeff has committed to fixing a bad situation, but it's more akin to "oh, nobody else should do this but it's ok for us to do it". Bull. I think we should continue to hold his toes to the fire until he agrees to stop using his (admittedly) ridiculous patents offensively against <i>any</i> competitor. If he's truly contrite and truly committed, he should live by those principles instead of just trying to enforce those principles on everyone else.
If Jeff does have the guts to make a total about-face and admit that Amazon was wrong in the first place, I think he has the potential to get a HUGE amount of support from this community. He could end up scrambling out of this deep pile of shit he fell in and still smell like a rose, and he could then be held up as an example of "corporate ethics" to everyone else. I think he has the potential to really gather a lot of momentum and a lot of support, he just needs to close the loop.
None of that takes away from the fact that his open letter was full of good ideas that deserve lots of consideration and support, but his open letter doesn't take away from the fact that his company is still abusing the current patent system either.
-- Gary F.
Re:Very impressed. (Score:5)
of course you do. you were supposed to. Do you think the CEO of a gazillion dollar company posts letters on a website that he wrote by himself? Ha! Regularly, lawyers and marketing people are excoriated as clueless on Slashdot. This proves that they are not: they've written a nicey-nice little puff piece so all the saps in the world can say, "Hey, they feel our pain! Call off the boycott!"
Do you know how hard it would be to get the patent laws changed in this way? It would take far more lobbying and bags of cash (sprinkled internationally, I might add) than Amazon has, even if they did want to push the issue. He's calling for something he knows will never happen. His marketing people got the idea from the book, "How to look like a nice guy without actually being a nice guy." It's available on Amazon, I think.
All to draw attention away from the fact that what cookies do is match up the person with the browser with the session with the server. That's what cookies do. I've worked on dozens of projects that used cookies in this way. And, most every time, we had a discussion of when we should ask for the user's password again. We already knew who they were, but fearing cookie compromises and concerned about the user's security, we would decide on certain occasions to make the user prove who they were. At Amazon, they decided not to. They decided that the cookie was good enough. They decided to call this compromise of user security "one-click". But, isn't it obvious that "one-click" was obvious to anyone who thought about what cookies do?
Wow! He sounds like one of us (Score:5)
I also read the first four hundred or so responses to Tim's summary of our conversation -- these too were helpful.
First of all thanks to all the people who either emailed Amazon or posted on Tim's website our voice was heard. Who says mass protests don't work (as long as they are constructive).
Unlike with trademark law, where you must continuously enforce your trademark or risk losing it, patent law allows you to enforce a patent on a case-by-case basis, only when there are important business reasons for doing so.
I stated before in earlier posts here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] the competition between Barnes & Noble and Amazon has lead both companies to do unsavory things (B&N moreso) but this was the first time a fight between both companies threatened an entire industry (actually B&N may have become a book industry monopoly if not for Amazon so maybe that isn't completely true) . I strongly beleive that when Jeff Bezos was acquiring this patent he saw it merely as a way to get back at B&N for all the things they had done (such as copying every Amazon innovation [wired.com] as quickly as possible).
But I do think we can help. As a company with some high-profile software patents, we're in a credible position to call for meaningful (perhaps even radical) patent reform. In fact, we may be uniquely positioned to do this.
This is where he starts sounding like one of us. I wholeheartedly agree with this observation and cannot thank Tim 'O reilly and all those who sent emails and posted on Tim's page enough for clearly elucidating why the patent was so wrong and convincing Jeff Bezos' of this.
Much (much, much, much) remains to be worked out, but here's an outline of what I have in mind: 1. That the patent laws should recognize that business method and software patents are fundamentally different than other kinds of patents.
Even though this seems like a no-brainer it's going to be difficult to push this through. Lots of companies exist solely because of business model patents and would fight tooth and nail (i.e. lobby and throw money around) to make sure this doesn't come to pass. I'm sure the priceline CEO will be pretty nervous and pissed off after reading this.
2. That business method and software patents should have a much shorter lifespan than the current 17 years -- I would propose 3 to 5 years.
Yep, the priceline.com CEO would be really agitated reading this.
This isn't like drug companies, which need long patent windows because of clinical testing, or like complicated physical processes, where you might have to tool up and build factories.
Comments like this are why I believe every CEO and industry leader should read slashdot, if they did the world (at least the software industry) would trult be a better place. I'm glad Jeff Bezos finally realized what we have been saying on Slashdot about how ridiculous the current length of software patents is...imagine there are still valid patents on Atari & Intellivision games and innovations.
