Hi all,

Has anyone heard about the ridiculous suit Amazon has filed against Barnes & Noble? Basically, Amazon managed, through the stupidity of the US Patent Office, to get a patent to a trivial application of cookies--what Amazon calls 1-Click(R) shopping. I was wondering what Pamie's stance on this topic is. She does, after all, have lots of links to Amazon. I urge Pamie and everyone reading this to boycott Amazon. I'm not kidding. For more info visit http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Answers

Oh, please. The real problem here is that the patent system isn't well suited for modern technological innovations; technology marches on so quickly that by the time the patent goes through, the code it's supposed to be protecting has already been used six ways from Sunday.

One thing the above post leaves out is that Amazon filed its patent years ago, when it first developed the 1-Click system. It only got approved recently, which is why it's taken until now for them to take action.

Yes, Stallman doesn't like it, but, let's face it, Stallman is an open source fanatic who doesn't like any proprietary code. Most of the world doesn't function that way, though. And it's certainly no grounds for a boycott.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Dear Shmuel,

Sure, Amazon filed its patent about two and a half years ago, but what's that got to do with anything? Everything they used was already circulating in the public sphere. You make it sound like Amazon created something original. They didn't. Not even close.

You're right about one thing: the problem is with the patent office, but for another reason. The patent examiners just wasn't up to date. They had no clue what they were looking at.

As for the real world 'not functioning that way', well, good for you. Doubters have always said that before any boycott. But even if the boycott is not greatly effective, assumption of failure is a silly reason to not do something, in my opinion.

A good question is, why is Amazon.com doing this? I doubt they really think they're protecting their intellectual property. I think they saw an opportunity, grabbed it, and now they're using their inane patent to stifle any competition. Another good question is, who's going to be next?

Really, Jeff Bezos should be ashamed of himself.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

You're misconstruing my quote about the world not functioning that way. It clearly was not made in reference to boycotts not working, or assuming failure. What I was referring to was that scads of proprietary software exists in the world at large, most of it from players other than Amazon. Stallman doesn't like any of it. Will we be boycotting Apple, Microsoft, and all other commercial software companies next? There are those who would have you do just that. But you won't find me going along with it.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

Dear Shmuel,

I'm glad to hear you will not be boycotting all software companies. You'll be glad to hear that neither will I be doing so. This way we both can continue running proprietary software on our computers.

But really...you're setting up a strawman. You seem not to be responding to me, but against all the people who have argued with you on similar things in the past. I am only saying that 1)Amazon did something that I see as harmful to e-shopping 2) We should boycott Amazon 3)It doesn't take much to boycott Amazon, (so why not?); it's clearly much easier than boycotting Microsoft.

Even if you don't want to boycott Microsoft (and I don't), why not boycott Amazon? Are you really saying that if you boycott Amazon, that you must boycott all software companies to be consistent? Do you really think that what Amazon did is the same as Apple protecting their rights to MacOS?

If you want to argue on a tangent, fine. But don't make it seem as if that's what this thread is about.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2000

But really...you're setting up a strawman. You seem not to be responding to me, but against all the people who have argued with you on similar things in the past. I am only saying that 1)Amazon did something that I see as harmful to e-shopping 2) We should boycott Amazon 3)It doesn't take much to boycott Amazon, (so why not?); it's clearly much easier than boycotting Microsoft.

Are you really saying that if you boycott Amazon, that you must boycott all software companies to be consistent? Do you really think that what Amazon did is the same as Apple protecting their rights to MacOS?

What you call arguing on a tangeant can be interpreted as simply playing fair. The reason we have trade and copyright protection in the first place is because trade and copyright protection encourages innovation. If you compare innovation in the U.S. over the last 200+ years to innovation in China and India, it isn't hard to see that in the latter countries, innovation suffers from social immobility. Yeah, that guy in the Chinese post office could have invented PostIts™ 30 years ago, but he lives in a Communist country, and if it isn't going to improve his income, why should he bother?

The telephone was invented independently from from Alexander Bell, and missed beating Bell's patent filing by, like, 6 hours. I wouldn't imagine that Bell would be denied the rights to his patent, just because someone invented it independently. I really don't understand your rationale for boycotting a company for exercising its rights within a capitalistic system.

The same thing is going on right now with gene-mapping, where research companies are getting trade protection on segments of your DNA that they map. The motive behind this is that any breakthrough that involves information on any DNA mapped, and trade protected, the holder of the protection gets a cut. Otherwise, mapping DNA is too expensive to be worthwhile, because other people could use the information without paying tribute to its research. It wouldn't get done. That same protection applies to Amazon, no matter how inevitable the innovation was. I don't think I want you to decide that my patent is weaker than yours, just because you think I put less effort into my innovation. If Amazon's idea was so simple, someone else should have thought of it first.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Aren't there any nice Chinese guys out there who could post in the forum once in a while, just to let us know you're out there?

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Dear Mike,

I don't think you're understanding the nature of this debate at all. You ask, "Why didn't someone else think of it first?" Well, you would know the answer if you went to the link I initially posted. The answer (in case you're lazy) is a BUNCH of people thought of it first. In fact, what Amazon did is the computer equivalent of taking out a patent on the wheel. Now, nobody has yet patented the wheel, yet if I tried to, I would(rightfully) be laughed out of the country. Ok, this example is an exaggerated one, I'll admit. But hopefully it clarifies my point.

