Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses Government Patents The Courts News

Amazon Cries 'Uncle' to End IBM Patent Feud 63

Posted by Zonk from the make-it-stop-make-it-stop dept.
theodp writes "Amazon will pay an undisclosed amount to IBM to settle a long-running patent feud, and the two companies have agreed to a long-term patent cross-licensing agreement. Information Week wonders if an insurance dispute prompted Amazon's settlement, noting that Atlantic Mutual sued Amazon back in March to escape any obligation to reimburse the e-tailer should it lose the case brought by IBM. Amazon had relied on Atlantic Mutual's backing in an earlier legal battle it waged against tiny InTouch. 'Amazon, whose chief executive, Jeff Bezos, is a vocal advocate of patent reform, has had numerous patent issues in the past. In 2005, the technology used in its 1-Click checkout system came under scrutiny as potentially infringing upon a similar product made by a small Virginia-based company called IPXL Holdings. Meanwhile, the US patent system itself is experiencing growing pains as Congress continues to explore the possibility of updating it to better serve the needs of the 21st-century business world.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Cries 'Uncle' to End IBM Patent Feud More

Amazon Cries 'Uncle' to End IBM Patent Feud

Comments Filter:

  • Bullies, take heed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Thursday May 10, 2007 @01:29PM (#19071773)

    There is always someone bigger than you.

    • Re:Bullies, take heed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ushering05401 ( 1086795 ) on Thursday May 10, 2007 @02:00PM (#19072271) Journal
      Everyone take heed. The patent lawsuit is not such a huge deal in the case of Amazon because they are not going away, but all the big players use selective lawsuits which is what bugs the hell out of me.

      Under the current system big companies wait for smaller companies to become profitable and then they pounce. If one company sues another for patent infringement they should be obligated to sue all infringers. So as the owner of a small company I should be able to name co-defendants who also appear to use similar technology, and with how broad patents are these days it should not be hard to find big players who might be committing similar patent infringements.

      If those bigger players are found to be implementing technology similar to what I am being sued for then they should be required to join the defense.

      No more assassination through selective lawsuits.

      Regards.

      • Re:Bullies, take heed (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kripkenstein ( 913150 ) on Thursday May 10, 2007 @03:34PM (#19074041) Homepage

        Under the current system big companies wait for smaller companies to become profitable and then they pounce. If one company sues another for patent infringement they should be obligated to sue all infringers.
        Sure you thought that one through? By what you're suggesting, only the very largest corporations would be able to assert patents, because small players couldn't afford it. This would make the patent system even worse: in essence, only really big companies could own patents (smaller companies could own them, but not use them, so they may as well not own them at all).

        The patent system is bad enough as it is, please don't give them any ideas how to make it worse.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ushering05401 ( 1086795 )
          I disagree. My view is that patent enforcement would become almost impossible for anyone. A a small developer all I want is the freedom to innovate in my niche market by pursuing my own development schemes I shouldn't have to worry about who may have patented a concept that I hacked out in my home office and was completely unaware was patented.

          My opinion is that the system cannot be broken any worse than it is. My opinion is based on patent reviews I have done that cover such a broad range that many com

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chris Burke ( 6130 )
        Under the current system big companies wait for smaller companies to become profitable and then they pounce. If one company sues another for patent infringement they should be obligated to sue all infringers. So as the owner of a small company I should be able to name co-defendants who also appear to use similar technology, and with how broad patents are these days it should not be hard to find big players who might be committing similar patent infringements.

        If those bigger players are found to be implement
    • Unless you're IBM, and the fight is over patents.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.

      The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of whi

  • Serve the needs of the business world (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Thursday May 10, 2007 @01:30PM (#19071797) Journal
    That's what patents are for, right? Serving the needs of the business world. Not fostering innovation amongst Citizens of the United States. Nope. Serving the needs of the business world.

    Just like Congress itself, I suppose.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by samkass ( 174571 )
      Just like a democracy is a government of the people, in a capitalist system "the business world" is the people.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spun ( 1352 )
        Yep. But that's not how it's supposed to work. Stakeholders in a capitalist system include not just business owners, but employees and customers as well. That is why I have a problem with capitalism, it's inherently anti-democratic.
  • The timing is intersting given the new ruling on Obviousness. I wonder if a lot of patent things will settle to avoid litigation and thus potential re-examiation. It would seem like IBM would press to settle, but prehaps IBM thretened to instigate a reexamation of Amazon patents. I would not be susprised is everyone is spooked and with the insurance thing Amazon agreed to a nominal settlement and IBM accepted on the condition that they seal it.