3. That when the law changes, this new lifespan should take effect retroactively so that we don't have to wait 17 years for the current patents to enter the public domain.
I hadn't even thought of this but it's a great idea. No more priceline.com monopoly, no more Dell patents on building to order lasting forever, and no more patents on electronic programming guides (a square grid with the names of programs in it) lasting longer than the job expectancy of the board of directors and CEO of the company.
4. That for business method and software patents there be a short (maybe 1 month?) public comment period before the patent number is issued.
Waaay to short, it'd never fly. this is where Jeff starts sounding like an AC on slashdot and proposing extreme measures.
This To this end, I've already contacted the offices of several Members of Congress from the committees with primary responsibility for patents to ask if they would be willing to meet with me on this issue
...
I've also invited Tim O'Reilly to attend any such meetings with me. Thanks Tim you've done us a great service. Nothing like getting Time's man of the year on our side to get congress to sit up and notice that something is wrong with the USPTO.
Re:Very impressed. (Score:2)
Sure he is influential but he's not "Bill Gates".
Exactly, and you wouldn't ever catch Billy-boy doing anything like what Tim is doing. I think that somebody with some degree of prominence needed to get the ball rolling. Tim is a good one to get things started. Jeff Bezos would be great to have as a supporter simply because he's so well-known now.
Re:Fast patent troubles (Score:3)
If both you and Jeff Bezos came up with the exact same idea at the exact same time, who do you suppose would have it in front of a million web-surfers first?
Re:Patents etc. (Score:4)
Welcome to the world where bad things happen.
An analogy may elucidate: here in the UK teachers continually get criticised because "they are not teaching the children properly". This is probably valid criticism in many cases. Now teaching is not an exciting job, and for any competent professional it is definitely in the lower quartile of the salary range. The result: no one, unless they have a strong ambition to teach, will become a teacher, which results in a lot of those who are teachers are teachers because they couldn't find anything else to do.
Patent offices have a similar problem, except worse: some people grow up wanting to be a teacher; no one grows up wanting to be a patent clerk. Anyone who can do anything else well will be doing it.
So what is the solution. I don't know. I have a feeling that something like peer review would be good. I've not thought this through, so feel free to pick holes in it, but a system like
A provisional patent is published - paper, web, everything.
Any one can comment on it. The idea is that before a patent is granted people have a chance to put forward prior art (as opposed to a single patent examiner having to find it in secret). Strict timelimits will apply. All comments will be public.
Based on prior art/comments received, the patent examiner can provisionally grant or reject the patent - if anybody objects to his decision the patent should go to some sort of patent court to decide. If nobody complains then it is a done deal.
This gets rid of the major complaint against the current system - patent examiners being incompetent. They will rely on the expertise of others and just become arbiters.
To be /. friendly think of it as open sourcing the patent review process: anyone can contribute.
A clue (Score:2)
Business vs. software patents (Score:3)
I know that what I am about to say has been said before, but I feel compelled as a future patent lawyer to put my two cents in. A fundamental distinction must be made between software and business method patents. This is the one critical concept that Jeff Bezos and others overlook in this discussion. Bezos, at almost every point in his open letter, groups the two patents as if they cover identical subject matter. This is not the case.
Software patents are important because they govern the ownership and usage of actual bits of code, rather than a vague idea of what a computer program should do or how a business should behave. The business method patents, on the other hand, purport to lay ownership to a behavior or idea rather than the actual method itself.
I would not take issue with amazon.com patenting the actual code required to execute their particular implemention of a one-click style program, assuming that there is no prior art. On the other hand, it would seem that the patent in question covers simply the idea of the one-click program. Not a good idea. First, even if the business method patent was valid, there is substantial prior art among the catalog and mail order companies. Second, the idea that a business or a person can own a behavior or vague idea is at best flawed, and at worst morally reprehensible. Imagine if Ford attempted to patent selling cars. Admitedly, this is an extreme example, but not by much.
The patent law does not need to be reformed, necessarily, but some modicum of intelligence needs to be applied in order to determine which patents are good and which are not.
Re:Impressionable? (Score:5)
Actually, he's saying a little bit more than that. He's also saying, "We're not going to shoot ourselves in the foot because we don't believe the law is exactly right. We're going to work at making our IP less valuable, but only if it'll make everybody else's less valuable as well."