So I'm afraid that your posting doesn't make much sense. This is not similar to the case of the telephone that you mention. The patent examiners made a mistake; they didn't know what they were looking at. The fact that Amazon obfuscated the patent application with additional (and unnecessary) detail didn't help either. It'll be interesting to see how the courts rule.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Dear Mike,

What's with the second posting? You're emphasis on 'nice' indicates to me that you believe a Chinese guy has already posted and that it's a not-so-nice Chinese guy. I'm not Chinese by the way, if that's what you're saying.

I'm sure the nice Chinese guys out there will be glad to hear that they're being encouraged to let their presence be known, although I suspect some people already know there are some nice Chinese guys out there.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

I don't think you're understanding the nature of this debate at all. You ask, "Why didn't someone else think of it first?" Well, you would know the answer if you went to the link I initially posted. The answer (in case you're lazy) is a BUNCH of people thought of it first. In fact, what Amazon did is the computer equivalent of taking out a patent on the wheel.

Sorry, Chan-Ho, but I just did a search on that page, and the author made no analogy to the wheel. There is such a thing as setting us up to follow your analogy, and you're the one too lazy to do that. Maybe it's because you don't understand the nature of this debate. Care to explain how 1-Click(R) helped bring civilization to the Nile delta valley, and helped mankind build the pyramids?

What's with the second posting? You're emphasis on 'nice' indicates to me that you believe a Chinese guy has already posted and that it's a not-so-nice Chinese guy. I'm not Chinese by the way, if that's what you're saying.

I posted the second entry knowing you might not be Chinese. I was just working on what you earthlings call self-deprecating humor, by playing with the stereotypes. I just don't see a lot of non-Western names here.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Dear Mike,

I'm glad that you actually visited the gnu site. Maybe one day you'll actually read it instead of just doing a search on it.

I'm sorry, but I had no idea that what I'm supposed to do is to take you by the hand and lead you through the whole debate. For some reason, I expected people to read the info and perhaps enter into a knowledgeable debate about the pros and cons of boycotting Amazon. I did not expect responses ranging from 'Stallman is an open source fanatic!' to 'some other guy invented the telephone at the same time as Bell.' But I guess it's been a learning experience.

As for your 'joke', I don't see how it's the least bit funny, but hopefully other people did 'get' it.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

I'm glad that you actually visited the gnu site. Maybe one day you'll actually read it instead of just doing a search on it.

Ah! You can't defend your wheel analogy, so that's somehow my deficiency. Nice try, Chan-Ho.

I'm sorry, but I had no idea that what I'm supposed to do is to take you by the hand and lead you through the whole debate. For some reason, I expected people to read the info and perhaps enter into a knowledgeable debate about the pros and cons of boycotting Amazon.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would have no difficulty making a simple statement as to make understandable the wrong doing Amazon has done. As it is, you've stated that Amazon's patent was for a trivial application of cookies. When your position is challenged you then go on to make an analogy of the importance of the application to the wheel. Then it's my fault that I can't follow the urgency of your position. I'm sorry that your words are inconsistent. What can I do right to make what you write consistent?

I did not expect responses ranging from 'Stallman is an open source fanatic!' to 'some other guy invented the telephone at the same time as Bell.' But I guess it's been a learning experience.

Again, you can't defend your position, so your lack of imagination is somehow my deficiency. When we agree with you, the debate is knowledgeable, but when we disagree with you, we turn into tangeant monsters. Someday you'll have to tell me how this way of thinking is in your best interest.

As for your 'joke', I don't see how it's the least bit funny, but hopefully other people did 'get' it.

Now that just hurts.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

As it is, you've stated that Amazon's patent was for a trivial application of cookies. When your position is challenged you then go on to make an analogy of the importance of the application to the wheel. Then it's my fault that I can't follow the urgency of your position. I'm sorry that your words are inconsistent. What can I do right to make what you write consistent?

Why can't you be consistent? You start out by giving a lecture on the greatness of the US patent system (which I didn't need), and then you ramble about Alexander Bell and the telephone, and finish by asking why no one else thought of the cookie idea first. This made no sense to me. If your position is that Amazon did not patent a trivial application of cookies, but was a more significant, original idea, then you should have said so. Is that what you are saying now? I did not get the impression that you were challenging anything I said, but rather were rambling about how patents are good because they make it worthwhile for people to research new technology, which is a different issue.

Again, you can't defend your position, so your lack of imagination is somehow my deficiency. When we agree with you, the debate is knowledgeable, but when we disagree with you, we turn into tangeant monsters. Someday you'll have to tell me how this way of thinking is in your best interest.

Again, I don't see how we're even talking on the same bandwith. Are you saying that Amazon patented an original, significant idea? An idea that they put effort into researching, and so is their intellectual property?

If that is what you're saying, here goes: the idea of cookies was pretty well known by that time. Amazon claims that the idea of recording the customer's info once and then sending the browser a cookie with a customer id, which the browser will send when the customer orders the next time, is an original idea, developed after thousands of hours of research by Amazon. I really don't know what to say except that this is really obvious use of cookies. That's what cookies do: when you click on a page, it sends the cookie back to the server. Is the idea that the cookie would have a customer id which could be used to find customer info creative? No. That is what I'm saying. We shouldn't forget that basically all e-commerce happens in this manner. Amazon's patent covers it all, any application in which 'one click' sends a cookie to the server that identifies the customer.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Geez, Chan-Ho, welcome to the world of trade protection. As far as I know, Paul McCartney owns the rights to the song Happy Birthday. You know, Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear Chan-Ho. Happy birthday to you. That means he has the legal right to bust up any 4 year-olds' birthday party if they use that song. Are you going to recommend we boycott buying all Beatles albums because of McCartney's ownership of something that better fits your wheel analogy than web cookies?

