Slashdot Log In
RMS writes to Tim O'Reilly about Amazon
Posted by
Hemos
on Sun Mar 12, 2000 09:18 AM
from the stirring-up-the-mess dept.
from the stirring-up-the-mess dept.
Anonymous writes, "RMS sent
this letter to Tim yesterday. His stand is that Amazon "fired the first shot", so they can't say they are only being defensive. The Amazon boycott stands, of course. " This is an extension of the recent Bezos-O'Reilly conversation.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
RMS writes to Tim O'Reilly about Amazon
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 186 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Please stop with "Tim O'Reilly" (Score:3)
Re:RMS misses the point...film at 11. (Score:3)
True. So?
Since when do shareholders have a _right_ to profit? They are SPECULATORS. They are allowed to make the wrong decision. I would suggest that holding Amazon stock is the wrong decision based on Amazon's difficulty in turning a profit. I would suggest that the shareholder's right to have Amazon rape the U.S. intellectual property system and basically ruin the future (along with many other abusers) is _less_ than my right as a US citizen to at least have my country not get any _worse_.
Yeesh! What needs to happen is for this big stick to get _taken_ _away_ from the corporations, not for people to sit around finding ways to justify its further use. This argument equates to 'right of a shareholder for profit justifies any act on behalf of the company, and is more important than right of a citizen to not be damaged by acts of a company'. That's a crock!
People have said for years, beginning with Shakespeare, "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers". That's fine, but apparently not enough.
Kill all the shareholders! :P
Re:What would be a good software patent proposal? (Score:3)
right now are protected for something like 17 years(or whatever the number is) so 3-5 years is a vast improvement. Bezos is asking for reform and is prominant enough to be listened too. Example: Mr. Phil Karn has been yelling about this for a few years now but no-one has listened to him. Phil's is really only known in certain internet engineering cirlces and amateur radio. Bezos is known on Wall Street. WAY DIFFERENT level of celebrity. My point is that baby steps are more likely to be acceptable.
Now onto the idea itself, Bezos' claim and RMS.
Bezos' claim about use of "defensive patents" is an idea of heard before, and seen in action. Look into the history of many of the high tech patent battles and you'll find suit and counter-suit. If they get settled out of court ( the nominal pattern ) you finally see them trading stock portfolio rights. It's a little like having a war chest for patent fights. This DOES happen.
The measure is - will Amazon be the first to go to court. If not, then indeed they are taking a defensive stand.
(Note - none of the above is trying to defend the relevance or whether the concept of their patent is reasonable or obvious..just that companies behave this way, and he isn't any different.)
With respect to RMS, he has never been known for being willing to compromise, so you'd expect less from him? In this case his response is as predictable as the Sun rising.
Re:What would be a good software patent proposal? (Score:3)
Bad example! Edison was a fraud who profited by ripping off other people's work and using misinformation to destroy his competition. In attempting to sell to the media his Direct Current method of electrical distribution, he invented the electric chair and used to electrocute animals in order to "prove" that Nikola Tesla's Alternating Current was too dangerous to use - even though Direct Current can also kill.
Though Tesla's AC was eventually proved superior, and was ultimately chosen as the standard method - Edison is regarded by the establishment as the father of electricity.
Oh and BTW, even the DC method he was pushing was invented and developed by others before his time. Like so many others today, Edison used patents to garner for himself that which never really belonged to him.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:What would be a good software patent proposal? (Score:3)
RSA encryption
Cinepak compression
The rest of Apple's QuickTime
Postscript
Java
SQL
HTML
C
C++
Some of those have been protected by patents. Some haven't. It's one thing when a patent is obviously a rip off of previously released work, which i think that Amazon's well publicized patents are. It's another thing when a company spends hundreds of thousands of dollars coming up with a new idea, only to see it pilfered away from them.
I think overall, in theory, patents are good. Inventors, be they individuals or R&D departments of corporations, have every right in the world to be the first to profit from their inventions. They also, i think, have a right to be insured exclusive use, if they so desire. Otherwise it really takes away the financial motivator to think of new tools to solve existing problems.
Would Thomas Edison have existed if it weren't for patent protection? I doubt it. Or he would of but he would not have become the almost legend he is today.