This is all about a level playing field, and as much money as Amazon is losing, they need one. Remember, IBM is the biggest software patent holder out there and we celebrate when they submit a patch to Apache. At least Bezos is talking about going in the right direction on this. If it turns out to be empty promises, we'll all know and this will have done him harm. I don't think Jeff would be willing to ruin his reputation with so many geeks for a short term gain in popularity.
Re:Very impressed. (Score:2)
That said, Tim has most likely dealt with a large range of people and can probably spot a snake, given enough time. I'm going to have to wait this one out to see how Tim feels about it in a couple months.
I definitely agree about the 1-click. It's LESS secure, that's why folks don't use it. (shameless and only moderately relevant dig) Hey, let's patent an encryption scheme that's easy to crack...doh, the DVD consortium beat us to it.
Re:Impressionable? (Score:2)
--Crush
I don't get this, at all. (Score:3)
FACT: Amazon sued over a trivially stupid patent.
That's all there is to it. They spam, they lie, they get bogus patents, and, despite anything they've said, they have *SUED* people for "infringing" on those patents.
What's with the huge emotional investment in finding a way to pretend Amazon isn't really evil? The fact is, they did exactly what we've all said we hate. They've invented new ways (purchase circles) to reveal personal information. They've filed for patents they knew were bogus, they've sued people, and then they've pretended it was a "purely defensive" patent. Sorry, but suing someone isn't "purely defensive".
People are so happy that this is resolved. What's resolved? You've verified that if, every few months, thousands of you write them letters, they will cut down on abusive practices, give you a blatantly false explanation of why they did them in the first place, and then go right ahead and find another thing to screw up.
Face it, they're playing you. They *KNOW* we're all big on "e-commerce" and we want them to succeed, and that means we'll keep watching them like hawks and feel like somehow we should have to put up with this.
You can't trust someone that needs to be slapped down this often for abuses. Go back a few years and watch the Amazon people staunchly defending their right to send email to people who never asked for it. Watch them slowly cave in to pressure, a lot of it applied by their upstream, who have *DISCONNECTED* companies who sent that many unsolicited messages, even to "customers".
Amazon will continue testing your limits to see what they can get away with. As long as you keep pretending it's all okay if they back down occasionally, they'll keep pushing.
What's humourous about patents. (Score:4)
4. That for business method and software patents there be a short (maybe 1 month?) public comment period before the patent number is issued. This would give the Internet community the opportunity to provide prior art references to the patent examiners at a time when it could really help. (Thanks to my friend Brewster Kahle for this suggestion.)
and
On a related issue, to further try to help with the prior art problem, I've also agreed to help fund a prior art database. This was Tim's idea, and I'm grateful for it. Tim is poking around to find the right people to run with that project.
Now be real, has anyone here not heard these items repeatedly out of many people? I swear to god, as much as I think Tim is a really cool guy if I hear him called "the inventor of the prior art database", I'm going to barf.
And that's the problem. Patents don't go to inventors or innovators. They go to the first rich person with enough lawyers. That's where the patent office went wrong.
In a related humor note, I'm considering getting a trademark just so I can deal with ICANN. It may be worth it at this rate. The new rules indicate to me that if they ever do create .per or .sum TLDs anyone who's hasn't trademarked their name is screwed.
-----
Re:Amazon vs. the Lesbians (Score:2)
Since there are a lot of people out there who frankly don't understand computers and the internet AT ALL, there are a number of people who call information (like 411) and ask for the amazon website/bookstore, not understanding that amazon.com is not an actual store somewhere. So of course the search that the 411 operator comes up with gives them this amazon bookstore in Minneapolis. Even if a very very tiny percent of the nation does this, it doesn't take much to get the phones ringing off the hook and overwhelming the staff at this small bookstore.
BEZOS -- STOP TALKING AND ACT! (Score:3)
I've never faulted Amazon for obtaining the patents -- many companies have even stupider patents for defensive purposes only...For that situation, I blame the USPTO. But for Amazon to keep suing Barnes and Noble while fighting for patent reform is, well, patently absurd. Pun intended.
I don't know what to say... (Score:3)
The "fast patents" idea is good to start. I still don't believe software should be patentable at all, but this is good as a stepping-stone to that end. Unfortunately, the idea about making the patents retroactive isn't a good idea, simply because it cannot be done (any retroactive law is by definition unconstitutional).
