Jeff Bezos' Open Letter On Patents

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.

Very impressed.

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.

I think the "fast patents" concept is a great one, even for things as nebulous as business processes as it advances the legitimate purpose of patents- to encourage innovation by providing limited protection from competition.

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.

very reasonable

This is a very reasonable reply from Bezos. Of course, what he can't say publically, is that the whole point of software patents has _nothing whatsoever to do with their actual use_. They're primary purpose is to "prove" to investors that your company has value. Why would Amazon waste its time trying to sue another online vendor over one-click shopping? total waste of money and very bad brand image PR (which is, after all, Amazon's #1 asset).

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.

For those of you who don't read the articles, Jeff Bezos is proposing several reforms to software patent law. The main one being a 3-5 year patent. He also proposes a month during which the public can comment on a proposed patent before it gets issued.

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
[e-mail]
(I usually post from home where my browser's cookie is set)

Fast patent troubles

I see a couple problems with "fast patents".

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.

Comments on his Overhaul

Just some quick comments....
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

In searching to see if RMS had a response, I found this article [salon.com] on other Amazon.com courthouse shenanigans.

PS: No updates on GNU's Boycott Amazon [gnu.org] page yet...

Re:Bezos etc are symptoms, not the problem

bluebomber wrote:

[Amazon is] simply using the current system to protect their business. They will not necessarily enforce the patent rigidly; it will often be too expensive.

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

That's not what I came away from the letter with at all. I think he comes off as a very bright, good guy who has more resposibilites than most of us could imagine. I would summarize his stance as "We're playing by the rules that were in place when we got here (which he is). If you want to change the rules, that's fine (and even offers good suggestions)." And then offers to play by the new rules should they be changed.

-B

get rid of 'business method' patents

What would have happened if McDonalds was able to patent the 'Fast Food' business method? Or if someone was able to patent the 'Pizza Delivery' business process? How about 'Catalog Sales'? How about 'Rhetorical Questions'?

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.

... anybody who remains opposed to Bezos after this resolution of the matter ...

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

Not the patent examiners fault?

A new acquaintance and I brought up this subject recently, when Tim's first Open Letter came out. Here's his point:

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.

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

Now I get it! He got the recognition for his future accomplishments ;-)

Jeff, Make It So

Jeff,

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:Very impressed.

I got a good feeling from reading this letter.

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

I've received several hundred e-mail messages on the subject of our 1-Click ordering patent. Ninety-nine percent of them were polite and helpful. To the other one percent -- thanks for the passion and color! ...
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. :-) A month is no time at all in business terms for a bigger company to steal your idea and take it to the market while you're still involved in the patent process. This is a great idea for software patents though.

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:Fast patent troubles

A large company like Amazon, not a large company like IBM.

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.

Her strong suggestion was that we need to get people who *know* the art in the patent office. Until that happens, bad things will happen.

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.

Business vs. software patents

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?

All he's saying is, "it's a bad system, but I didn't make the rules and I'd like to change them".
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.

I don't get this, at all.

Why are we so committed to liking these bastards?

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.

I have to admit it. I loved certain lines in Jeff's letter. They point out what's really wrong with the patent system:
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.

-----

BEZOS -- STOP TALKING AND ACT!

The only way I will really believe Bezos is sincere is if his company DROPS the patent lawsuit against Barnes and Noble. Its all well and good to talk about how the patent system is fucked up, but when yours lawyers are still behind the scenes suing another company over a silly patent, to me its nothing but a SMOKESCREEN!

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...

This guy gets it, and yet he doesn't get it.

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?

Show me don't tell me!

This open letter is well worded and contains a number of fine points. However, these nice words do not address the meat of the matter:

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

Dropping the suit sounds like a great idea. Everyone on Slashdot would feel great that the boycot worked and O'Reilly would get a pat on the back. But how many people around here are going to chip in on lawyer's fees when a shareholder sues Amazon for not suing B&N. The lawsuit would be "By not continuing the suit against B&N, my portfolio dropped for 26 million dollars to 25.8 million dollars." And the shareholder would win. I'm not saying it's right, but I promise you it would happen.

-B

This case was recently settled...

for some undisclosed ammount, from this months MS htt p://www.msmagazine.com/cgi-local/newspro/viewnews. cgi?newsid951329605,70125, [msmagazine.com]

actually, i'm suprised that slashdot didn't do this story

Re:Show me don't tell me!

Your point is addressed directly by O'Reilly's response letter. Namedly, Tim O'Reilly doesn't think the patent covers as much as Tim originally thought.

Re:patent stupidity and patent obviousness

"Prior art" trumps anything, but obviousness on its own is enough if you can make the case. Here's the case: every UI designer has faced the issue of whether an extra confirmatory click should be necessary.

Confirm, Y/N? [click].

Amazon answered that question "no." Where is the patentability?

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:"Fast patents" are a great idea.

Firstly, I believe the GATT treaty requires patents to last for 20 years. So it would not be possible to make software patents have a shorter lifespan without breaking the treaty - the only options are 20-year patents, or no software patents at all.

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'.

Actions speak louder than words, Jeff Bezos...

It's funny how Jeff Bezos tries to make everyone happy by agreeing with everything they say, and then acting in totally opposite ways.

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.


---