Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Amazon Sued For Patent Infringement 186

Posted by Hemos from the ironic-isn't-it dept.
Daeslin was the first to write with the news that Amazon has been sued by Intouch for patent infringement. Intouch alleges that Amazon has violated their patent describing a way for customers to preview music samples over the Internet.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Sued For Patent Infringement More

Amazon Sued For Patent Infringement

Comments Filter:

  • anyone notice the dates? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Let's assume the 1993 patent was not about the web. Music over the web was not an issue then. The one from 1999 must have to do with music clips on the web. Well I, for one, heard clips on the web at CDNow! before 1999. It seems there were some other places, but I forget where. It's bullshit to mention methods here. It is the web. You crop a portion of the song, link to it on the page, and people listen to it. There is no other way to do it. Sure, RealAudio, Media Player, MP3. Blow it out your ass. You can't patent which one to use!

  • Cease and desist from using that phrase (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That phrase has been patented by Amazon.com.

  • Re:In a related story.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    wisconsin does not exist.

    Just so you know, you're not fooling anyone. It might be that I was not paying attention and Minnesota invaded Wisconsin and that the latter no longer exists, though I seriously doubt that's the case. Just to make sure, I checked a recent map of the US. As of 1999 Wisconsin did indeed exist, but still, maybe this is recent news. I went ahead and checked MapQuest [mapquest.com]. It's there and their maps appear to be up to date. Still, I was not entirely satisfied, so I also checked a few news sites. I would imagine that if something happened to Wisconsin it would receive some coverage. I searched CNN [cnn.com], MSNBC [msn.com], ABC [go.com] and even Slashdot [slashdot.org] (hey, Wisconsin should be right across the lake from the Geek Compound). Strangely enough, none of these sites had any coverage of Wisconsin disappearing, getting destroyed, blowing up, sinking into the Great Lakes or in any other way ceasing to exist. In fact, I got quite a bit of recent news that almost seems to suggest Wisconsin does exist.

    This leads me to believe that your sig might just be false. Now, it did eventually occur to me that you may have intended the statement to be true. Perhaps you meant to say

    Wisconsin does exist.

    However, such a statement is terribly obvious, so I came to the conslusion that either 1) you were misinformed about whether or not Wisconsin exists, or 2) you intentionally stated a falsehood in your sig. The fact that Wisconsin exists has been well known since May 29, 1848 (they even have a stamp [usps.gov]) leads me to believe the first option (you were misinformed) is not the case, so the only option then is that you are well aware it exists and are trying to mislead people. Well, I've figured out your game and you're not fooling me and hopefully nobody else because it's fairly obvious Wisconsin does indeed exist.

    Also, wisconsin should be capitalized.

    That said, it's time you got yourself a new sig. Thank you.

  • Price Lines Patents (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If I name my price to buy a 100 shares of ACME Inc to my broker. And he fills the order. Is that a violation of PriceLine's patent or just prior art?

  • Re:Two old men (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There is no candlestick.

  • Moderators (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Please remember that since the default browsing is now set at 1, and though you may be tempted to mod these posts down, that would really be contrary to the spirit of moderation. The idea is to moderate up any *good* AC posts so they may actually be seen, and let these languish at 0 where noone will see them unless they manually change their prefs to do so. -1 would be better suited for the absolute worst of the worst (e.g. the lengthy sex-stories, signal 11 posts (J/K) etc.)
  • That's exactly what I was going to say! I'm glad someone else is having my gut reaction.
  • Too bad they're being sued by a non-software patent.

    I think it's time to do away with the whole system.

    Lets have another constitutional convention!
  • Ahhh such sweet irony!

    This is truly a beautiful thing for Amazon get to burned by a stupid patent. Time for them to waste some money on lawyers.

    Though it paions me so to say it, I hope they win just like I hope Amazon loses their patent suits. A stupid patent is a stupid patent.

    What I'm worried about is that Amazon settles instead of fighting the suit so as not to hurt the credibility of their lawsuits.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • A business (any business) is legally required to attempt to make money for it's investors (or risk getting sued). As this is the case, Amazon had no choice but to work within a flawed system. They had to attack B&N, and they have to defend themselves now. So this is all really evidence of a fundamentally flawed patent system.

    You misspelled `a fundamentally flawed economic system'.

  • That patent is ridiculous! How broad is the coverage on a patent like that? It looks like it wouldn't cover your game (your game isn't on a ROM or cartridge, so don't put it on one...) but should be invalid because of prior art. (without the examples that make it clear they're talking about a Dr. Mario-style game, I see nothing really different from, say, Tetris, which would be prior art.)

    Of course, I know *why* they do this: they don't want any copycats, like Bulletproof software and their ultra-rare Tengen Tetris. Yep, competition is evil in the software market, at least when you're a big company. Or even if you're patent-happy. You've got to wonder how these people operate. Could I just sit around all day, prototyping ideas and calling my lawyers?

    "Hmm, what metaphors can I patent today... How about an interactive, client-server app for easy ordering and delivery of food, on the web, using cookies and Java? 'Look, ma, a resturant menu, online!' For my next patent..."
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
  • What's really ironic is that none of those things are good examples of irony. They're just bummers.

  • No. While trademark holders are required to protect attacks against their trademarks for fear of risking loosing future suits, patent holders are protected simply by having the patent -- they can ignore infrigments for years and suddenly realize they have it and start demanding money from everyone. That's what Unisys did a few years back. If Bezos really wanted to work within a broken system, as he claims to want, he could have simply patented whatever, then issued a public and legally-binding statement that these patents will only be used to protect anyone else from patenting it, but any and all use is allowed. This is what the Free Software Foundation does -- it owns several patents simply to ensure that everyone may use their innovations instead of a single company.
  • What comes around, goes around.
  • To give them some undeserved credit, the patent was actually filed in 1996, but awarded in 1999. Which makes for a bit less prior art, but still enough for them to have an invalid patent, I'm sure.

    --
    %japh = (
    'name' => 'Niklas Nordebo', 'mail' => 'niklas@' . 'nordebo.com',
    'work' => 'www.sonox.com', 'phone' => '+46-708-405095'
  • ha-ha!