The one-month review period is a great idea, though I'd extend it to two months at least. The only problem is that we need a forum for this sort of thing. Slashdot won't do for that purpose; the patent office needs to set it up and run it (they're the ones who'll be using it, anyway).
Frankly, barring the fast patent idea, I'd make patents a "use it or lose it" deal. The idea is that if you do not use anything containing a given patent for some period of time (3 years?), and at the end of those three years you have not announced a release date for something using that patent (which must be within one year), then the patent expires immediately. The idea behind this is to keep corporations from sitting on patents (that is, buying up patents for various processes and then never using them; the oil industry especially has done this for years with patents concerning alternative energy sources). This one would apply to patents in general, not simply software. The rationale behind it is that patents were designed so that a person or corporation could make money off of innovations. If they no longer make money from the innovations (or never did at all), they should not be allowed to hold the patent that they are not using.
Ideas? Opinions? Angry rants?
Patent reforms (Score:2)
a) Disallow patents for user interfaces. The whole point of a patent is to encourage inventors to share ideas that they would otherwise keep secret. Since you can't possibly keep a user interface secret without rendering it useless, there's nothing to be gained by granting a patent for one.
b) Allow a grace period between sudmission and publication of the patent, to give others a chance to independently invent the product. For example, the process might go as follows:
1) Inventor submits patent application. It's not even necessary for the patent office to examine the application at this point, the inventor could just send in a digitally signed hash of the patent.
2) After a length of time of the inventor's choosing, he instructs the patent office to examine and publish the application. If the idea is still original, the inventor gets his patent, for a length of time equal to the time he waited. If not, the patent is null and void. This way, good ideas automatically get longer patents than bad ones.
Re:I don't get this, at all. (Score:2)
What you don't realize is that Amazon's one chance at profitability is to stay ahead of the people with a lot more money and a lot less innovation and geek-friendliness. Fast patents are a way to do this.
Remember, so far they've filed one suit, against Barnes and Noble. Is that the company who's side you want to take? Try emailing the president of Barnes and Noble about their business practices, and see what kind of response you get.
I think a lot of people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Jeff Bezos has shown he's willing to at least talk, and that's a heck of a lot more than anybody else. Let's see what comes out of this.
Another way to improve the system (Score:2)
The difficulty is that even with invalidating art in hand, the standard of proof by "clear and convincing evidence," is virtually impossible to meet in practice before a jury. Given the complexity of the law alone, and informed that if they waver in any sense as to their convictions, they must find for the plaintiff, your average juror will invariably find the patent valid, regardless of the facts of any particular case.
This makes it practically impossible for a small or mid-sized business to defend a case based upon prior art invalidity, and commercially infeasible for a well-heeled company to do so, unless the subject matter is core or critical to its business.
My suggestion is that when invalidating prior art was not considered by the PTO, and raises a substantial new question of patentability, then the clear and convincing standard be relaxed to the more common "preponderance of the evidence" standard. In all other cases, the present "clear and convincing" standard would apply.
This would continue to protect sound patents. However, when new and invalidating prior art raising issues not considered during examination is found, the art will raise a significant and meaningful deterrent against the bullying practices that have now become so common in the industry.
A Barnes and Nobles or an Amazon can realistically expect to see a case through its appeal. A small or mid-sized business may barely be able to afford to bring a case through trial. This proposal makes it possible to obtain a just result when bad patents are asserted, while continuing to provide proper protections for patentees asserting sound patents.
the dreaded word (Score:2)
There is one aspect of this that we have forgotten about (although Bezos indirectly hints at it in his latter) : lobbyist.
No doubt, if this plan for shorter software patents gets off the ground, major players such as IBM will begin to lobby heavily in their behalf. We're going to have to respond at some point with a little lobbying of our own.
This might be one bit of overhead that's worth the investment now. (Better than having to ask a lawyer 24/7, "Can I do this?" "Can I do this?").
Show me don't tell me! (Score:4)
Amazon has been granted a patent for using cookie-based authentication. This is not original! Amazon has abused this patent and improperly stifled innovation on the internet by aggressively suing their competition who also use cookies for authentication.
Jeff goes on and on about saying how the patent system should be changed, but he ignores his own company's role in the patent abuse. Jeff says that he is forced to do this because of an obligation to his shareholders.
I will continue to boycott Amazon.com and urge others to do so until Amazon stops their patent abuse. Maybe if enough people know that actions count, not words, the "shareholders" will weigh the bad press against the benefits of suing B&N, and back off.