All of those authors' quotes you see used on peoples' web pages? All of them are illegal. I have a Robert Graves quote on my journal home that is illegal if it's protected. It would be stupid for anyone to sue over it, since I'm not making any money. But if Pamie should start selling wooden hand back-scratchers, make a killing at it, and if she put the lyrics of Happy Birthday on her page, Paul McCartney has every right to send her a letter saying take it off, pay me, or get sued. Been singing that song since birthdays going back to age one? Take it off, pay me, or get sued.

The dark side of the ascension of the geek in current times is no different than the high school ascension of the jock. They think that the world is centered around them, and what they don't understand should just be pushed aside. Cookies are essential technology? The trade rules no longer apply? Eat me.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Chan-Ho, i'm going to step into this as well - one of your justifications for this boycott disturbed me, to paraphrase, it's not hard to boycott amazon, so why not? I know you have other arguments as well, but i really don't understand why we should boycott amazon because they are trying to maintain what is legitimatley theirs. Whether or not someone else thought of it first, Amazon filed for the patent, therefore they have a right to uphold that legal right. Also, you admit yourself that this will do absolutley no damage to Amazon, so why bother? You think it will get us thinking about revolting against the big bad dot com's? Big Brother? I suggest that you abandon a desctructive course of action and try something constructive instead. Perhaps you should write your representatives regarding a modernization of the US patent office? Start a letter- writing campaign? Write in your local newspaper, contact national ones, do research to point out the gross inadequacies of the current system, and make it better. That's time much better spent than sparring with random people on this message board.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

I'm not sure if I want to post here or not; brickbats are flying left and right here... oh, what the hell...

The amazon case doesn't bother me nearly as much as that jerk who has the patent on the concept of date windowing and now wants every company that used that technique in their Y2K efforts to pay him lots of money. Part of the problem is the foolishness and ignorance on the part of the patent office in granting this patent in the first place, but I don't see how this patent could survive a court test... it is obviously based on prior art, there is nothing new about it. (Hell, I was using that technique years before this patent was applied for... and I was far from being the only programmer to use such an obvious technique.) My problem is that I see this guy as just trying to do some quick extortion here... try to get some quick settlements for what would be big money for an individual but to a major company it could seem far cheaper and easier to pay him off than to go to court.

I don't think much of many of these so-called e-business patents, including amazon's oneclick... but that is a legal question to be decided by a court of law.

Why should I boycott Amazon to try to help out poor little old Barnes and Noble? (Full disclosure: Barnes and Noble ran the book store at CWPost College where I did my freshman and sophomore years and took over the book store at Binghamton University where I was working on a master's in systems science. After having to suffer their monopoly pricing on textbooks, etc., I must admit to having been very pleased to see Amazon.com kicking their butt in online book sales.)

If there is true legal merit in their case, they will prevail in court. If there is no merit in their case, they will lose in court. Chan-Ho, are you advocating using a boycott to subvert the legal process? If they are indeed legally correct, who are you to attempt to drive them out of business? I will admit that I boycotted tuna for several years until dolphin-safe fishing methods were adopted, but this sounds to me as being too close to the kinds of tactics advocated by the Pat Robertson Christian Right. Hey, lets boycott amazon because they sell that kind of jungle music that poisons the precious bodily fluids of our innocent teenagers.

[By the way, I don't think amazon will prevail. For years software was not properly protected at all (patent office essentially said you can't patent a math formula and that's about all a program is) now the pendulum may have swung too far. (My personal opinion is that the patent office is granting some invalid patents.) Courts will decide. If you don't like the way these cases get decided, then start lobbying your friendly neighborhood congress critter to pass a revised law. (My impulse when hearing that people want to boycott amazon is to logon and see if there are any new books I want to buy.)

Jim

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Okay, I hope I have at least made clear what I meant by 'trivial application of cookies.' I take it that you are not holding the opposing view that it is non-trivial. So now we can move on, to the issues you bring up in your last post.

I don't see how your Happy Birthday analogy is relevant. The original rights belonged to two kindergarten teachers, Mildred and Patty Hill. McCartney later got the rights to it. I haven't seen any evidence that the Hills knew of the song from others and I believe they wrote the words and music. Okay, so now the song is popular. So what? The song was original when the Hills came up with it.

I don't see the relevance of your last paragraph. Nowhere am I suggesting that trade laws no longer apply. Nor have I said that the world is centered around me. Nor have I suggested or tried to imply that anything I don't understand should be pushed aside. I have suggested that an abuse of the patent system has occured, and I have encouraged those who feel similarly to boycott Amazon.

It's possible I suppose that your last paragraph was not directed toward me, but is yet another example of your self-deprecating humor. But it just confuses the hell out of me.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

First off, I thank Nae and Jim for their comments. My intent when I first posted was to start a discussion on the merits(or lack of) of boycotting Amazon, not to spar with random persons on the board.

Let me first address Nae's comments:

At this time, Amazon has the legal rights. But the legal system isn't always right. Then is the time for people to make their voices heard. I sincerely believe that Amazon's patent is a gross abuse of the patent system. So I feel I should act. I do not see my effort as fruitless; I previously said that perhaps in the end it will make little difference, but that is not a good reason for me to not act. Nae, you are right, there are other things I could do in conjunction with boycotting Amazon, like writing my local newspaper (which I am considering). But I should add that I do not consider boycotting a destructive act.

