Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Patents The Almighty Buck News Your Rights Online

Judge's Ruling Spares 1-Click 120

Posted by timothy from the press-1-for-dismissal-or-stay-on-the-line dept.
theodp writes "Agreeing with Amazon's characterization of its 1-Click feature as a feature of an electronic product ordering system and not an electronic fund transfer or transaction system, a Judge has tossed out a $50M lawsuit that threatened Amazon's 1-Click patent. But outside of Court, Amazon touts its patent-pending Amazon Honor System as a way for Web sites to use 1-Click shopping technology for voluntary payment transactions - most notably for 9-11 donations and campaign contributions - that do not involve consumer goods or Amazon-specified prices, which the Judge argues are essential 1-Click ingredients."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge's Ruling Spares 1-Click More

Judge's Ruling Spares 1-Click

Comments Filter:

  • This is what happens when... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:04PM (#10550688) Journal
    This is what happens when you are the ones who give the whores in DC money to write laws and regs for you.

    Large companies in the US are not held to the same standard as others are.

    • Welcome to Reality (Score:5, Interesting)

      by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@RABBIT ... minus herbivore> on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:34PM (#10550832) Homepage
      Surprise! Your 9th grade social studies book was wrong. America is not a Democracy, and it's not a Republic either. It's an Oligarchy disguised as one or the other. People like Jeff Bezos aren't merely above the law, they get to surf on it.

      • Re:Welcome to Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tindur ( 658483 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:40PM (#10550856)
        A republic can be an oligarchy.
        • Right, ancient Rome for instance.

          "Republic" means there no king. It doesn't say anything about voting, protected rights, equality or replacability...

      • Re:Welcome to Reality (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Actually, it's identical to a fascist state. This honestly isn't intended as a troll, it's an observation - I'd challenge anyone to sumit how America in practise currently differs from the textbook definition of fascism.
        • Why don't you tell us why you think the USA is a facist state?

          • Re:Welcome to Reality (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            In short, because it matches the requirements:

            Extremely nationalistic.
            Anti-liberal, anti-socialist (diametrically opposed to Marxist Communism)
            Uses violence, propaganda and censorship to supress political opposition.

            Note that 'political opposition' certainly does not include the current interchangeable main parties or other parties that are happy to operate within the existing system. It would be more accurate to say that America is developing into a Fascist state - since the Constitution is taken an holy
            • IOW, it's facists because it is basicly capitalist (Of course this overlooks the solialists child care insurance programs that a large % of the states offers, the welfare system, Social Security, Medicare and Medicade)?

              And what to you think of the EU and its plans for a millitary, would that make the EU facists? After all the EU already censors much more than the United states.

              As for being nationalistic, well so is France, Germand, and most other countries on the planet. Look up who was making the most

            • Anti-liberal, anti-socialist (diametrically opposed to Marxist Communism) Uses violence, propaganda and censorship to supress political opposition.

              Libertariens are also anti-liberal, anti-socialist, but diametrically oposed to facism !!!

      • Oligarchy?

        All governments are rule of the masses by a choice few - to wit.

        Until wealth, education, liberties, and opportunity are evenly distributed amongst the population, there shall always be the choice few.

        Even then:

        • People will form parties around certain schools of thought.
        • Parties will naturally gravitate toward other parties of like thought.
        • Parties of like thought will merge over time, shedding minor differences to gain political clout.
        • Parties will, undoubtedly, follow the leader which is most
    • I was just thinking of a way to get patent law reform considered... a "user pays" system where the users are not the people who have the patents, but the ones that use them to make money. There should be a tax on the fees they make (either by royalties or lawsuits) that covers the patent office's expenses. If it didn't cost thousands of dollars to patent anything, then the patent office would have had millions of e-commerce submissions and have a much better idea what prior art is.
    • Did anybody actually read the press release? Including the submitter? This was not someone trying to overturn the One Click so-called patent *spit* and failing, but rather a separate garden-variety patent extortion company trying to claim that their previous and even more trivial, obvious, and overbroad patent trumps Amazon's trivial, obvious, and overbroad patent.