It's that simple. Don't make a nice speech- drop the suit.
I dislike the implication that Bezos is merely a spokesman for the shareholders and can't effectively lead amazon's patent policies. Does one become a "Man of the Year" for being an executive servant?
Re:Too scared (Score:3)
-B
This case was recently settled... (Score:3)
actually, i'm suprised that slashdot didn't do this story
Re:"Fast patents" are a great idea. (Score:2)
A patent is good for one year, but may be renewed as many times as you want, BUT the cost to renew doubles each time
Just how much is that patent worth to you?
Are patents really useful? (Score:2)
So what would happen if corporations didn't have the limited protection of the patent system? Would they all, or most, or even many, just stop investing in innovation or invention? I think not. It's a mean, ugly marketplace out there, and these days those who do not offer constant innovation wither and die. I think patents are irrelevant to the rate of corporate innovation, which is just about all commercial innovation. This may not be true for pharmaceutical companies, but it is certainly true for software,
Note that I personally doubt that we could get that to fly, politically, but that may be the actual optimal situation, at least in theory, if we want to encourage innovation.
Any counter opinions or additional thoughts (with reasons, please)?
Patents on Fast Patent? (Score:2)
-jon
Re:Very impressed. (Score:2)
By the way, beyond your silly cynicism...
We already knew who they were, but fearing cookie compromises and concerned about the user's security, we would decide on certain occasions to make the user prove who they were. [...] They decided to call this compromise of user security "one-click".
At least try and know what your talking about. One-click has to be enabled by the user, and is disabled by default.
--
Re:What's humourous about patents. (Score:2)
God Almighty! (Score:2)
Stay hard.
Re:Looks good to me. (Score:2)
Jeff, you got me listening, which I didn't think would happen. Keep talking. PLEASE talk to politicians about this, the public doesn't know the system is broke, or how this harms them. With the internet hype factor, and a couple more voices (Larry? you out there?), this is the best hope I've seen for rational political dialog on these topics. Otherwise, you'll soon find yourself on both sides of these issues so often, you'll be praying to your laywers before you go to sleep at night.
Bad for the little companies (Score:2)
void recursion (void)
{
recursion();
}
while(1) printf ("infinite loop");
if (true) printf ("Stupid sig quote");
Re:Very impressed. (Score:2)
The point is that you would only enable one-click on a computer that has reasonable physical security.
Other than that, there is no security problem. It's not as if you can order a bunch of books and have them sent to other than your own address. Even if someone orders a bunch of books, all you have to do is send them back.
I suppose what could happen is some l33t hacxhor could hack into his neighbor's computer, order some books (or install the cookie into his own computer, perhaps), and then intercept the package when it's delivered.
Fortunately, my world is happier and less paranoid than that.
--
you missed the point (Score:2)
patent stupidity and patent obviousness (Score:2)
oh, so you know why I believe what I believe? Look who is talking about throwing unfounded accusations around! Hypocrisy is fine in my book, but one should refrain from illustrating it in the same sentence as an accusation :)
Here's a better explanation just to clarify:
I am pro-patent, pro-trademark, pro-copyright, pro-property rights, pro-free market, pro capitalist... heck, I'm even pro-corporatist, to use that stupid neologism that's been floating around Slashdot. But I'm anti-bullshit. I like my capitalism straight up.
What you detected in my original post was not cynicism, it was disgust. I want the cynics to call Amazon on the bullshit so that I can be the one to defend intellectual property theory. But instead, apparently because we get to call them Tim and Jeff, everybody's turned into a pussycat. O'Reilly offered in his own public statements to help Amazon craft a response that would be publicly palatable. Then, matchy-matchy letters are published on the two websites the same day... they admit to long phone calls. You don't have to be a cynic to call that carefully crafted. I didn't have to make up their collusion.
And are you assuming that Bezos publishes letters like that without having his lawyers and PR people help? Such a course would risk a blunder and a huge shareholder lawsuit. And I know that not because I'm a cynic, but because I've actually studied corporate law at the graduate level. I suppose that makes me more academically successful than you so we should look askance at any objections you might have (your view, not mine).
The process that the patent describes was obvious to a practitioner. So what if they were the first to think of it? So what if Barnes & Noble copied them? Copying good ideas is not against the rules. Why don't Bezos and O'Reilly discuss the obviousness aspect? Because they are stupid? I don't think so. I think I'm being complimentary when I "accuse" them of being smart enough to think of it, and smart enough to leave it out of the discussion. And I'm smart enough not to let them.