    Seriously though, I couldn't feel any less sympathetic to either party.


    ___
  • Hey, I've got an idea for a patent. "A method of inducing cats to exercise by chasing them with a large Supersoaker water pistol."

    And how about, "A method of exercising donkeys by dangling a carrot at the end of a stick."
  • change the location. No casinos in Houston, Texas (unless they are hiding them from me. I've only lived here a year).

    Nice anecdote nonetheless.
  • (Look and) Feels a bit like Apple's fun and games with Microsoft and Xerox.
  • some of us don't read it all the time, and personally I have never seen it.

    you're post was more worthless than mine IMHO.

    you don't like my opinion, as I don't like yours, thus, opinions are like assholes, so keep it in your head.
  • "If patents have been done before or are obvious, what's stopping people challenging them?"

    it is a well known fact that most patent challanges are never awarded. It happens sometimes, but in a vast majority of the cases it doesn't come about.

    it is part of the bullshit system we live in. The nice guys NEVER win...

  • I have patented the use of square items w/the letters of all languages printed on them to facilitate the fast input of ideas to both paper and electronic sources.

    I am going to sue everyone b/c I deserve the money for thinking up the idea of creating the patent for things that everyone already uses.
  • Errr... exactly what is it that InTouch offers that I _could_ boycott?

    A trip to www.intouch.com (rather slowly) offers a page that has quite a bit of, what appears to me, an Arabic language.

    This site appears to be an Egyptian ISP.

    Similarly, www.itouch.com appears to be a Texas based ISP.

    I already have an ISP (that, AFAIK, _doesn't_ pursue frivilous patent litigation, although they are putting up a valiant fight against SouthCentral Bell in order to provide DSL to their subscribers!).

    Who's there to boycott?

  • The patent that Amazon is being sued under was issued in 1999. That's well after the development of MP3, .wav files, &c. The combination of putting an audio file on Internet and allowing someone to download it and play it back is pretty obvious. The Kiosk technology isn't as obvious...I'll grant that...but we're not talking kiosks here. We're talking websites. I hope this lawsuit gets thrown out on its rearend.

  • "Neither patent has merit... And I say that one bad patent deserves another ;)" ... leading to a world full of bad patents.
  • Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!

  • Patent pool (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm sorry to see this waste of money--instead of innovating, companies pay lawyers to sue or defend.

    We should not give up the struggle against these bogus patents on software or business methods on the Internet.

    Note: if the Bezos proposal for a more limited term for patents were adopted, the iTouch patents would have expired by now.

    It might make sense to suggest Amazon join a patent pool. John Gilmore at the CFP conference proposed that companies get together to use patents only for defensive purposes. See Dan Gillmor's column.

    Anybody who didn't have a patent could freely use the patented technology. Anybody who had a patent and licenses it on these terms or better is also free to use the patent in the pool. Anybody else--come with your checkbook.

    We need to do something about bad patents other than chuckle when companies battle over them. Maybe we should offer a tax incentive to companies that would join such a patent pool.

    The idea is new. We need a lot of discussion now. Please join in.

  • This still seems like an abuse of the patent system to me. Trapping mice instead of patenting the mousetrap. It's wrong to sue Amazon over something like that (mainly because this shouldn't have been patentable in the first place).

    But dammit, I can't help feeling a kind of perverse glee at seeing Amazon getting a taste of their own medicine.
  • I watched in horror over the past several years as companies from all different areas stockpiled their patents. The stockpiling of patents is little different than stockpiling of weapons, and the result is quite similar. We are at the outset of a new war, not one of bullets and bombs, but one of intellectual property. And like any war, the side with overwhelming force is most likely to win. With patents as the new weapon of destruction, only the most powerful companies will remain in the end, reigning terror from their mighty monoplies across the land. Clearly something has to be done.

    In a supreme court ruling made last year, software patents were deemed constitutional. Is it within the confines of the government to adjust the constitution to prevent a war and protect its citizens? Patents were originally created to protect small companies, yet is being used today for exactly the opposite reasons. Patents also have the detrimental effect of holding back technology by not allowing researchers to build onto existing technologies.

    The patent office has agreed to scrutinize new patents better than they have in the past, yet this comes too late as much of the damage has already been done. The skirmishes we've seen so far are only a small taste of what's to come. If nothing is done to nullify the current situation, then I will have no sympathy for the government when it loses control.

    --
  • The more I look at "Intelectual", the more confused I become over how it should have been spelled.
  • It's obvious that the patent problem can be tracked all the way back to the source: the patent office. It's also obvious to me that the patent office won't change how it does things, because it has no incentive to and every incentive to keep things the way they are (they get paid for approving patents, after all).

    So how do you kill the patent problem? By killing the patent office! But how do you do that?

    Simple: figure out the things the patent office must use in order to do its job, and patent them. The patent office, being run by a bunch of morons, will gleefully grant you the patent.

    You then threaten the patent office with a patent infringement lawsuit if they don't comply with your licensing terms. Your licensing terms, of course, will involve enough cash to make it impossible for the patent office to operate at all, thus putting them out of business. They'll have to pay, of course, because you'll have a monopoly on the processes the patent office uses.

    And remember: even if you have to take it to court, it's very likely you'll win, since prior art appears to be irrelevant to the courts today.



    --
  • They list the two patents in question here [intouchgroup.com].

    Cheers,
    Ben
  • As this is the case, Amazon had no choice but to work within a flawed system. They had to attack B&N, and they have to defend themselves now. So this is all really evidence of a fundamentally flawed patent system.
    We can't be satisfied with organizations who can't take responsibility for their practices and plead that they are bound to exploiting our legal loopholes in order to make money. As a society, we aught to demand more of the corporations we allow to exist. Like patents and copyrights, corporate charters were once very limited in their abilities.
    If Amazon is smart, they will put some of those overinflated stock dollars toward fixing the broken patent system.
    If Amazon had the ability to perform such a compassionate act, why wouldn't they save themselves the money (which they are apparently bound by law to do) and simply announce that anyone has rights to their patent? That would have a definite and immediate effect and would probably end the boycott. It's obvious that they are only devoted to money, and should receive none of our sympathy.
  • Playing with cats with a laser pointer is patented [ibm.com]
  • Is there a country somewhere where I could plant a server and not have to worry about some lawsuit hungry Merkin company suing me? Over some stupid patent I never knew existed? Which countries don't have patent/copyright treaties with the states?
  • It's obviously time for someone to file a patent on suing someone for patent violation. They'd clean up!