Response to Jim:

I am not doing this to help out Barnes & Noble; I don't think that's what you were suggesting, but just to make things clear. I don't think much of Barnes and Noble either. I suspect that some of their business practices are designed to drive smaller businesses out of business, but that's another issue(at least they're doing a good job of driving my favorite hometown bookstore to the poorhouse). If Barnes & Noble benefit from this, oh well. So will all the other online booksellers.

Yes, Jim, I am hoping that the courts will decide rightly. But I don't see boycotting Amazon as an attempt to subvert the legal process. I am not doing it to make Amazon bankrupt. I really doubt that would happen. The point, as I see it, is to send Amazon a message that they're not fooling us. I see Amazon's statements about this issue as very disrespectful of the intelligence of the general public.

I see this boycott as closer to the boycott of tuna you mention, rather than that of the Christian Right variety. I am not objecting to what Amazon is selling. I am objecting to their behavior.

On a related note:

Does anyone know what happened with the lawsuit filed by Amazon Bookstore against Amazon.Com?

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Okay, I hope I have at least made clear what I meant by 'trivial application of cookies.' I take it that you are not holding the opposing view that it is non-trivial.

So you're sticking to the 1-Click/wheel analogy? Because your promotion of the boycott based on the ubiquitousness of the 1-Click cookie tactic then makes the McCartney/Happy Birthday analogy relevant. It doesn't matter how omnipresent the usage of the 1-Click tactic is, and doesn't necessarily invalidate the patent.

Again, the Bell/phone analogy is relevent for the same reason. The fact that the phone was invented independently didn't weaken Bell's claim to the patent, because his patent submission was seen first. If Thomas Edison had invented the light bulb, and began using it to light streets at night, but neglected to file for its patent, well that just leaves an opening for someone else to file first for its patent. The light bulb is much more important to civilization than any cookie tactic, but if some clown had taken advantage of any neglect on Edison's part to file a patent, he would be analogous to Amazon's claim, or even perhaps Jim's jerk who has the patent on the concept of date windowing and now wants every company that used that technique in their Y2K efforts to pay him lots of money. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it wasn't done fair and above board.

There's a patent on 1-Click. There was also a patent on every light bulb in America. Why is one worse than the other?

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Again, the Bell/phone analogy is relevent for the same reason.

That is, rambling about how patents are good because they make it worthwhile for people to research new technology is relevent, because that is the central issue behind trade protection, and the involved laws enforced. Just because you don't like how someone took advantage of the negligence of others, doesn't mean it wasn't done so fairly and above board. You seem to be advocating dismissal of these central issues when they don't serve your needs. so when you claim Nowhere am I suggesting that trade laws no longer apply. Nor have I said that the world is centered around me. Nor have I suggested or tried to imply that anything I don't understand should be pushed aside. I have suggested that an abuse of the patent system has occured, and I have encouraged those who feel similarly to boycott Amazon, you appear to be wrong.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

There's a patent on 1-Click. There was also a patent on every light bulb in America. Why is one worse than the other?

Dear Mike,

I clipped the above segment, because it seems to summarize your views well. You basically seem to be saying, well, a patent is a patent, Amazon got there first with their patent, and that's that. Well, the whole debate in the courts is whether it was a mistake to award the patent. So if that's the way you feel, I don't see how I can even start to change your mind. Initally I thought you were arguing that Amazon's patent was an original idea, but now you seem to be saying that it doesn't matter; they were within the law when they filed for the patent, and that's that. I do believe originality is one of the criteria for a patent being approved, so I think this point is very important in Amazon vs. Barnes & Noble. Again, if you disagree, ok. We'll see what the courts do. Of course, I say this, because I suspect the court will rule against Amazon.

As for your last comments, they were way out of line. Why do you feel the need to keep insulting me? I have behaved courteously on this message board. At first, I was unsure whether you were directing your comments toward me, but as your last post indicates, you definitely are. Grow up. Someday you'll have to tell me how this way of thinking is in your best interest, as the saying goes.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

You basically seem to be saying, well, a patent is a patent, Amazon got there first with their patent, and that's that. Well, the whole debate in the courts is whether it was a mistake to award the patent. So if that's the way you feel, I don't see how I can even start to change your mind.

As for your last comments, they were way out of line. Why do you feel the need to keep insulting me? I have behaved courteously on this message board.

Yeah, as courteous as someone can be who is basically recommending we bully someone else for taking advantage of the current rules of fair play. We don't like what they're doing? Let's do what we can to force them to bow to our wishes, no matter how fair and above board the route they take. I believe my ascension of the geek comment covers my motivation. Your motivation remains your own hidden agenda.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

I think this whole thing is a perfect example of why there should be no software patents at all.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

hi. i didn't know that amazon had patented cookies. this is an interesting discussion!

it seems like all the non-chan-ho people are ultimately saying, "well, they did it legally, so what right do you have to complain about it?" but cookies really have become an essential technology for e-commerce. if you have one company that can advertise to individual consumers, and another that has to direct their ad campaign to a diverse demographic, which one will do better business? there's a lot of information in cookies! and it's not like cookie technology is the intellectual property of amazon; a lot of people had and developed the idea. so patenting it can be nothing but gaining unfair competitive leverage.