Dear Patent Office, Barnes and Noble had a one-click-to-order-system, that fed into a one-click-to-confirm. They dropped the click to confirm. How can stopping doing something be considered patentable?
And furthermore, in a point that's been previously made, what computers do abstractly, and GUIs make more obvious to dumb users (the TB's of the world) is they allow real things to be virtualized. As soon as computers were invented we started getting metaphors for real life. They are all obvious to practitioners of the art. This one-click system is simply the "put it on my tab" system made virtual, just as the shopping cart metaphor before it. They are all obvious if you have a couple of synapses to rub together.
Re:I don't get this, at all. (Score:2)
Do I want to take B&N's side?
WHAT DOES THAT MATTER?
If patent abuse is wrong, *IT IS WRONG NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE TRYING TO USE IT AGAINST*.
Double standards are wrong. Very wrong. If I wouldn't want B&N to be able to do this to Amazon, I'd damn well better not think it's okay if Amazon does it to B&N.
Re:Show me don't tell me! (Score:3)
Re:What's humourous about patents. (Score:2)
Read it again. Jeff is not claiming Tim invented such a thing; he's saying it was Tim's idea was that Jeff should help to pay for one. Duh.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Continue the Amazon Boycott (Score:2)
I'm going to continue my boycott of Amazon, after having read Jeff Bezos's comments.
What Jeff Bezos has proposed is a series of very good ideas on the subject of patent law reform, and I personally am going to write every politician I can find and spread the word about Bezos's proposals. I think they are quite sound.
But if you ask me, these proposals aren't enough from Bezos. Before I can take him at his word that he's really pushing for these changes, I need to see some proof of action. For example:
So Jeff, if you're reading this, take note: I'm going to keep telling people to boycott Amazon, and I'm going to tell them my new reasons why. But if you turn your words into actions, then I'll buy my books exclusively from Amazon unless they are simply not available there. (Right now, I'm buying from Barnes and Noble). I'll also explain to my friends why they should do this as a part of my word-of-mouth campaign. Call it a "carrot-stick boycott" :).
Re:patent stupidity and patent obviousness (Score:2)
Look who is talking about throwing unfounded accusations around!
Ok, ok, I'm sorry; I take that part back. In fact, I apologize for the tone of my other posts. There is so much stupid cynicism around here sometimes that I think I kind of snapped. :)
You don't have to be a cynic to call that carefully crafted. I didn't have to make up their collusion.
Well, you can call it "collusion" if you want, but you haven't explained why we shouldn't take them at their word: that O'Reilly and Bezos talked together, and Bezos is honestly concerned with the issue. Where's the evidence that it's some phony cover-up or something?
And are you assuming that Bezos publishes letters like that without having his lawyers and PR people help? Such a course would risk a blunder and a huge shareholder lawsuit. And I know that not because I'm a cynic, but because I've actually studied corporate law at the graduate level.
Well, having only created a couple of very successful corporations rather than having studied it in a classroom, I may be at a disadvantage. However, I can tell you that in my experience, yes, sometimes CEOs are actually human beings and not carefully scripted automatons.
That letter to me didn't read like a PR piece, it read like an honest message from someone with honest concerns about the issue. Bezos didn't have to write the letter at all. An incredibly tiny proportion of the public knows or cares about the issue at all.
In fact, by your theories, Bezos will get sued by the shareholders for calling for a short patent period, rather than fighting to keep a 17 year patent on one-click!
The bottom line is this: I see no reason to cast suspicions without any evidence. I think the old Russian saying is apt: "Trust, but verify". I'm not saying that Bezos isn't trying to pull a fast one, only that it's a little premature to build the gallows when he may honestly want to help solve the patent issue once and for all. I think it serves everyone better to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The process that the patent describes was obvious to a practitioner. So what if they were the first to think of it?
Most patents are "obvious" once you see them in practice. The Cotton Gin, which I think most would agree was a revolutionary machine worthy of a patent, was actually a very simple idea.
Now, I'm not necessarily defending one-click as a patent, but what I'm saying is that you are describing valid metrics for patents. As I understand it, "prior art" is an important part of the standard for "obviousness" (which is obviously very subjective).