    That itself probably wouldn't be patentable. There is lots of prior art for your proposed "Process to file a lawsuit for patent infringement" invention.

    On the other hand, if you made it into a business model, you might well have a patentable invention. Thus it could go like this:

    Process for the automatic filing of lawsuits alleging patent infringement over electronic data networks

    [...] "The process then gathers S-1 filings from electronically accessible data networks and by means of a software invention described in US patent 6663666 ("automatic generation of legalistic prose from data obtainable from electronic data networks") fills out all the necessary paperwork to file a technically correct lawsuit against the company seeking a public offering for the infringement of patent 6543212 ("Use of electronic data networks to view automatically generated patent lawsuits"), a patent nearly certain to be violated the minute some schmuck clicks on his inbox and reads our law suit, or other patents that can be alleged to be violated using information gleaned from the S-1 filings or other SEC databases..."

    The possibilities are recursive and endless. And also, now that you have read this, only patentable by me! And I have two years to file! Anybody want to buy rights to my inventions? :-)

  • Well accually look at what they have patented
    and the patents for them. Its obvious what they patent accually was a real world device, (which played music samples from an online database to a kiosk at music stores) and they are claiming that the internet version is a violation of their patent. Kinda a switch accually. Though their real world device, is patentable, even by old patent rules, it is a bit silly, and obvious. But I would be willing to say that their patent is valid, (though in general I hate patents on simple inventions in a time of such quick techlogical change) the suit is bogus.
  • So, just out of curosity why exactly won't you but from B&N or Borders?
  • Well, InTouch is as full of shit as Amazon, or maybe moreso, but they really deserve each other.
  • If either side either wins or loses in their respective suings then the message that goes out is that "software / technology patents are OK"; that message is totally wrong!

    So far from being a remotely good thing, it now means there are twice as many (count them ;) suits that need *throwing out*, not settling in any way.

    Quite apart from both sides just digging their heels in and getting more entrenched in their freedom-violating nonsensical legalistic battles, that is...
    ~Tim
    --
    .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,

  • pot (Score:2)

    by ryanr ( 30917 )
    kettle, black.
  • It's obviously time for someone to file a patent on suing someone for patent violation. They'd clean up!
    -russ
  • when you encourage a world in which artificial legal barriers get thrown in the way of progress.

    I have no sympathy for them.
  • Amazon's defense will be interesting to watch. They are definitely walking on eggshells since any defense of their use of the patent may be used by their competitors to defend the competitor's use of Amazon's patents.

    -tim
  • This is stupid! Amazon previews it's music by letting customers downloading short mp2/mp3s or by streaming RealAudio. CDNOW has the exact same method of letting customers sample CDs. Hell, pretty much every music store on the internet has this exact same method. I know about 100 web sites that stream real audio (and there are hundreds I don't know), and there are 1000s that let you download mp3s. How the fsck can you patent the concept of downloading music. It will be a very dark day for the internet when you need a license from Intouch or whatever to let people download mp3s from your web site.
  • Strange, but when I search on the title "Poetic Justice" at Amazon's site, it just returns to top Amazon page...
    ----------------------------------------- --
  • This is even more silly than all of these lawsuits about linking. I do not think that these companies realize that the whole start of the Internet was because of information sharing. The one thing they all want to stop. Maybe they should get off this toy and start a new one if they do not like the rules here.
  • I didn't notice anyone suggesting we should boycott Intouch...??? Hmmm?? I hit RMS's website, and didn't see any "Boycott Intouch!!!" postings...??? Hmmm??
    I am boycotting Amazon. Except, well, I never bought anything from them before, and I don't generally buy books online anyway, so they really aren't losing anything by my boycott.
    I've never bought anything from Intouch. As far as I can tell, their target market is record stores, so probably no more than 1 or 2 people on all of /. has ever bought anything from them. We don't own record stores, so we never would anyway. All of /. boycotting Intouch will have precisely the same effect on their bottom line as my personal boycott does to Amazon. 0. Zip. Nadda. So why bother?
  • Intouch has bigger problems than the fact that they obey and use stupid patent laws. Another defendant in this suit is Time Warner. They just opened the biggest box of flesh-eating lawyers the world has ever seen. Heh, you almost feel sorry for them.
  • Totally cool metaphor. But, in the current age, could you see Microsoft deciding to change their click thru liscense to" and all software written with a DO..LOOP statement must pay $xxx to use our patented technology". Compilers as revenue streams are actually possible under the current legal arena, as uncool as that sounds. probably wait until after using debuggers is outlawed tho...
  • Saw the headline, scanned through the comments -- found exactly what I expected.

    "Serves them right"; "Amazon is evil"; "Bad karma"; "This is funny"; "Live by the sword, die by the sword"; etc, etc.

    I didn't notice anyone suggesting we should boycott Intouch...??? Hmmm??

    I hit RMS's website, and didn't see any "Boycott Intouch!!!" postings...??? Hmmm??

    Get a clue guys -- this is exactly the type of thing Amazon was trying to protect themselves against when they got the patents in the first place.

    If they don't patent things, someone else will.

    The system is broken -- it needs to be fixed at the source. If this stuff is stupid to patent, then it shouldn't be patentable.

    -- CP
  • I hope those guys at Amazon have a good sense of humor and can appreciate the irony...
  • From the article, this patent seems far nuttier than the 1-click patent:

    technology allowing in-store customers to listen to parts of songs at a kiosk, or to hear the music through a computer, before deciding whether to buy.