"well tough," the non-chan-ho people seem to argue, "that's what the business world is like. lots of people with unfairly gained 'competitive leverage. who are you to challenge something that was done legally?" well that's just dumb and naively cynical. there are bad laws. and chan-ho isn't arguing that we should break the law, just that we should protest it, by means of a simple boycott. that's not bullying. that's being a good and concerned citizen. and i want to add my two cents. boycotting amazon doesn't give the advantage to barnes and noble. just don't shop at either and buy at a local (or used) bookstore. i know that's easier to write than do, and sometimes i cave to convenience too, but it's still true.

that's what i think.
jack

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

it seems like all the non-chan-ho people are ultimately saying, "well, they did it legally, so what right do you have to complain about it?" but cookies really have become an essential technology for e-commerce.

I didn't buy the ascension of the jock in high school, so your essential technology argument, from how the Amazon boycott has been presented, doesn't look like much more than Techno-Snobs are the Master Race: Obey! If Amazon took advantage of the neglect of other people, how does that make Amazon's e-commerce advantage unfair? That just sounds dumb and naively cynical to me.

It just kind of creeps me out to see people becoming very generous with the property of others.

I think this whole thing is a perfect example of why there should be no software patents at all.

I think Communist China is a perfect example of why there should be trade protection of software. No reward for innovations: no innovation.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

mike,

cookies are everywhere! how could you possibly claim that they should be somebody's property? "happy birthday" is everywhere too, but you don't need to sing it to compete in the marketplace. that's the difference. today you need cookies to compete in e-commerce. and tomorrow you will need another powerful technology to compete in the marketplace. if we tell the government not to get involved, we'll just have a succession (if even that) of monopolies by companies that were exploitative enough to patent the reigning technology. sorry, but if you think up something that radically changes the way an entire field of business is run, you can't have the exclusive rights to it.

unless you think that cookies really aren't essential to competition in today's e-marketplace. it seems to me that they are, but maybe i'm wrong about that. does anybody want to make a case here?

libertarians and their reverence for property get me so mad! i was going to link to melty's old article about them but she took it down. damn.

jack

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Mike, do you really believe what you're saying, or are you just having fun with Chan-Ho? Seriously.

I mean obviously their "everyone uses is so Amazon can't patent it" argument is poppycock. But:

Amazon was awarded a patent for trivial "innovation," (so called) a technique that was blatantly obvious to anybody who set out to solve the problem. It was a simple, straight-forward use of a new technology. As such it is not deserving of a patent and the patent never should have been awarded.

No reward for innovations: no innovation.

Sure. Patents are not the only rewards for innovation, however. In the case of software, they are simply not necessary.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Usually the Hitler card and the Communist card are played much later in the game of Empty Analogy. You won't leave yourself anything for later-- having also squandered the dreaded "high school jock"er!

Other masterful hands played so far: Things that become ubiquitous (Happy Birthday)= Things that were already ubiquitous (cookies) A trivial application of a technology (1 Click)=a trivial technology (cookies) Boycott=Bullying Suggesting that something is essential for ecommerce=claiming that techno-geeks rule the world.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

dammit! if the argument was just "it's everywhere so amazon can't patent it" then sure go ahead and say "oh ho ho another silly marxist type." but if it's everywhere, and without it you can't compete, then you can't let a company have exclusive rights to it!

how on earth can you disagree? usually people who disagree at least try to claim that whatever the property is, it's not "essential," so people have a shot at competing without it. but to dismiss the possibility of competition on the grounds that they are trumped by property rights, well, that's, i don't know. something awful and democracy-threatening and compassionless and etc.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

IF we agree that Amazon deserves this patent on the grounds that it was true innovation (and that's a mightly big if), then the fact that other companies can't compete without stealing Amazon's innovation is simply not relevant. Tough beans. That's what patents are for, to give a competitive edge as a reward for innovation. The other companies would have to find other solutions, or licence Amazon's technology.

The problem is that it just wasn't true innovation and no patent should have been awarded.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Usually the Hitler card and the Communist card are played much later in the game of Empty Analogy.

I believe the overused Marxist analogies still beats I don't like the overused Marxist analogies.

Amazon was awarded a patent for trivial "innovation," (so called) a technique that was blatantly obvious to anybody who set out to solve the problem. It was a simple, straight-forward use of a new technology. As such it is not deserving of a patent and the patent never should have been awarded.

Should the patent on the Topsy-Tail™ then be recalled, because it's just a plastic stick with a loop at the end? Plastic isn't original. Sticks and loops aren't original. Should the patent then be recalled, because they are basically the same as the loops-on-a-stick you see in the little jars of bubble-making soap?

cookies are everywhere! how could you possibly claim that they should be somebody's property? "happy birthday" is everywhere too, but you don't need to sing it to compete in the marketplace. that's the difference. today you need cookies to compete in e-commerce. As far as I know, that's how patents work. Cookies are essential to e-commerce? If you use cookies in the fashion of 1-Click, and don't pay Amazon for the use of any patented material, they have a right to send you a letter saying take it off, pay us, or get sued. Everytime to hand over money to buy anything, you can count on part of that money to pay for protected information. It's fair tribute to the patent holder. Don't think you can make me nervous over who holds the patent, just because of the electronic nature of the protected information.

I said it before: It creeps me out to see people becoming very generous with the property of others.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Plastic isn't original.

Exactly. When plastic was invented should the first person who made a plastic container been given the patent on plastic containers? No, of course not, because it would just be an obvious use of a new technology, namely plastic.