--
Boycotts were successful beyond our dreams! (Score:2)
This has shown that they DID have an effect, not as a way to hurt Amazon, but as a way of voicing protest.. enough to really get Amazon's attention.
We expected to make Amazon back down from one issue. We didn't get that, but we got something better: We have, apparently, gotten Amazon to actually COME TO OUR SIDE of the issue. Someone with as much potential clout as Bezos is exactly what we need in this fight.
Now if only we could get someone to reduce copyright lifespans...
No!! Wrong!! Patent != Implementation (Score:2)
No, no, no!!! IANAL, but a software patent isn't on the implementation of it (That is copyright), but on the idea. EG: The UNISYS GIF compression patent - you can implement software that creates Gifs in many languages, some of which weren't even created when the Patent was granted, but you still need to licence the Patent.
It's not the bits you are patenting, it is the alogorithm. It's not exactly "a vague idea of what a computer program should do" - it needs to be more precice than that.
Well.... you're the soon-to-be-lawyer, but wouldn't you use copyright protection for that (as an original work)?
Re:What would have been nice. (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure what he was telling us. In fact, I ran the article through babelfish (bullshit-->english), and here's what it said:
"Ha ha! You Open Source people think you're so smart! I'll feed you this line about how we have to change the system, and very few of you will notice that I didn't say a damn thing about what we're going to do with our patent! "
If he were at all serious, he would have promised to let the 1-click patent expire in a couple years.
It really saddens me that most of
Re:Because they're good at what they do (Score:2)
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd like the long-term convenience of a network where companies behave like responsible citizens *before* people threaten to boycott them. You can have convenient books now, and doom us all to a lifetime of having to boycott someone every couple of weeks as they try some clever new way to abuse the system, or maybe you should step back a bit, think about your long-term needs, and make the push for *RESPONSIBLE* companies.
Amazon started with spam; they spent years insisting that they had the right to email any customer at any time until he said to quit it, and sometimes beyond that. They have never changed; they still think that way. You're not people to them, you're possible revenue streams, and I think you should remember this.
If it doesn't bother you, if purchase circles didn't bother you, if patent lawsuits didn't bother you, if horrible working conditions didn't bother you, if people who will outright lie to get a complainer off the phone didn't bother you, if Amazon employees posting to Usenet anonymously as "customers" defending Amazon's policies didn't bother you, well, I don't know what would.
Re:One-click is secure (Score:2)
Re: Then why so expensive? (Score:2)
--Kevin
DVD not patented (Score:2)
Which then raises the obvious question: are the 1201 anti-circumvention protections copyright-like protection of expression, or patent-like protection of ideas, and if the latter, how are they affected by decisions in MAI v. Peak and Sony v. Connectix?
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Re:patent stupidity and patent obviousness (Score:3)
When you submit an article to Slashdot, you can click "submit" or "preview". They use cookies to identify you. If you submit an article/topic, you must preview first... Did they steal the idea from Amazon? So what if there is a purchase involved? an HTTP transaction == an HTTP transaction.
I read the patent. That's all that it says.
As to my suggestion that we are reading carefully crafted PR? We are. If you take out an insurance policy on your wife, and then she dies, people are suspicious. These two guys have a very large financial interest at stake. What they wrote is not exactly hard-hitting. Festooned with distracting fluff, there are about 3 lines about IP. You call it "thoughtful". That's a buzzword for Clinton-speak, fuzzy verbiage designed to distract. It reads like, "I'm not going to let them off the hook easily, I'm going to ... let them off the hook as soon as I distract you." I could be wrong, of course. It could be totally sincere, in which case it would strike me as rather dimwitted.
Re:Comments on his Overhaul (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:2)
Do you really think it is fair that Amazon thinks of cool stuff and every single time they have a successful idea B&N steals it? I've had people do similar things to me at work and it makes me furious. B&N has an advantage to the average person (by that I mean the typical non-geek internet user) because they actually have stores so they have name recognition. Couple that with riping of every good idea Amazon has and Amazon doesn't have a chance. The point of patent law is to protect companies who have new ideas from being ripped off by copy cats like B&N and putting the innovators out of business.
That said, I really do think that the time period is too long - even what Bezos suggested. I like 2 years myself. But given the current system I think Bezos would be negligent if he didn't enforce the patent. If I was a stockholder and he dropped the lawsuit I would be pissed. Way to just give away the company.
Maybe you guys like to do work and have it ripped off. I don't. And no matter how obvious you think 1-click is, I don't see any of your guys running Amazon.