    That's crazy. Most decent record stores (ie, the cool independant ones) have let you do this forever. Here in Baltimore, you can go to the Record Garden and listen to full CDs, as many and as long as you want [not quite any CD though, only used ones or new ones that are popular enough to open up a copy for people to listen to, and no singles or sets. However, that's still many thousands of CDs].

    In fact, this could be seen to cover MP3s. I'll often download some MP3s of a band before deciding if they're good enough to buy a CD of (now if only sTs would put out a CD!!!). Guess I should stop before I'm sued for patent infringment.
  • Man, Insightful doesn't begin to define your comment, that was a huge pearl of wisdom. One of these days here at /. we should start using zen koans too to make our points.

  • I guess Intouch is just using a "defensive" patent, like the one Amazon used against B&N. ...They just don't have my sympathy. Of course, that doesn't I agree with Intouch. This whole thing is just getting more insane.

    I guess the only way to prevent that kind of thing in the near future is for small companies (even larger) to join their patents so they can have a big enough patent pool to be protected against those attacks.

    As soon as you can gather 10-20% of software patents in a "defense pool", software patents become useless, since you can't sue over one patent without being sued over 30.
  • Pretty much any type of store could provide a catalog-and-sample system such as this as they point out -- video store, car dealer, museum, etc. What is surprising is that they are providing the same function that has traditionally been provided by the (public) library with its card catalogs (even the paper ones) and audio departments. Perhaps all Intouch(TM) should tout is the computerization and convenience aspects. Throw out the patent on the grounds of prior art.
  • Think of the business world as a big sandbox filled with maliciously-minded 6-year olds. You can have government standing over them, threatening to take away milk and cookie hour if they don't share, telling them that the world will be a better place if they do (which, granted, it probably will). But, on the other hand, if I'm in the sandbox and don't want to give you my shovel and bucket, you really can't make me (at least, without being the sandbox rat who goes to the teacher for everything).

    Voluntary association and distribution is one thing (and a good thing). Forcing it, however, sucks, and makes for a mean and disgruntled little Bezos (and everybody else, for that matter).

  • Some history: Amazon sells books. Tim O'Reilly is a book publisher. A while ago, Tim O'Reilly wrote an open letter to Jeff Bezos, asking him to back down on his position. I just wrote a parody of the sequence of events, subsituting of Amazon with InTouch, and O'Reilly with MP3.com (music publisher). For comedy.

    Didn't really think it was that insightful really.

  • All right, I've had enough of this.

    I'm suing InTouch under my patent on frivolous patent lawsuits (US Patent #5612081 [ibm.com]) and my patent for poetic justice (US Patent #5752996 [ibm.com]). I'm can no longer tolerate my clearly innovative and non-trivial work being stolen with blatant disregard for the law. It is an affront to the most honorable efforts of the diligent employees of the United States Patent & Trademark Office. I will not let this injustice stand!

  • Here are the links to the two patents:
    Patent 1 [ibm.com]
    Patent 2 [ibm.com]

    This system is getting totally out of hand.
  • To the best of my knowledge, Amazon hasn't really changed its online music samples in the last couple of years. How can they claim Amazon was in violation of a 1999 patent without shooting themselves in the foot and showing prior art?
  • Ironic...dont't you think?

    This may be very good. If I remember the last open letter from Jeff Bezos correctly, he said he was going to start seriously looking into this idea of web site patents. After our whole fiasko before, we had come to some understanding of just how dangerous they could be (or at least to middle ground.)

    Unlike, the other protesters, he is in a position where he can probably make a difference in the matter in general. He promised to look at the matter seriously, and I havn't seen anything from him since.

    Maybe this will get him to make some decisions in the matter and take action. Maybe we can get a public "update" from Bezos and O'Reilly.

    -Pete

  • I suspect a patent exists for just about everything I've ever programmed

    Tell me about it. I wrote Vitamins, a clone of Nintendo's Dr. Mario game (download cross-platform GPL'd source and Win32 binary here [rose-hulman.edu]), only to find out Dr. Mario is patented [164.195.100.11]. But I'm leaving it up; let the bastards sue me :-)

    And when you're done playing Vitamins...
  • No, this is poetic:-

    That was cool, huh huh
    When we sued Amazon's butt
    They won't sue again, huh huh

    --

  • Neither patent has merit...

    And I say that one bad patent deserves another ;)

    kwsNI

  • They actually found a way fro me to root for amazon. those bastards. well I hope amazon wins, and that case is used against them and there bogus patents.
  • This puts amazon in one hell of a bind though, doesn't it? If they win this suit, won't that be precedent for some of their victims to win their suits? I'm not totally sure about this, as I am not a lawyer, but, damn, that would be cool, wouldn't it?

    I used to work for a software company that ended up getting sued for patent infringment, so I am a little bit bitter about this.
  • My personal opinion is that lawsuits like this are stupid and an abuse of the patent/justice system. Nowadays, corporations are granted patents for everything and anything. Patents were designed to protect innovation, not to overcome the competition. Patents should not be granted for something so simple/non-innovative as the technology in question.
  • 5,237,157 [164.195.100.11] - Kiosk apparatus and method for point of preview and for compilation of market data (pertains to their iStation device)

    5,963,916 [164.195.100.11] - Network apparatus and method for preview of music products and compilation of market data (pertains to www.worldwidemusic.com [worldwidemusic.com])

    From their webpage:
    Intouch owns copyrights in its database of musical selections, including rights to the entire compilation and the edit points for the specific tracks.
    Intouch is also the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,237,157 and 5,963,916 directed to interactive music sampling combined with a subscriber code. Intouch has also filed a continuation in part application directed to online sampling. Intouch believes that web sites allowing customers to sample music after logging on will be covered by U.S. patent 5,963,916

  • Don't you guys see it.

    What is going on here is that lawyers have found yet another way to make money on the internet.

    We need to coin a new term, maybe e-suit, or e-chaser.

    Companies do not generally try to do evil things on the net. Corporations however(companies with a legal identity) are feeling the loss of control that the internet is bringing to their front doors. The lawyers feel that they must tame the net. That is what this is about. If the lawyers manage to win enough net battles that they can reinstill a fear of disobedience in us, they can get back some of their control.