Cookies are something relatively new. Amazon's usage of them was merely using something new as it was intended to be used, in a straightforward and obvious manner. They should not have been awarded a patent for it.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

but if it's everywhere, and without it you can't compete, then you can't let a company have exclusive rights to it!

It's funny how I can view any of these web pages, while Netscape and Microsoft hold their trade protection. It's a wonder their aren't only a dozen businesses traded on the Nasdaq.

e-commerce=air we breathe! Yeah, and without the big, black armor, Darth Vader is just a gasping, pasty-white, worm-headed man, with his hand cut off. (Oh, wait, I was supposed to stop at the over-used Marx/Hitler analogies. Sorry, hazelii. I uess I can't continue without living with disgrace in your eyes.)

Maybe the point of such allegorical stories is to keep us from developing such a dependency on the Empire in the first place. Why is it so much harder for the celebrated adults to pick up on this than a kid.

When plastic was invented should the first person who made a plastic container been given the patent on plastic containers? No, of course not, because it would just be an obvious use of a new technology, namely plastic. So, you would champion the recall of the patent on the Topsy-Tail, which is just a little plastic loop on a stick? Scary, Dave Van. Scary.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Yet another hand! This is an excitingly played game.

The topsy-tail analogy is a real winner. Of course, it might seem less apt if someone were to point out that so-called "1 Click technology" just is a cookie (rather than being "made out" of cookies). If I took a topsy-tail and made a topsy-tail out of it, and then applied for a patent (calling it 1-Click hairstyling of course), someone might object. But of course, that still wouldn't be to the point. The point is (returning, alas, to the wheel analogy) that AMAZON didn't invent what they are patenting. For anyone who has trouble following the wheel analogy, it goes something like this. The wheel was not (so far as we know) any one person's or organization's invention, but rather, the outcome of a collaborative process. The wheel is already ubiquitous and in widespread use. Therefore, we choose not to allow anyone to take advantage of other people's "neglect" to apply for a patent on it. [These are, for the purposes of Chan-Ho's analogy, the relevant features of wheels. Wheels, as Mike has pointed out, have many other features, and you could extend the analogy (as Mike has) to make the point that wheels have had more of an impact on civilization than cookies. But then of course, that would no longer be Chan-Ho's analogy you were talking about.]

I'll check the rules on the "I don't like Communist analogies" move, but I'm pretty sure that when you play Hitler and Communists in the same hand, then "I think your Communist analogy is asinine" is perfectly legal.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

That doesn't follow, Mike. No need to be scared.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

When did I play Hitler and Communists in the same hand?

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

[These are, for the purposes of Chan-Ho's analogy, the relevant features of wheels. Wheels, as Mike has pointed out, have many other features, and you could extend the analogy (as Mike has) to make the point that wheels have had more of an impact on civilization than cookies. But then of course, that would no longer be Chan-Ho's analogy you were talking about.]

Well, that would be a reason why Chan-Ho's analogy would not apply, now wouldn't it? I cookies are going to be so essential to human survival as teh wheel, well, maybe we should avoid getting to that point for as long as possible.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Of course, it might seem less apt if someone were to point out that so-called "1 Click technology" just is a cookie (rather than being "made out" of cookies). If I took a topsy-tail and made a topsy-tail out of it, and then applied for a patent (calling it 1-Click hairstyling of course)

Hey, that's a good analogy! Should the 1-Click hairstyling get through the patent process, it should be valuless to the patent holder, because of the previous patent. As an analogy to the Amazon situation, all you should have to do is find the previous patent, show it to a judge, and the judge should be able to tell Amazon to back off. Is that the patent situation with Amazon/1-Click?

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

I didn't buy the ascension of the jock in high school, so your essential technology argument, from how the Amazon boycott has been presented, doesn't look like much more than Techno-Snobs are the Master Race: Obey!

followed in the same post by:

I think Communist China is a perfect example of why there should be trade protection of software. No reward for innovations: no innovation.

Unless of course you had some other instance of "master race" in mind, like the Empire.

On a side note, there is a difference between calling an analogy asinine and calling a person asinine. So, while you may indeed, as you insist, be asinine for some mysterious reason, I wouldn't presume to say so.

I didn't quite follow the last bit about cookies becoming essential to human survival. I haven't heard anyone suggest anything even remotely like that, so I guess I'd ask you to clarify.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Mmmmm....

I like my dead horse well beaten. Nice and tender. Could someone pass the mashed potatoes?

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

I didn't buy the ascension of the jock in high school, so your essential technology argument, from how the Amazon boycott has been presented, doesn't look like much more than Techno-Snobs are the Master Race: Obey!

followed in the same post by:

I think Communist China is a perfect example of why there should be trade protection of software. No reward for innovations: no innovation.

Blood? There isn't supposed to be any blood! Hey, that was a good catch of the asinine hand. Is there no room to discard the Hitler analogy? Or is it now ok to be generous with each others' property?

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

...but I stand by the Empire analogy. The patent process protects individual control of the innovation. Communism puts innovation in the hands of a program.

If I can use the Kurt Vonnegut book, Cat's Cradle as an example (I admit that I haven't read it), there is a self-replicating nanotech-like substance called Ice-9 that freezes water. Well, the substance falls into the ocean and freezes all the oceans of the world. The self-replicating nature of the substance takes the function of Ice-9 out of human control, and in the control of its programming. For that reason, I believe that the individual control-dissolving nature of the Empire still makes it a good analogy for Marxism in this topic. (I think the individual control-dissolving nature of fascism makes my use of it as an analogy less asinine, but what are you going to do?)