      On "lesser of two evils" argument, this was a win...

  • One-click shopping (Score:4, Insightful)

    by memodude ( 693879 ) <fastmemo AT comcast DOT net> on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:08PM (#10550703)
    How can a company patent one-click shopping? If you think about it, one-click shopping is just a system for storing credit card info and address info in an account, then facilitating purchases without requiring to enter that info again. Software patents are just pathetic.

    • Re:One-click shopping (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stinerman ( 812158 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:14PM (#10550738)
      Indeed, how is it different from clicking submit when I complete this post?

      The /. servers store my username, preference settings, etc. I only have to login the one time to my account so I can single-click the submit button to post my statement.
      • Indeed, how is it different from clicking submit when I complete this post?

        Utilizing one-click actually imposes an act of submission upon its user.

      • Their "Honor" system patent has me worried, too. I know of several bank transaction systems and some credit card processing systems that already take this kind of an approach. I fail to see why the idea would be considered patentable -- especially when it's completely outside the product sales market that the judge defined for Amazon's existing patent.

      • Now hush, or Amazon are gonna have /.ers by the balls!

    • Easy. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 )
      You give the whores in DC lots of money and they will make the laws that you want.

      Nothing more, nothing less.

    • Re:One-click shopping (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dashing Leech ( 688077 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:26PM (#10550796)
      How can a company patent one-click shopping? If you think about it, one-click shopping is just a system for ...

      You objection seems to be that such a system is obvious. I wholeheartedly agree with you there. There are rules against patenting the obvious, and things like this seem to be slipping through. However, then you say:

      Software patents are just pathetic.

      It's not clear how the former justifies the latter statement. The patent on 1-Click appears to violate the existing rules for patents on obviousness. There are also plenty of non-software patents that violate such rules (playing with a cat using a laser pointer [164.195.100.11], the combover [uspto.gov], etc.). So how does any of this show that software patents in particular are pathetic? Or was it a non-sequitor?

      • Re:One-click shopping (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:53PM (#10550912)
        So how does any of this show that software patents in particular are pathetic?

        The other non-sw patents you mention are simply ridiculous. Software patents are pathetic since they are purposly broadly written so that pretty much anything done with a computer (even if it already exists in the non-software world) will infringe. That's pathetic.

        • Re:One-click shopping (Score:3, Insightful)

          by iabervon ( 1971 )
          Software patents are pathetic since they are purposly broadly written so that pretty much anything done with a computer (even if it already exists in the non-software world) will infringe.

          The LZW patent (which caused problems with GIF) was (despite it's other flaws) written sufficiently narrowly not cover anything done with a computer other than compression, and not cover the methods of compression used in gzip, JPEG, or PNG, or run length encoding. So your statement not only isn't true of all software pa
          • " So your statement not only isn't true of all software patents, it's not even true of all bad software patents." Yeah, riiiight, ok, so how about an example of a *recent* software patent that *doesn't* include everything but the kitchen sink in its description, instead of an ancient, no-longer-valid patent as a poor example for a poor argument?...... .... ... Thought so.
          • Using a now-expired patent is a very, very poor example to use! Everyone knows that new software patents now are ALL purposely broad in their descriptions.

        • The other non-sw patents you mention are simply ridiculous.

          So how does that differ from the 1-Click patent? There are tons of other "obvious" non-software patents out there.

          Software patents are pathetic since they are purposly broadly written so that pretty much anything done with a computer (even if it already exists in the non-software world) will infringe.

          First of all, all patents are generally written as broadly as possible. Any good patent lawyer will tell you that. In one patent seminar I w

      • algorithms are discoveries, not inventions.
        • I disagree. "America was discovered, this invention/agorithm was created." To discover something implies it was there and you merely found it. Now if you want to claim Algorithms are discoveries because the potential of them exists then by that logic so are books, movies and machines.
          • algorithms are mathematical constructs. mathematics are discovered which means that algorithms are discovered as well, unless you want to suggest that mathematics should be patentable as an invention.
            • algorithms are mathematical constructs.