    OK, so maybe I'm rambling a bit.

    Personally I think that these e-suits are a very loud calling for every one of us to contribute as much time and effort into bringing FreeNet online as possiable. Because once FreeNet(or a like interspace) is in existance, all of these law suits will become pointless(DeCss, Napster, Patents, etc.). Maybe we will even be able to reduce the economics of being in the legal business.

  • Re:Hey! Maybe this'll invalidate their own patents (Score:3)

    by Gromer ( 9058 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @01:47PM (#1136924)
    Sad to say, invalidating that patent will not shoot themselves in the foot in any real way. All the people who are likely to be outraged by Amazon's patent policy already are, so there's no PR loss. Legally, there is no connection between Amazon's patents and these bozos'. If the court overturns this patent, it will not somehow be retroactively applied to all dumb patents; this patent will be overturned (or not), and that will be the end of it. I suppose we can hope for an activist judge to issue a very broad ruling that overturned a broad class of patents, but this is a very unlikely outcome- most likely the ruling, if it is in Amazon's favor, will be in terms of the specific merits of this case, and not an alteration of patent law. Moreover, is there any way of defining such a ruling legally so that it covers both Amazon and this case? For one thing, Amazon has been criticized for patenting business models, something totally unrelated to this case. More generally, this isn't something that can be corrected judicially by one broad ruling. Most of these either violate current legal definitions of patentability (non-obviousness, prior art, etc), or cannot be legally distinguished from legitimate patents. Thus, the only way to deal with these patents is to A. reform the patent system so that invalid patents don't get granted in the first place, and/or B. challenge them in the courts on a case-by-case basis. No broad ruling can alter the status of already illegitimate patents. Think about it. "This court rules that all invalid patents are hereby invalid." Hmmm...

  • Re:Amazon != Antichrist (Score:3)

    by chromatic ( 9471 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @12:08PM (#1136925) Homepage

    Um, no.

    Otherwise, Microsoft could have argued, "We are required by law to do things that cause the government to prosecute us for breaking anti-trust law or risk being sued by our shareholders."

    Yeah, a corporation is a legal fiction masquerading as a person. That doesn't mean the corp. has the right to do illegal or unethical things. Stockholders can also sue if the officers and/or board of directors do stupid, risky things (such as skirting the law).

    --

  • Slashdot needs a new moderation value (Score:3)

    by Zico ( 14255 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @01:05PM (#1136926)

    (Score:-4, Responding to a patent story with "I'm going to patent <insert something everyone uses> and sue everyone who uses it.")

    Oh yeah, and instant revocation of moderation privileges for anyone who even thinks about moderating said posts as "Funny," because after seeing the same gag hundreds of times, "funny" it ain't.

    Don't mean to pick on you, Garcia, but c'mon people.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • "-protect technology allowing in-store customers to listen to parts of songs at a kiosk, or to hear the
    music through a computer, before deciding whether to buy."

    Um. So, CD-NOW, CDuniverse, pretty much EVERY online music retailer, and every retail store, not to mention probably MP3.com, emusic and the like...even napster in a stretch, are violating these early-and-mid nineties patents?

    I wonder if this patent violates the force-sensitive sound-playing condom patent [ibm.com] due to the 1991 patent's ability, depending on the sound chosen to be activated, to 'preview' what is to come (horrid pun intended)

    This all just underlines the absurdity of a lot of patents.

  • I know the defense already (Score:3)

    by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <NMerriam@artboy.org> on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:21AM (#1136928) Homepage

    You already know what the lawyers will say:

    "This patent is not novel and is obvious to anyone practiced in the art, therefore it is invalid".

    How does that go, He who lives by the sword dies by the sword?...

  • Summary of all posts... (Score:3)

    by dillon_rinker ( 17944 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:30AM (#1136929) Homepage
    90% of the posts to this article will sound something like one of the following:

    They sued for software patents...then THEY got sued for software patents! That's so ironic! I hope they lose, cause they suck, but I hope they win, because software patents are WRONG!

    Intellectual property is different from other property. Software is different from hardware. The patent system needs to be fixed.

    IANAL...IANAL...IANAL...IANAL...

    Let's start recording our ideas somewhere so the big bad corps can't patent them.

    I'm patenting air, so all you people breathing owe me money.

    First petrified grits.

    Sig11, you are such a karma whore for saying all those things that everyone agrees with.

  • Patentku (Score:3)

    by EvlG ( 24576 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @12:36PM (#1136930)
    You stole our idea
    As obvious as it was
    Lawyers cry Lawsuit!
  • I guess the only way to prevent that kind of thing in the near future is for small companies (even larger) to join their patents so they can have a big enough patent pool to be protected against those attacks.
    That's the sort of thing I'm trying to promote with the Open Patent License [openpatents.org] under development at www.openpatents.org. [openpatents.org]

  • Business != Immunity (Score:3)

    by Starselbrg ( 45165 ) <`ten.eransliam.r ... `ta' `todhsals'> on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @07:45PM (#1136932)
    Listen, just because a business has a responsibility to make money does NOT mean that it has a responsibility to screw everyone in sight, break the law, hire teams of lawyers to bend the law, sue everyone, and generally do things that you would consider wrong of regular people.

    When you hear something that you consider terrible (such as suing people for ridiculous patents), you can't just say to yourself "well, they're a business, they're just trying to make money". Someone (I'm not sure who) said it best with "The very fact that you're out to make a profit does not alleviate you from responsibility". In other words, businesses shouldn't be allowed to get away with this kind of stuff just because that's what they're there for.

    Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath? We're creating a monster in our mega-corporations just the same way that banks were created in the book, and we let it happen because we make excusess like the one you made. But enough of my thoughts.

  • In a related story.. (Score:3)

    by ultra laser ( 68060 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:32AM (#1136933) Homepage
    United Pr0n Co. has sued has sued half the Internet for its patent on "A process of allowing visitors to preview bad pr0n before buying a bunch more bad pr0n." Packaged Meat Product Entertainment has issued a countersuit on United Pr0n and 34,237 other sites for infringing on its 1998 patent on using popup windows for advertising. The Nasdaq Pr0n Index fell 3 1/4 points to 69 3/8 at closing.