What if you worked on something you put time and throught into and I decided that it was cool enough to use in my business and I just took it? You worked on it, you thought of it - your business should benefit, right? But now I copied it and made it status quo. I get as much benefit as you do but you invested more. In my book that is as blatent as stealing money and the law should protect against it. (Granted the law could be better structured.)
Anyone got any innovative business practices from their business they want to give away to everyone else in their industry?
CEOs on Slashdot (Score:2)
They already do. Where do you think all those trolls come from?
--
Re:"Fast patents" are a great idea. (Score:3)
Secondly, I cannot believe that getting a patent on a particular business model would let you go out and start a business, whereas without such a monopoly you wouldn't. You may have one or two patents, but the big companies such as Microsoft have thousands of software patents. Any program you write will violate lots of them. So they can quite easily twist your arm to force a cross-licensing deal - and you're back where you started, except that now a lot of money has been siphoned off by lawyers.
And we don't get people in the physical world trying to make this argument - that without absolute control over a particular business model they would not have a chance of going into business. If there is market demand for something then it will be profitable to start a business supplying it. Yes, there will be other businesses which get into the act after a while, offering competition and choice to the consumer - that's how capitalism is supposed to work.
There is already plenty of 'protection' provided by copyright, for the code you have written, and simply by being first. For example, there is nothing particularly remarkable about Amazon compared to other online booksellers, it's just that they have the advantage of Being First and thus getting an established market position. Unfortunately, software patents now allow them to abuse that position to threaten competing companies.
Finally, even one year software patents would create a legal minefield for any developer. There are thousands of new patents issued every year - do you really want to check every line of code against every one of them? Large patent-holding companies would still be able to demand protection money for use of their 'innovations'.
Re:Very impressed. (Score:2)
Paul.
Re:One-click is secure (Score:2)
A denyal of service attack is still an attack, even if there isn't any perment damage, and a security hole that permits DoS attacks is still a security hole.
Re:Are patents really useful? (Score:2)
If the drug company has a choice of spending $x on making yet another variation on an existing drug, or 10*$x making a truely original drug, they probably going to spend the smaller amount and make the copycat.
I think we should go back to the original reason for patents, to promote inovation, and work out what's best for that. In some industries, that might mean no patents at all. In some, it might mean existing type patents, and in some it might mean even broader patents.
If the drug manufacturer had to show that the new copycat drug was a significant improvement over the existing drug in order to be able to sell the new drug without infringing the patent, they are more likely to be truely inovative.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Who said life is fair?
Actions speak louder than words, Jeff Bezos... (Score:3)
FACT: Amazon got the one-click patent and then SUED Barnes & Noble for violating it, even though Barnes and Noble had the same type of system before Amazon filed for the patent.
This is my belief even though the vast majority of our competitive advantage will continue to come not from patents, but from raising the bar on things like service, price, and selection -- and we will continue to raise that bar.
Then why, Jeff Bezos, is your company trying to hurt competitors via lawsuits over patent infringement, thereby reducing competition and hurting the consumer?
If your actions agreed with your words, I'd support you. As it stands, the boycott is still on, Jeff. I sure as hell don't believe this open letter of yours, because your companies actions speak much, much louder.
Oh, and Tim, about this:
In the case of the Associates patent, what is being patented is not the broad idea of referral marketing, but instead a mechanism that allows individuals on the net to establish a little virtual bookstore on their site, with fulfillment by Amazon, entirely on their own, without having to negotiate a business deal with Amazon. In effect, Amazon created an API that allowed others to use Amazon as a service.
Now I await the lawsuit against vstore.com for violating this patent. What a crock.
---
Re:"Fast patents" are a great idea. (Score:2)
Re:Method patents... Bad? (Score:2)
This may sound awful--where would the WWW be--but it may not actually so be. For one thing, it might have been a 'short patent,' expiring in three years. For another, it seems to me that HTTP does naught fundamentally different from, say, gopher; it is just more flexible. The great things about this is that since the fundamental basis cannot be patented, than anyone can come up with a competing technology, one which may or may not be open. It would simply have to be a little different.
But look at it this way: Berners-Lee did something that few had done before (I do not know if previous hypertext systems count as prior art); does he not deserve some sort of advantage because of this?
But I think that most of us would agree that this advantage should not be perpetual. Imagine having to pay Og's male-line for the wheel...