              Very over-used, over-simplified, and wrong argument. Algorithms are procedures and methods. Mathematics is only one technique for writing the method down. But even if written in mathematics it does not mean it was "discovered". Discovery implies it is a universal truth and is inevitably achieved. This is true if the mathematics is a proof(e.g., Pythagoras theorum) or new form of performing mathematics (e.g., Calculus). It is also true of physcial laws. But it

              • search algorithms are a good example of a purely mathematical construct. under software patents, you can patent a search algorithm, even though that algorithm is a discovery, not an innovation.

                should all software be off limits to patents? no. just like all uses of mathematics is not off limits (you can still patent things created using mathematics) for that reason, an AI system or an e-commerce system can be patented, but things like Error Correction Codes, Search Algorithms, and other basic algorithms can
                • search algorithms are a good example of a purely mathematical construct. under software patents...

                  Well, although I'm sure I can come up with a search algorithm that has no fundamental mathematical basis (and probably wouldn't work well), I'm sure you are referring to derived algorithms such as "shortest distance". (Obviously the shortest distance between two points is a fundamental truth and not an invention.)

                  should all software be off limits to patents? no.

                  And that's my main point. There are many

          • I disagree. "America was discovered, this invention/agorithm was created." To discover something implies it was there and you merely found it. Now if you want to claim Algorithms are discoveries because the potential of them exists then by that logic so are books, movies and machines.

            Goedelization has proven that every algorithm already exists in form of a number. Therefore one could argue that any Algorithm is in fact discovered by assigning the functionality to that number obtained by goedelization.

            I

    • Software patents are just pathetic.
      That's a gross overgeneralization. Take, for example this patent [uspto.gov] on the "Marching Cubes" computer graphics algorithm. The paper [acm.org] describing this algorithm made it into SIGGRAPH's Seminal Graphics [siggraph.org] collection of most important papers in computer graphics. Not all software patents are trivial and obvious.

  • Pay the judge... (Score:4, Funny)

    by akabigbro ( 257295 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:08PM (#10550705) Homepage
    When you have the money, just pay the judge off. It's the american way.

    • Re:Pay the judge... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by weorthe ( 666189 )
      You are oversimplifying the system. How it works is: When you have the money, just endebt the politicians to you (with camaign contributions of course), who will then avoid appointing judges unsympathetic to your causes. It's the american way.

    • And it's the best way the system can work. (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Corporations make America the great country that it is, so why SHOULD they be constrained by petty law?

      Nonsense lawsuits like this are just ways for low-value whiners to try to damage successfull businesses, because they can't do better themselves.
    • Leonie Brinkema is a Clinton appointee who has been involved in at least two significant internet cases:

      Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun Public Library, ruling in 1998 against filtering internet access in public libraries, on First Amendment grounds. Urofosky v. Allen, ruling against a state statute barring state employees from surfing for porn at work, overuled on appeal. Leonie Brinkema Biography [techlawjournal.com]

      Justice Brinkman has played a critical role in securing a fair trial for Zacarias Moussaoui. Zacarias Mouss [caci.com]

  • So... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by marktaw.com ( 816752 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:17PM (#10550761) Homepage
    This ruling doesn't actually say that 1 click ordering is a good and just patent, it just says that it doesn't infringe on another similar patent, is that correct?

    In other words, if someone else were to implement 1 click ordering, and Amazon sued them, this case would have no bearing on that one.

    • Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tonsofpcs ( 687961 )
      Yes, this is correct, this case does not determine if or if not the 1-click patent is a just and valid patent.

    • Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by geg81 ( 816215 )
      "In other words, if someone else were to implement 1 click ordering, and Amazon sued them, this case would have no bearing on that one."

      That is correct. Basically, the judge said that the 1-click system Amazon implemented does not infringe the '055 patent. Whether and what Amazon has a patent on one-click doesn't matter.

      • Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lspd ( 566786 )
        Basically, the judge said that the 1-click system Amazon implemented does not infringe the '055 patent. Whether and what Amazon has a patent on one-click doesn't matter.