    • Re:"Obvious" results? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday May 10, 2007 @01:51PM (#19072139) Homepage Journal
      Especially since IBM has a literally unparalleled ability to generate legal paperwork. Only company to ever bury the DOJ under so much paperwork that they got lost. The funny thing about it all (funny in a modern, corporate context anyway) is that IBM at least seems to be relatively scrupulous. In a world in which people are suing people left and right for patent infringement, IBM is mostly using their portfolio defensively. While others are still trying to maintain vendor lock-in (Apple, Microsoft, I'm looking at you) IBM is promoting Open Source, Free Software, you name it. IBM used to be a great satan, now they're our last best hope for peace or something.

      • Can a leopard change its spots? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bozdune ( 68800 ) on Thursday May 10, 2007 @02:07PM (#19072353)
        I'm old, so I remember. I remember when IBM was so clearly the Great Satan. Like suing IBM clone mainframe peripheral vendors in the 60's and 70's. Like trying to push the PS/2 down our throats in the 80's.

        Bastards.

        Now they are good guys. Why? Because having lost the OS battle, they turn to open source for succor. Not sure this makes them good guys, exactly. They got sued by SCO, but that doesn't make them good guys either, although it is fun watching them pound SCO into paste.

        I'm very nervous about their patent portfolio. I'm nervous about everyone's patent portfolio. A time will come when you can't write a line of code without stepping on someone's software or process patent. And that will be the end of a creative era that has known no equal in human history.

        Software should not be patentable. Processes should not be patentable. Period.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          I'm very nervous about their patent portfolio. I'm nervous about everyone's patent portfolio. A time will come when you can't write a line of code without stepping on someone's software or process patent. And that will be the end of a creative era that has known no equal in human history.

          it makes me nervous too, but the fact that they have one of the biggest patent portfolios on the planet and yet don't do that kind of thing now (when they are probably the only company around that could both get away with

        • I believe that time has come already -- especially after the approval of the patent protecting "A method by which to produce through an electronic medium a greeting and salutation to a planetary body."

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fermion ( 181285 )
          They are the "good guys" because they no are humbled enough to have no choice but to listen to and provide what customers want, not what IBM research wants them to buy. This has come largely from the fact that customers do have a choice, and aren't forced to buy IBM, even when the IBM product is crap.

          I see the open source thing as something more recent than general failure caused by the utter lack of respect for the customer. This is the lesson that all technology companies needs to learn. IBM is still

        • Took Amdahl a series of anti-trust lawsuits to stay in the business before the 800lb gorilla stomped them out of business. Exactly who feels sorry for IBM??

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cyborg_zx ( 893396 )

        IBM used to be a great satan, now they're our last best hope for peace or something.
        *AHEM* In the year(s) of the patent war it became our last best hope for victory.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jherek Carnelian ( 831679 )

        In a world in which people are suing people left and right for patent infringement, IBM is mostly using their portfolio defensively.

        Sorry to be so blunt, but that's just plain ignorant.

        Maybe back in the early 80s that was true. But since then, under the guidance of Marshall Phelps, IBM turned their patent portfolio into a $2B+/yr revenue stream. [msn.com] IBM's patent licensing has become so onerous that it is often referred to as the "IBM Tax." [google.com]

        And just so you know what to expect in the future - and maybe who to blame for the Novell patent licensing fiasco - Marshall Phelps joined Microsoft a few years back, explicitly to do for MS what he did

    • Well, I guess I might be exposing my pro-IBM bias here (good God, I can't believe I just said that -- I remember when you pretty much had to curse or spit after saying that name), but I think that IBM would probably be hurt a lot less due to the 'obviousness' ruling than Amazon would.

      Just look at the two companies -- IBM has a vast research division, which basically exists to invent stuff and turn out patents (and other things useful to IBM). Amazon is an online bookstore. Whatever patents they have, were p
  • Microsoft has tried to patent smilies for heaven sakes! Save the smilies, what ever shall we do?!? :P (..damn it, I'm going to get sued again.)