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

I suppose then, that the time limit on patents should be abolished, in the interests of fighting Communism. We have to protect that individual control, right?

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

"The patent process protects individual control of the innovation."

True, and no one has thus far suggested (in this conversation anyway) that the patent process is obsolete or even obsolete for software (though some people apparently do believe the latter).

But in this case, the patent was (mistakenly, I believe, and I predict the courts will find this way as well) granted to an "individual" (corporate entity) that did not create the "innovation" in question. Amazon has been deliberately misleading about the work they have put into their "innovation" (and if it does not matter that they made it-- as you suggested earlier when you propose the "calling dibs" or "snooze you lose" theory of patent law-- then why should they bother to claim that they did?)

As far as communism (not, by the way, quite the same thing as Marxism) and facism are concerned....well, never mind, since they (let alone the Empire) are not even analogously related to Chan-Ho's argument that Amazon is abusing the patent process.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

I suppose then, that the time limit on patents should be abolished, in the interests of fighting Communism. We have to protect that individual control, right?

I don't see the time limit as inconsistent with rewarding innovation. The individual gets his control for so long. He/she has an edge in his/her headstart, along the lines of the bigger fish theory on growth (i.e. any size difference early on, in 2 fish in a pond, will account for a huge difference in size later on, due to the advantage even a slightly larger fish has in feeding). If the patent holder can't exploit his control in the time given, there's no reason to believe more time will make any difference.

But in this case, the patent was (mistakenly, I believe, and I predict the courts will find this way as well) granted to an "individual" (corporate entity) that did not create the "innovation" in question. Amazon has been deliberately misleading about the work they have put into their "innovation"

Well, that's what barnesandnoble.com has lawyers for. Chan-Ho is advocating punishing another entity (Amazon) for what appears to be them playing by the patent rules, without demonstrating otherwise. I said it before: It creeps me out to see people becoming very generous with the property of others.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Indeed, you have said it before. You have said it a total of 3 times now (plus one other time in partial paraphrase).

And saying it again, as I can't help but imagine you will, still won't address Chan Ho's original point, which was: that IF you believe that the "property" in question (patent rights to 1-Click) was obtained by a misapplication of the law to a case it does not cover [do you think that it was not? I'm sincerely interested in the argument as to why not-- but the assertion that the patent was legally obtained isn't that argument] , and IF you believe that the misapplication (while made, alas, by the patent office) was in part the result of deliberate misrepresentations on the part of Amazon [do you think that Amazon acted in good faith? I think this is a harder case to make, but I'll keep an open mind for any evidence] THEN a boycott makes good sense. "Demonstrations" (i.e. evidence) affirming both of these "ifs" seems pretty strong, though not, perhaps dispositive: c.f. The website to which Chan-Ho refers us.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Chan-Ho's original point looks very different from what you say is his original point:

Basically, Amazon managed, through the stupidity of the US Patent Office, to get a patent to a trivial application of cookies--what Amazon calls 1-Click(R) shopping.... I urge Pamie and everyone reading this to boycott Amazon. I'm not kidding.

His original point didn't allow for the possibility of any conclusions other than his own (an essential discipline if you want to become very generous with the property of others, and in doing so, start creeping me out). "Demonstrations" (i.e. evidence) affirming both of your "ifs" would oblige a judge to order Amazon to back off of any claim of the disproved patent. What sense then would boycotting Amazon then make?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

As far as I know.

I hate to piggy-back on the last message like this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a dozen lawyers reading this who could tell me where I'm wrong legally. I only know from what I read in the newspapers, and what I see on Law & Order. I wouldn't make posts like the ones I've been making if I didn't think I was inviting correction where I'm wrong. It's a very efficient way for me to learn. Can we get a professional perspective on this?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

You are right-- if the two "ifs" are proved, Amazon will be ordered to back off the legal claim. The sense of the Boycott (as I understand it) would be that it would inform Amazon of its customers' opinion of the company when it knowingly abuses the patent system (remember, this is assuming for the moment the second "if") in ways that make life difficult for everyone involved in ecommerce as seller or buyer-- and not just for Barnes and Noble.
Amazon has benefitted greatly from open source work all along (suggesting that innovation is at least possible without claiming property rights in code at every turn). Now it wants to take software it did not develop and claim it as property in order to make a profit (no problem there on principle, except for the bad faith part) and to make further innovation ("innovation" like the "inovation" that made Amazon possible despite the fact that it has yet to make money) more difficult.
The same might hold, by the way for the other lawsuit in which Amazon has recently been embroiled-- it was sued by another "Amazon" bookstore (an independent specializing in feminist literature) for trademark infringement: Amazon Bookstore has been around decades longer than our beloved Amazon.com. While Amazon.com's tactics (its lawyers asking the owners of Indie-Amazon about their sexual orientation on the stand in order (apparently) to demonstrate that the store is not a "bookstore" but a "lesbian store" and therefore "in another business") may well be censured by the court and ruled irrelevant to the case, that does not require us to throw up our hands and say "ok--legal ruling-- case closed." If we would like BigA Amazon to conduct itself more responsibly we have the right to demand that it do so-- and a boycott is one way to make that demand. (A perfectly legal way by the way and therefore, at least by your earlier account, not problematic in a "capitalistic system").
Now you may not care about Amazon's conduct-- for good or for ill-- in which case by all means don't boycott. On your first point: I guess I don't see that Chan-Ho's assertion (that Amazon deserves to be boycotted) followed by a link to more information (read this and see why I think so) needs an additional disclaimer ("but your opinion may differ, and THAT"S OK") in order to admit the possibility of other conclusions. But hey, your opinion may differ-- AND THAT"S OK.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

libertarians and their reverence for property get me so mad! i was going to link to melty's old article about them but she took it down. damn.