        But as a nice bonus, anyone using a 1 click ordering system can expect to be sued by two companies now. Keep up the good work USPTO.

  • Patenting the act of programming???? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:21PM (#10550774) Homepage Journal
    Programming is the act of automating the use of complexity, usually made up of simpler complexities, so to enable the use and reuse of the complexity by the user of that complexity, easy.

    There is a world of prior art here, going back even before computers were invented, to the initial use of abstractions to express a more complex thought.

  • This is slly (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AvitarX ( 172628 ) <me&brandywinehundred,org> on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:23PM (#10550784) Journal
    Even if one-click was leitimate (which O'reilly said it very well may be) the honor system is definatly not non-obvious building on the first. So the honor system certainly shouldn't pass.

    PS, I think software patents are bad, but in the framework that they are legel there is a case to be made for one-click.

    I am more pissed that software patents tend to patent ideas and not implementations (the source code). If a software patent required the code to the application, whch would then become public domain it would make a lot more sense.

  • Mutter, mutter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:24PM (#10550786) Homepage Journal
    Amazon "wins" by telling the judge the one-click stuff is for one thing, but tells the public it's for another. I thought lying to a judge was contempt of court. And if they didn't lie to the judge, then they're lying to their consumers, which is false advertising and possibly fraud.


    I don't see how any company thinks it can win by trying to pull this kind of stunt. Well, other than by the fact that companies usually do win by pulling this kind of stunt, because nobody really pursues it, since they expect the company to lie through their teeth anyway.


    That, I think, is the biggest problem. Because nobody expects a business to have any integrity, they don't do anything when that proves to be the case. If you want better, sometimes you've got to believe you deserve better and do something about it.

    • It might help if you'd say what you're going to doing about it. Actions speak louder then words.

    • Re:Mutter, mutter (Score:3, Informative)

      by dirk ( 87083 )
      While I don't like the idea of a 1-click patent, they did not lie to the judge. Their arguement was that the patent covered uses on their web site, which it does. The patent can be used for other things, but their patent was originally for the use of 1-click on their site. It is not a fund transfer system, although it can be adapted to be used as one. Basically, they are saying the main use is as a web site purchasing tool, and any other methods are secondary to that. Just because it can be adapted to
    • I don't see how any company thinks it can win by trying to pull this kind of stunt. Well, other than by the fact that companies usually do win by pulling this kind of stunt, because nobody really pursues it, since they expect the company to lie through their teeth anyway.


      Amazon is merely taking notes from the Grandmaster [sco.com].

  • Patents... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Swedentom ( 670978 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:26PM (#10550795) Homepage
    First Microsoft filed a patent for double-clicking, and now Amazon has a single-click patent. Geez!
    • I wonder if I could quickly patent triple-clicking, to get a lock on that "feature"...
    • Hah! You think that's something? I have a patent on no-clicking. I call it "going to a store and buying something." Boy, does Best Buy owe me a lot of money.
    • Yeh, what's next, thought? Someone, most likely a large record label at the urging of the RIAA will patent... free thought.

      "OMG! I just got a subpoena! Seems I'm being sued by the RIAA and BigFatGreedy records for sharing my thoughts with you about that new CD you bought last week! SHIT! BASTARDS"

    • Dogbert (Score:3, Funny)

      by Rufus88 ( 748752 )
      Reminds me of the Dilbert strip where Dogbert patented no-click shopping [seclists.org].

      You better click something or I have to ship you some books.

    • Re:Patents... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by desplesda ( 742182 )
      Triple clicking appears to be the way to go, then.

      Unless MS already patented 'Repeated clicking on a window in order to elicit response'.

  • Companies should compete on their implementation of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Amazon's implementation of 1-click is so excellent that it makes me want to shop there rather than anywhere else. Amazon's attempt to patent 1-click makes me want to shop elsewhere.

    I hereby claim my patent: 1-stick.

    "A method that allows multiple users to, using a single mouse operation, to stick their finger up at Amazon."