  • haikus (Score:3)

    by passion ( 84900 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:45AM (#1136934)

    unruly patents...
    "Do business how I say
    not how I do it."

    mighty Amazon,
    screams with pain when burnt by
    their own inferno.

  • If the tables were turned? (Score:3)

    by JamesSharman ( 91225 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:24AM (#1136935)
    "Amazon officials said they believe the suit has no merit."

    I wonder if the same officials would say and were on the receiving end of one of amazons patents.

  • You Reap What You Sow (Score:3)

    by wrenling ( 99679 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:21AM (#1136936)
    Should this actually have to go to court,
    Amazon will find that it will be hard for
    them to get much sympathy from the community at
    large.

    In fact, they now can accurately be portrayed
    as the bad guys on both sides: both limiting
    technology & (potentially) illegally appropriating it.

    Just my 2 cents...

  • About Boycotting Intouch... (Score:3)

    by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @01:37PM (#1136937) Homepage Journal
    We don't need to boycott InTouch because we weren't going to buy their product in the first place.
    InTouch is suing because they say Amazon violated patents on this device [intouchgroup.com]. From what I can tell it is a set-top box that allows one to listen to samples of music on InTouch's website. This settop box is completely useless given that most CD store sites allow you to listen to previews of music in MP3 or Real Audio format (heck Billboard [billboard.com] let's you do that), so there is probably zero demand for their product. The device is the biggest case of shortsighted thinking I've ever seen in my life, because all it does is play music samples from off InTouch's site. Once online music previews became popular the device became obsolete but instead of coming up with a new product or a new use for the device the company wants to sue everyone that provides online music samples meaning we all have to buy their stupid settop box if they win or websites will have to pay licensing costs. This is definitely the most frivolous web patent yet.

  • Re:Amazon gets a taste of their own Medicine! (Score:3)

    by psycho_driver ( 171270 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @04:08PM (#1136938)
    >Now perhaps Amazon will finally see the evils
    >of software patents. ^_^

    Don't hold your breath. If anything, this case helps to back up many of Amazon's points about why they need the patents they do have. If they didn't have those patents, someone else would, and they'd be suing Amazon for infringement.

    I'm sure alot of people are thinking 'serves em right!'. Perhaps it does, but they'd be getting sued by these people whether they had their questionable patents or not. It's not Amazon that's the bad guy; it's the people handing out flaky patents like candy on Halloween and the courts that validate them.

  • This Is Why Patents Are Too Expensive (Score:4)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @12:02PM (#1136939) Homepage
    Bezos--

    That's why.

    Yeah, you might be able to hold off an entrenched competitor from having some cool little +5% sales widget.

    Sure sucks when *you* become the entrenched competitor, doesn't it though?

    When will you understand that *the entire Internet Business Model* can be Verboten By Patent?

    It's the Tragedy of the Corrupted Commons: Instead of there being one gigantic field that everyone can graze from, imagine a field with thousands upon thousands of overlapping fences, property lines, and deeds of "sale" from an overzealous government agency with the philosophy of "Our cronies will get rich overbooking the land, then our cronies will get even richer fighting eachother over who's land is really whose, all the while we'll be able to extract more property tax out of the same land many times over!"

    Gets worse. The average commons is divisible--except for a "main well", sections can be fenced off and still leave an adequate, if shrunken, commons. Internet Business is something of a field where a given patent can end up enclosing sections where "if you can't use it, you starve". It's not like every blade of grass is interchangeable--it's more like, you never know if you're working on safe harbor...or a landmine.

    It really gets quite nasty once you get into submarine patents. I won't even go into the analogies that brings up.

    The end result of the Corrupted Commons is a No Man's Land. It ends up just not being worth exploring what gains the land can bring, because the risk is so great.

    Yours Truly,

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

  • Overpowerful patents (Score:4)

    by Eimi Metamorphoumai ( 18738 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:21AM (#1136940) Homepage
    Even though this feels like "poetic justice," I still hope Amazon wins. This sort of patent is the sort of thing that really deserves to be struck down. Anyway, perhaps now Bezos will really work on that patent reform he's been talking about.

  • Re:Amazon != Antichrist (Score:4)

    by RGRistroph ( 86936 ) <rgristroph@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @03:25PM (#1136941) Homepage
    First, an important detail: it was Amazon that initiated legal proceedings with B&N, not B&N that sued Amazon. You can see the cnet story [cnet.com] as a reference. This fact figures strongly in rms's opinion [gnu.org] on the matter.

    That said, it is not true that "if they don't do everything _legal_ to up their earnings, he stockholders can and will sue." The management of a company is simply not under obligation to explore every possible legal source of revenue. Can I sue Ford because they don't write software, or GM for not owning gold mines ? If I buy Redhat stock and they don't drill for oil, I was not injured in any way because I knew they weren't in the oil business when I bought the stock.

    The responsibility of the mangement to the stockholders is merely to not fail to do something a stockholder would naturally expect without telling them first. You can't start a company with a nice looking published business plan and have a real secrete plan of paying yourself a salary to do nothing until the company folds.

    There would be no reason to uphold a suit against Amazon for failing to pursue the patent, especially if they had declared publicly that they were not going to pursue software patents. A good court would hold that the stockholders can sell their stock if they don't like it. A good court would see itself as a protector of the stockholder from deceit and neglience. The market will take care of incompetence; the court just has to assure the information is not kept from the market.

    Think about it this way: the ability of stockholders to take their money and run makes the stockmarket a very efficient judge of business strategies. Do you really think that a judge and jury can do a better job ? Resort to the courts may be justified when extreme and rare plots and colusions attempt to hender the efficiency of the market.

    There existed no reasonable expectation that Amazon should have a business plan based on the bureaucratic incompetence of the PTO. Amazon could have choosen to explicitly deny themselves that path.