Having them last less time the 3 or 5 years would just be ridiculous. Very rarely is something implented correctly the first time around. People would basically be stuck in a proposition of they'ed have the ability to release something that was aweful just so they could hope that it caught on, while competitors sat on the sidelines waiting for the patent to expire.
Likewise, there would probably be a HUGE increase in software upgrade cycles, as inventors of new technology wouldn't want to spout about it until the last possible moment, because again, they'ed have an extremely limited window in which to recoup their monies.
3 years is almost too quick
5 years would be ideal
7 years, still, would be pretty good
17 years is just too long.
RMS misses the point...film at 11. (Score:3)
Amazon has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to protect its corporate assets. Those include patentable ideas.
Further, they also have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to guarantee their corporate value does not get diminished by others.
Put this together, and Amazon did exactly what they are required by law to do: Suing B&N for patent infringement. If they didn't, Bezos and the rest of the Amazon board could and probably would have been sued by their shareholders.
Companies have a legal duty to protect themselves, and the legal system is an excellent example of "the best defense is a good offense".
Of course, in RMS' communist utopia, such things wouldn't exist, but this is the real world...
I think I'll go buy a book from Amazon in RMS' honor.
--
Re:What would be a good software patent proposal? (Score:3)
Really? Then you're happy that you're not able to watch Sorenson encoded video on Linux? Even though it's rapidly becoming the encoding alrgorithm of choice for high-quality video on the internet? And that, except for a potential (maybe, maybe not) port of Apple's closed-source, horrendously buggy, resource-hogging, pop-up-ad-spewing Interface Hall of Shame member [iarchitect.com] Quicktime 4, you never will??
Yeah, let's hear it for long software patents. After all, Linux users won't mind having to wait 17 years to watch the new Mission Impossible 2 trailer [akamaitech.net]. (Caution!! 17.9 MB download!! And no Linux users allowed until the year 2015!!!)
Re:WTF? (Score:3)
How is he acting like an asshole? Can you please explain this to me. His open letter says
Bezos's letter reaffirms Amazon's continuing intention to engage in unrestricted patent warfare, saying that the decision of when and where to attack will be decided by "business reasons". I would gladly join Bezos in supporting a bill to limit software patents to 3 or 5 years, but I believe we must continue to criticize and boycott Amazon until such a bill is actually adopted--or until Amazon makes some other suitable change in its own conduct to justify a change in ours.
I read his open letter thrice and the above paragraph is the only one I saw that could be considered even mildly asshole-like. But what does it say
Amazon is abusing the patent system by primarily using patents as a weapon against competitors as opposed to a way to actually safegaurd their innovations.
He agrees with Jeff Bezo's that the length of software patents should be shortened and will support him in proposing reform.
Just because Amazon says they have changed doesn't mean we should just drop everything. We should wait first to see if their actions are as loud as their words.
/sarcasm >
< sarcasm > Yep, he sounds like a real asshole . <
Variable Length Patents? (Score:3)
Perhaps the solution to this debate is some form of variable length patent. When someone applies for the patent, a length would be assigned to it, based on what would truly be helpful to the community. An exceptionally amazing innovation could receive the 10 years it needs to be fully developed and profitable, where as some of the more borderline patents would receive a much shorter time.
Of course, this would have some complications. First, we would be assuming that the patent office would be able to accurately judge the usefulness of a patent, which is quite an assumption in some peoples mind. The patent office would likely end up needing more staff and more technological training to accomplish this.
There is also the problem of appeals. If a patent applicant is not satisfied with the time assigned to them, should they have the right to appeal, thus adding more complication to an already overburdened process?
slightly OT... (Score:3)
Unless of course they specify keyboard clicks as well. Then again, I use a clickless keyboard. How specific is this patent, and how wide are the loopholes?
Re:RMS and Open Source (Score:4)
In today's business world where one's values can be bought and sold, it's nice to see someone who never changes his mind.
As for the GNU/Linux issue, he knows he didn't invent Linux, but Linux cannot exist without the large array of tools he created. I disagree that everyone should call it GNU/Linux mainly because if I use the MS VisualDev to create a program called Goober, I'm not going to refer to it as VisualDev/Goober. However, you have to let the guy have his opinion. Many in the open source community do not agree with RMS, but due to his outstanding contributions to the Open Source community, he IS respected.