  • How about workarounds? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mdemeny ( 35326 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:42PM (#10550868) Homepage
    This may be a nutty idea (as I'm still hungover this morning), but let's say you coded a form to accept a click input, then submitted to a second page which then did the second 'click' via JavaScript or some other silly method, would that violate the patent? Technically it's a two-click method, but would appear as a one-click method to the user.

    Have they patented the process, or have they patented the 'look and feel' - which cannot be patented (to the best of my knowledge)?
    • One click is actually 2 events if I'm not mistaken.

      I am going to impliment the all new

      "MouseDown/MouseUp Purchasing Combination" ;)
    • "have they patented the 'look and feel' - which cannot be patented (to the best of my knowledge)?"

      What's a design patent do then?

      Note: I don't know the answer. I just assumed from the name that design patents cover look and feel kind of stuff.

  • this is a good patent (Score:2, Interesting)

    by r00t ( 33219 )
    From my viewpoint, spending money ought to require
    more than just one click. The potential for
    accidental purchaces is too high. I'm totally OK
    with nobody but Amazon being allowed to do this.
    Better would be if Amazon couldn't use it either.

    Just imagine:
    Oh no! My cat bought a Brittany Spears CD!

    • FWIW, there's a window of time before the order begins being processed, and you can cancel an accidental purchase during that time.

    • That happened to me with amazon. I had used a cybercafe a month prior to this event to view my account, and it had crashed and left me logged on. It doesn't help that their sign out feature is called "click here if you are not you."

      So amazon had automagically enabled one-click on that public machine, so some time later someone was able to order a dozen "parental guidance" rubbish rap cds and send them to my house by one-clicking. It took a few international phone calls to try and clear that up, but I did n

    • I actually have the feature disabled on my Amzaon.com account. I don't like it.
    • Just imagine: Oh no! My toddler just bought a 60-inch plasma TV!

  • Zero-Click Shopping (Score:5, Funny)

    by Servo5678 ( 468237 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:46PM (#10550882)
    I'm suddenly reminded of the Dilbert comic where Dogbert explains that he has patented "zero-click shopping" and that if Dilbert doesn't click the mouse soon, Dogbert will have to ship him some books.

  • Heh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mephie ( 582671 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:56PM (#10550925) Homepage
    And yet, still, virtually every time a slashdotter posts a link to a book it's an amazon.com link.

    Look, if you're so outraged by Bezos and his stupid fucking patents, STOP SHOPPING AMAZON and STOP ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO DO SO. Might I recommend bn.com or, God forbid, get off your ass and drive to your local Mom and Pop bookstore? The latter is almost certainly more deserving of your loyalty than is Amazon.

    • FUCK YES. I agree. For all of the bitching about giant retailers (I agree), I read a TON of Slashdot posts about buying so-and-so at Amazon, or Best Buy or Wal-Mart, etc. That's just pure laziness and hypocracy. Vote with your wallet. Believe it or not, there ARE other places to buy things. And with the NET these days, even if you're too lazy to get off your ass, you can still just go to a different web site. Of course, I advocate going to your local merchant, but that's another discussion entirely.

      • In other countires, Amazon buys YOU!

        In some countries, Amazon has a great infrastructure; much better than any other local retailer. It's simply the easiest and fastest way to order books there, that would take AGES to get through other online retailers or local book stores. It's also often cheaper than ordering from other foreign online book stores that charge a fortune for intl. shipment.

        So Amazon is not playing nice with its 1-Click patent (esp. on direct competitors like BN), but are there real reas

    • Re:Heh (Score:2, Informative)

      by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      well considering that the worst thing I have heard of Amazon doing is patenting a useless feature, while the worst thing BN does is assrapes college students through Campus Bookstore "partenerships" I'll go with Amazon, as they are less evil.
    • Yep. Absolutely.