    But they didn't. Jeff Bezos and his company have choosen a business plan which has as a primary feature the denial of my freedom. Their plan is make sure no one else (including me) can make a one-click shopping site, and they plan to live off of this government enforced monopoly. If that doesn't make Amazon the Antichrist, it at least puts them on the same team.

    I loose freedoms every time the PTO gives out a patent, but much of the time I at least get something back -- a business that would not have been worth trying without the monopoly guarantee is attempted, bettering the economy on the whole. However, Jeff Bezos and Amazon are just a tax. If we did not award business method and software patents, someone still would be selling books online with one click, and I would still have a tiny piece of freedom that Jeff Bezos wants from me.

  • The InTouch patents US5237157: Kiosk apparatus and method for point of preview and for compilation of market data [ibm.com] and US5963916: Network apparatus and method for preview of music products and compilation of market data [ibm.com] give remarkable insight into the minds of InTouch. The first patent is specific to their iStation [intouchgroup.com] device and mentions kiosks and CD stores and the like. It seems that after their device gained no market share (because it's a dumb idea) they decided to refile a new patent in 1999 that basically was a rewording of their original patent with the words kiosk and apparatus taken out and substituted with networked computer.

    This seems to be a horrific example of what can only be described as patent squatting. Besides the fact that the InTouch patent filed in 1999 simply described ongoing practices at CDNow, Amazon and dozens of other music sites, it does not seem like InTouch has any customers or that their technology is being used anywhere. Their website [intouchgroup.com] contains nothing but sales pitches and has no mention of customers or anywhere their software is being deployed. IIRC, there is a law against obtaining a patent then waiting for companies to make money off of it then suing them.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

  • Re:Two old men (From _Scarne's_) (Score:4)

    by Superunknown_GP ( 109110 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @01:33PM (#1136943) Homepage
    This is from Scarne's Complete Guide To Gambling: (He's an expert on the subject)

    One of my favorite gambling stories is about mental bets. A few years back in a Houston, Texas casino an elderly, distinguished-looking gentleman slightly in his cups wavered back and forth being a group of women players at the Roulette table. Nobody paid any attention to him until he began complaining about how unlucky he was. "What do you mean, unlucky?" the croupier asked.

    "Number thrirty-two just won, didn't it?" the grumbler said.

    "Yes, but you didn't have a bet down. What's unlucky about that?"

    "Oh, yes, I did," the drunk groaned. "I made a ten-dollar mind bet on twenty-six and lost!" Then he handed the croupier a $10 bill. "I always pay my losses-even on mind bets."

    The croupier tried to return the money, but the old gentleman stubbornly refused to take it. Since this argument was creating a commotion and interrupting the game's action, the croupier finally shrugged, smiled wryly and shoved the bill into the money box.

    The drunk, apparently satisfied, disappeared in the direction of the bar, but he was back again before long. He walked up to the table just as the croupier spun the ball. He wobbled unsteadily and watched until the ball dropped; then he came to like, shouting excitedly, "That's me! That's me! I bet ten bucks on number twenty and I won!"

    The croupier tried to continue the play, but the drunk, who suddenly seemed much more sober, interrupted loudly, demanding to be paid the $350 he had won on his mind bet. He kept this up until the casino manager was called. After hearing what had happened, he ruled that since the croupier had accepted a $10 losing mental bet, he must pay off on the winning mind bet. You can be sure that this was the last mental bet which that croupier or any other in that casino ever accepted.

  • My Prediction. (Score:4)

    by (void*) ( 113680 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @12:13PM (#1136944)
    1. MP3.com will write an open letter, slamming Intouch for using its patent is such an offensive manner.
    2. Slashdot will praise MP3.com and condemn Intouch.
    3. Intouch's CEO will reassert his position, and point out the truly novel aspects of his patent.
    4. Slashdot will laugh at Intouch.
    5. There will be a massive petition. Intouch will propose that software patents have less expiry times.
    6. MP3.com will say that's reasonable.
    7. Intouch and MP3.com will kiss and make up.
    8. The bar association will say nothing is broken - nothing needs to be fixed.
    9. Slashdot will spit on all of them.
    10. Karma whores will get points for pointing out the obvious - that the patent office is all fscked up.

      Rinse, Repeat.

  • Let's see... Amazon gets awarded ridiculous blanket patent on simple concept... Amazon gets sued for violating ridiculous blanket patent on simple concept... can you say "instant karma"? Very good, I knew you could.

    Seriously, this just goes to highlight the problems with the patent office in the modern age. Someone got a patent for the networked equivalent of a jukebox... kind of makes you wonder about that commercial with the diner that had cheap coffee, lousy food, no choices, and "every performance of every song ever written"... do the people who wrote that commercial know they were talking about a patent violation?

    I suspect a patent exists for just about everything I've ever programmed, that I was unaware of, and frankly, couldn't care less about. Sooner or later, one of these is going to get seriously overturned, and that will be used as precedent for overturning the rest. Maybe, if we're lucky, Amazon will accidentally shoot themselves in the foot by getting this patent overturned...

  • Amazon != Antichrist (Score:5)

    by Poe ( 12710 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:34AM (#1136946) Homepage
    Listen. The opinions and actions of Amazon have not been the heinous force of evil that everyone seems to think. A business (any business) is legally required to attempt to make money for it's investors (or risk getting sued). As this is the case, Amazon had no choice but to work within a flawed system. They had to attack B&N, and they have to defend themselves now. So this is all really evidence of a fundamentally flawed patent system.

    Patents aside, I actually like everything else Amazon has done. They have proven that a "new economy" business can work. (Their book division is already profitable, with their other divisions not far behind) They make a (formerly complex) aspect of my life incredibly simple.

    If Amazon is smart, they will put some of those overinflated stock dollars toward fixing the broken patent system. This would, IMHO, solve all of their patent problems. Both legal-wise and PR wise.

  • Two old men (Score:5)

    by zunger ( 17731 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @12:06PM (#1136947)
    A poor man once went to his wealthier neighbor and told him, "Sir, my son is soon to be married, and his bride's parents will be coming to visit. But my house is bare and I am ashamed that they will see it like this. Could I borrow from you your silver spoons?"