The average age of the scientists who worked on the first atomic bomb at Los Alamos was 26. These kids were informed that the (Oh, no, Mike's going to use the tired old fascism analogy again) Nazi's had abandoned their pursuit of a fission bomb, because they couldn't get enough Uranium to make it work. They knew that they were the only ones in the world inventing a nuclear weapon, and they went ahead and did it anyway.

The reason I've been sticking to the rights of the property owner in this forum is because most people are too stupid to understand any other dignity entitled to the individual. If any of these rocket scientists had prevailed in convincing their collegues that the right of the individual to posses his/her own life outweighed the sensational rush they were getting from building a weapon of unprecedented mass destruction, well it would have meant that they had more brains than they apparently had. They were following a program, and didn't have the spine to walk away when the urgency of the program had disappeared.

I remember the Melty essay you are refering to. Her point, it seemed, was that Libertarianism attracts a lot of jerks. I'm sorry that I'm not smart enough to write that all-revealing document, reestablishing the dignity entitled to the individual in the way even the Declaration of Independence couldn't. But it seems to me that the Y2K Panic should be taken as a wake up call that we can't handle the accelerated change we obsessively pursue. Any fuzziness we have in delineating the rights of the individual could result in a year of Cuban Missile Crises, where everyday of that year we will live as close to an exchange of mass destruction as then, without retreat. I think maintaining the rights of the property owner is as good a place to start. It's an issue that can be dumbed down enough. That's why socialist inclinations make me queasy If this somehow earns me an exceptionally snot-encrusted tomb in Hell, at least I won't have earned it by following some program or party-line, just because everyone else went along.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

This as also why atheism creeps me out, in case any of you are still wondering about my persistence in the more philosophical forums.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Recent remarks might (arguably) have some relevance, if only the initial discussion were about patents in general, instead of a specific case of patent system mis-use.

I also find it astonishing that anyone would suggest we should not have developed the bomb, given that others intent on world domination most certainly would have.

Also, the bomb ended the war with the Japanese, did it not?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Recent remarks might (arguably) have some relevance, if only the initial discussion were about patents in general, instead of a specific case of patent system mis-use.

Dave, it sounds like you can't tell the difference between a system/program (the patent process) serving the people, and the people serving a system/program. I have attempted to demonstrate how the former is preferable to the latter, by trying to point out a disasterous example of the latter. Your questioning of the relevence of my attempt to do so (however badly I've managed it) is a sign to me that we are no longer listening to each other, and any further is a poor waste of both our time and resources. If you choose to be a person in service of a program, well, good luck to you. For anyone who is inclined to choose the former, maybe, just maybe, I have contributed a line or two for them with which they may attempt to arm themselves from what may well be, I'm sorry to say, your pernicious influence.

The relevence to the general patent discussion is that the patent system is a tool to protect individual control of the innovation. Protecting individual control reduces the influence of systems/programs/bad paradigms over the innovation. I'm sorry that any specific patent issue could set a precedent, but that's how precedents work. Otherwise each specific issue would fall under the whim of personal agenda. Each of the things I've posted here that has been criticized for being a tangeant is an attempt to set a standard. Setting standards is how human beings play fair with each other. Maybe you're better than me, and can live without any attempt at fair play, but I don't want to be that good, because then I'm in the dilema of being surrounded by shit, because everything and everyone in the universe is inferior to me.

There, Dave, I've attempted to break down into the simplest building blocks of human understanding I can manage how the discussion of patents in general apply to this example of alleged mis-use. But as I've said before, you've demonstrated how we ain't listening to each other anymore. However, should someone else find themselves armed with anything I've said, then that would just make my day.

I also find it astonishing that anyone would suggest we should not have developed the bomb, given that others intent on world domination most certainly would have.

Once it was discovered that a mouthful of lemon juice a day could prevent 60% of a ship's crew from dying of scurvy, it took 200 years for citrus to become standard inventory on British Naval ships. I don't think it would have been difficult at all to avoid the development of the fission bomb. I'm thinking lots of things astonish you, Dave.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

I also find it astonishing that anyone would suggest we should not have developed the bomb, given that others intent on world domination most certainly would have.

I would also like to point out the the 4 minute mile was considered impossible until it was finally broken. In that first year, 4 minutes was broken many times, maybe over a dozen. Of course, living with the bomb as we all have, it may be astonishing to believe that we could have avoided its invention all together. Of course, after the first testing, it was only a matter of time before the Russians got their hands on it. But without the urgency to end the war, all it may have taken to delay the bombs invention by even a century was a spine in one of those scientists.

As for Truman's usage of the bomb once it was invented, from what I understand, Truman was the best person to decide if we were obliged to use it or not.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Maybe you're better than me, and can live without any attempt at fair play, but I don't want to be that good, because then I'm in the dilema of being surrounded by shit, because everything and everyone in the universe is inferior to me.

It's a cross I bear.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

For a rather more balanced look at the Amazon.Com 1-Click patent, and the issues raised by its defense of same, you may wish to check out this article.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000