      There are still some REAL shops around. Visit these. There, you can

      1) order a book and, while doing so, chat up that awfully attractive French philosophy student who is doing her "stage" in YOUR city

      2) handle & turn pages in REAL books

      3) open a book that looks interesting and actually SMELL that great perfume of fresh print ink and new paper -- not to speak about the subtle pleasure of being the first to crinkle the back / binding of a virgin book

      All these, you cannot do at Amazon,

    • Re:Heh (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by Pantero Blanco ( 792776 )
      If I had points, I'd mod you up six ways from Sunday.
    • Actually, for most of what shows up here on slashdot, Bookpool [bookpool.com] is often the best choice. Even after the membership discount I get at BooksaMillion.com [bamm.com], Bookpool usually comes out ahead.

  • 1-click fraud (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @01:58PM (#10550931)
    Gee, making it so 'easy' to purchase something with only 1-click kinda tells me it's gonna be that much easier for fraud to occur - Yes, thank you Amazon and the PTO!

  • One-Click shoplifting (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So what? I've patented One-Click shoplifting. One click, and you get Amazons DVDs and CDs for free! Hah!
  • On the Vote for HULK website [komar.org] there is "one-click voting" for your favorite candidate ... and that certainly "does not involve consumer goods or Amazon-specified prices, which the Judge argues are essential 1-Click ingredients"

  • Americans (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I hate to say it, but Americans are *screwed*. The real reason for things like software patients isn't to fight other big companies - they are already well down the MAL (mutually assured litigation) path, the real reason is to stop new people entering the business world, and to keep the economic caste system well in place.

  • lawyer firm too good? not enough billables? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ars ( 79600 ) <assd2@d s g m l .com> on Sunday October 17, 2004 @03:03PM (#10551403) Homepage
    Did anyone else get the feeling from the Lawyer Press release that they were disapointed that the case was over so quickly? Loss of billable hours and all that?
  • Here is my suggested patent system:

    a. A "unsolved problem" is registered for a small fee with the patent office by a potential inventor or licensee. A $1000 bond is held by the patent office.
    b. Patent office is required to publish problem in a clear and unambiguous fashion.
    c. If a solution is discovered in under 12 months the discoverer may claim the $1000 bond, in exchange for giving up the right to patent their discovery.
    d. If after one year the bond has not been claimed the bond will be returned, a

  • So (Score:2)

    by Kanasta ( 70274 )
    The 1-Click feature as a feature of an electronic fund transfer patent is still up for grabs then?

  • Not quite (Score:3, Informative)

    by BrianWCarver ( 569070 ) on Monday October 18, 2004 @09:42AM (#10555703) Homepage
    The poster (and most replies) misunderstand what's happened, probably because they don't have access to the judge's opinion (I looked at it through Lexis) and because they didn't read the CNET article.

    Amazon was sued for allegedly infringing IPXL's patent. IPXL's patent was VERY specific and the court found that Amazon's 1-Click system did not do all of the things that IPXL's patent claimed as their own invention, hence Amazon won.

    It is true that PART of Amazon's defense was that the 1-Click system is not an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) system. The poster suggests this is disingenuous because they are touting their EFT capabilities in the CNET article. However, the article explains that Amazon is seeking OTHER patents to cover those EFT systems, and so the 1-Click technology is not relevant to those applications unless it turns out to be prior art. It might seem obvious to the lay person that it is (and probably it should be) but the lawyers writing patents for Amazon get paid a LOT of money to write good patents, and you can be assured that they will find a way to write up these new patents in such a way that the 1-Click technology is not invalidating prior art.

    If you want to be irked with something, it's not this judge, Amazon, or even the lawyers involved that should upset you. They are dealing with the system they've been handed. Only Congress can decide that software patents themselves are a bad idea, so tell them you want to see a change if you're upset by all of this. Complaining about the rest of it is misguided and won't solve anything. The only other thing you could do is donate to EFF who is actively involved in busting bad patents. See link in sig.

  • The patent system has denegrated into patenting ideas. Ideas have always been explicitely excluded from the patent system and this is why the patent system has survived till today.

    Now monopoly is the best way to describe the patent system today (I don't know who originally came up with this analogy). People start the game in a desperate land grab. As the game progresses you own enough patents to demand an income from your rivals randomly landing on your patents.

    Patents can be categorised into different a

Slashdot Top Deals

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

Close