    The rich man considered it - he was not one to lend out his things lightly - but ultimately agreed. The next day the poor man returned with the spoons, and another small silver spoon as well.

    "What is this?" the rich man asked.

    "During the night one of your spoons gave birth. Since it is your spoon, the child should be yours as well."

    The rich man thought this was ludicrous, but he was not one to pass up good fortune, so smiling he accepted the small spoon.

    Several weeks passed, and again the poor man came to ask to borrow the spoons; remembering his previous good fortune, the rich man assented, and once again found himself presented with another spoon.

    A few weeks after that, the poor man came to the rich man again, explaining that the wedding itself was coming up, and asking to borrow his silver candlesticks. At this the man hesitated; spoons, yes, but those candlesticks were pure silver! But mindful of his previous luck, and with visions of money dancing in his head, he agreed to let the poor man borrow them.

    The next day the poor man came back, empty-handed.
    "Where are my candlesticks?" the rich man asked.

    "It is horrible! Last night they were beautiful - but this morning, I came and they were both dead!"

    At this ridiculous line the rich man flew into a rage. He accused the poor man of being a thief, and soon the two came up before the town rabbi, who heard their case.

    The rabbi considered it carefully, and said: "If a spoon can be born, why can a candlestick not die? If you chose to accept nonsense when it was profitable to you, you can accept the same nonsense when it brings you loss."

    So it is with Amazon; as they accepted the idea of one-click patents to protect their money, they can accept the idea of sampling audio as well. Perhaps once this is finished neither side will be so foolish again - and the patent office will not encourage them.

  • Intelectual Property notice (Score:5)

    by turg ( 19864 ) <turg@nospAM.winston.org> on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:27AM (#1136948) Journal
    You will notice that at the bottom of the Slashdot front page, there is a disclaimer that reads "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster."

    My newly formed company, The Poster, Inc., is pleased to be recognized as the rightful owner of the comments on Slashdot. We are preparing a generous offer to allow Slashdot to continue to publish our property on the World Wide Web, for a very small ongoing royalty fee -- while we explore ways to market our property in other media.

    Furthermore, our subsidiary, the Their Respective Owners Co. is preparing a contract to license the use of the trademarks attributed to them in the disclaimer referenced above.

    Some of you may have noticed that the disclaimer on the comments pages indicates that comments are owned by "whoever posted them" and you have probably puzzled over this apparent contradiction between this disclaimer and the one on the front page. We are aware of the confusion this has caused, and are taking steps to correct this. We can assure you that ownership of all the copyrights and trademarks referred to here has been consolidated under the ownership of our companies.

    I hope this message has been helpful in clearing up the unanswered questions about the ownership of the intellectual property which has been compiled to create Slashdot. Please hesistate to contact us with any questions.

    Sincerely,
    W.P. Them
    CEO, The Poster, Inc.

    ========

  • Two wrongs? (Score:5)

    by srn_test ( 27835 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:25AM (#1136949) Homepage

    Although it's tempting to say "it serves them right", it's just one more example of how broken the US patent system has become!

    The patent they have infringed is another one of these translate something from a normal environment where it's obvious to the Internet and then claim it's novel things.

    Going into a music shop and listening to the music before I buy a CD is hardly earth-shattering in the real world. It shouldn't be on the Net either. I really wonder if the USPO assessors get out at all! :)

    Stephen

  • Re:That's what you get... (Score:5)

    by Artie FM ( 87445 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @01:33PM (#1136950) Homepage
    It's pretty easy to think that way... the problem is that this doesn't help anyone. Amazon's laywers will just see it as proof they need to agressively use their IP. It makes the high tech field into a prisoners game, where people have no reason to help out a neighbor because

    Reading the headline I barely surpresse a chuckle, as I was thinking pretty much the same thing. As I read further it just makes me sad. Many people share this common belief that we can uplift our situation and make things better using technology. It saddens me to think how much hard work and money will instead be devoted just working around these trivial patents. How ironic that the patent system was designed to help industry move forward and is now the biggest threat to forward progress there is.

    ObDisclaimer:
    liquid audio pays my bills, but I don't speak for them.


    --
    Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
    If you can't be informative, use my name

  • I'm on Amazon's side (Score:5)

    by Spiff28 ( 147865 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:26AM (#1136951)

    Before all of you start waxing about poetic justice (too late), go read the article, or check Intouch's [intouchgroup.com] site. You'll note that link is straight to the particular product that holds the patents that they claim are being violated.

    Redundant summary for the billions of you too lazy to read the article:

    According to the CNet article they got one patent back in 1993 and another in 1999. They feel sites such as Amazon.com, Liquid Audio, Discover.music.com, and more have violated this patent repeatedly and are stealing their market share.

    The particular product that's being abused is the iStation (a name as original as the patent) that allows customers at a CD store to listen to music online. Note the database is accessible only from the CD store, not to the common internet surfer.

    This suit has no relevance in my opinion, because the audiences are completely different. It seems as if InTouch is suggesting that all online music-samples should come from their database.

    This isn't poetic, this is far lower and more frivolous than Amazon's One-Click patent.

  • This is bad... (Score:5)

    by Frizzle Fry ( 149026 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2000 @11:27AM (#1136952) Homepage
    My first reaction to this (as it probably was for some other people) was that this was great news; at last, amazon would be forced to change their policy towards patents once the shoe was on the other foot. Now they would realize how harmful these kinds of patents are.

    But then I remembered Bezos' defense of his companies' patents. He said that he felt as much as we do that they're bad, but he had to use them because everyone else did and they were necessary to compete.

    Unfortunately, this lawsuit will only further convince amazon that everyone is using patents and lawsuits and they must too in order to be competitive. As a matter of fact, our attempts to convince amazon to change it's position on this issue may be seriously set back. This is a sad, sad day...

    The bus came by and I got on
    That's when it all began
    There was cowboy Neal
    At the wheel
    Of a bus to never-ever land

Slashdot Top Deals

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

Close