Finkployd
RMS is advocating a "Poor-Man's Copyright" (Score:4)
I play string-bass in a Christian Blues band, and all the original tunes we write are protected by the "poor-Man's Copyright" -- quite simply, placing an original manuscript/recording in a package, date it, seal it, mail it to yourself, receive it in the mail, notorize it,and then DON'T open it UNTIL/UNLESS someone steals it from you.
Once the offending party meets you in the Deposition Room in a Court of Law, open the package (and notorize a statement claiming the package was untampered and inspected before offending witnesses). The defendant pays all court costs, and you win (you might not receive any punitive damages for "pain and suffereing" -- but then again, you didn't suffer any pain, did you ??) ....
Re-package the manuscript/recording, and include all notorized statements, INCLUDING one more stating the package has been re-sealed without tampering with the contents, and start over, in the event someone tries to pull this stunt on you again ....
It's free, it's painless, it's legal ... and no one gets short any $$ unless they're pulling something that's otherwise protected by Copyright Law ....
WTF? (Score:4)
Johnny-come-latelys to the open source scene (like you) disgust me by disrespecting the people who created and enrich the movement you claim to be a part off. Without RMS with his belief in completely free software inspiring us directly and indirectly (including yourself I'm sure) there would not be an open source movement there would be open source software (that has existed for decades) but it would not be the movement it is today.
That said I believe that even though Amazon fired the first shot they did so probably because they have been embroiled in conflict and various acts of litigation with B&N for a while now and they saw this as firing yet another salvo at B&N without realizing the broader ramifications of their actions. Jeff Bezos' recen t comments [amazon.com] seem to confirm this.
We probably should give them the benefit of the doubt (i.e. don't assume they are evil yet) until their future actions prove otherwise.
Time is absolutely irrelevant. (Score:5)
A three to five year limit on software patents is ludicrous. The problem is not the timespan--the problem is the standard. One Slashdot poster mentions Unisys's patent on a basic linked list. Memepool posted the patent on (and I'm not kidding) using a laser to entertain a cat. Amazon's patent abuses are well documented.
The American software industry cannot be made to live in fear of an agency which has repeatedly argued its own infallibility in assigning patents in the face of widespread evidence to the contrary. The simple fact is that the market, not the courts should decide what providers prosper and what providers fail. Establishing monopolies out of the sheer act of provision is antithetical to everything we've learned about writing quality software, encouraging quality business, or even running a quality society.
The time allotment on a software patent is nothing more than a red herring. If somebody points a gun at me, and threatens to shoot me in the head, I am not going to try to negotiate for a less vital organ to be shot, or perhaps that the bullet could be of a lesser caliber. I'm going to fight, or I'm going to run, but I'm *not* going to stand there and agree that it's OK for me to get shot.
Accepting software patents, no matter how obvious they may be, for "not that long of a time" simply means that the jackpot for the patent claimjumpers has a quicker payoff.
This is the wrong direction to move in. Period. Remember, the status quo is that, for the most part, software patents do not exist. They are only defensively registered. Preventing the need for such a hidden tax is critical.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Wow, straight talk, no marketing double-talk (Score:5)
And he's right. Amazon is the agreesor. He even agrees that holding software patents is a necessary evil.
O'reilly's messages were long winded marketing double-speak. You know, Amazon and O'reilly need each other. One makes the (damn good) books, the other sells 'em . They are not going to screw one of their sources or distributors too much.
RMS is right. Amazon should state that they will stop using patents as a first-strike weapon. Until then, no coder is safe out there....
RMS is right, and a few thoughts (Score:5)
There's no question that the ideals, methods, and social networks of the OS movement have an intense political potential. Some of that expresses itself in derivative ways, for example, by forcing businesses to reexamine their financial assumption, therefore act differently, therefore affecting employee/buyer/vendo, practices - "trickle-down" social impact. But even more important is to find ways to express those ideals, methods, and networks directly beyond the field of software.
A lot of that goes on already, but the more the merrier.