  • Advice for survivors (Score:5, Funny)

    by russotto ( 537200 ) on Thursday May 10, 2007 @01:48PM (#19072083) Journal
    Don't play cards with a man named Doc
    Don't eat at a place called Mom's
    Never make a wager with a Sicilian when death is on the line
    Never pull on Superman's cape
    Don't spit in the wind
    Don't pull the mask off the old lone ranger
    Don't mess with Jim (unless you're Slim)
    Mess not with the mouse

    AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, DON'T GET IN A PATENT WAR WITH IBM.
    • There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body.
    • You forgot the one about a land war in Asia
      Never shoot pool at a place called Pop's
      Never wound what you can't kill.

  • the patents in question? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Vasco Bardo ( 931460 ) on Thursday May 10, 2007 @01:49PM (#19072107)
    "The e-commerce patents in question ranged from hyperlink technology to electronic ordering." Hyperlink technology? Electronic ordering? Sweet jesus, these guys at IBM are geniuses, are there any alienware nobel prizes for this kind of incredible breakthroughs?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 2nd Post! ( 213333 )
      Considering IBM created these patents in the 1990s. Some as early as 1993.

      Prior art is kind of hard to find.
      • The absence of prior art is not sufficient to prove the worth of a patent, and certainly not enough to avoid sarcastic comments. My point is that it looks pretty obvious.
        • Was it obvious in 1993?

          In 1993 I was still using BBSes and modems, DOS and terminal windows, and playing Castle Wolfenstein. I certainly didn't think of it then.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by flosofl ( 626809 )
            I'd have to agree with this. It may be obvious now, but was it at the time? With the information and the current state of the internet, were these patents covering something that just about anyone could have come up with at the time?

            There are a lot of times when, after knowing the solution to something, I slap my forehead and go, "Sweet jumping Jesus! That's so obvious!" But it was not obvious before knowing the solution.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Raideen ( 975130 )
        I haven't read the list of patents under dispute, but hypertext--the basis of hyperlinking--has been around since the 1960s. (The innovation behind hyperlinking isn't the technology, but rather the way in which it is used.) Electronic ordering was around when I started BBSing in 1990 and it wasn't new then either. Obviously, the patents could cover specific details of the above but the broad terms used by the GP would be covered by prior art. + "on the web" doesn't make it innovative.

  • Minor clarification (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Thursday May 10, 2007 @01:55PM (#19072189) Homepage
    Congress continues to explore the possibility of updating it to better serve the needs of the 21st-century business world.

    In case anyone was wondering, unsure, or confused about that, it means that Congress is talking about streamlining and further entrenching software patent insanity. That they want "better" and "more enforcible" stupid software patents.

    -
  • So, the patent mess is going to be fixed by the same people who fixed the copyright mess with the DCMA?

    Fixes by Congress have never done anything but make things worse. In my lifetime I've seen them fix campaign funding, pornography availability, fuel shortages, inflation, and several foreign governments. Every time, they just made things worse. Isn't the patent situation here bad enough already??
  • Change the filing fee to $250,000. This will drop patent application rates tremendously to only those applications protecting a truly lucrative and unique business idea or invention. If the idea or innovation isn't worth $250,000 to you, then it doesn't need protection. In addition, I would re-assess all existing patent holders $250,000 for each patent they wish to keep. This would allow the government to revoke all prior frivolous patents. Could also be a nice jolt to the government revenue stream, as
    • It would also more or less make it impossible for individuals or small businesses to patent anything, leaving all legal protections for large corporations. This does not sound like the way to go to me.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by cuppett ( 706711 )
        Patents on ideas that are only worth $50k to their owners in terms of future revenue are part of the problem too. If your idea is worth $1M, then $250K is easy to get from investors, banks, etc. It could also serve to reverse the order of operations, instead of speculatively filing every idea, novel or not, you could put your idea into practice and if it is evident the idea will be worth it, then the patent could be filed. If another were to file the patent, you could claim prior art. An extension to th

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Mex ( 191941 )
      That's pretty backwards, friend. That means that the only ones who will be able to apply for patents will be the rich corporations themselves, not poor inventors.
    • A better approach would be an exponentially increasing annual fee. Don't pay the fee and it expires.

      Say the first year is $1000, then $2000, $4000, $8000, $16000, ...

      That way the small inventor gets the chance to get started, while BigCorps can't afford to keep 10,000 patents that sit around for years doing nothing except waiting for somebody to accidentally infringe.
  • In the end, they both look stupid for having this battle.
  • Don't fsck with IBM's Nazgul!

    They will blacken your sky, redden your books, stick you in a bloody, dark corner with Daryl M.

    Ware! Ware! Behold the flight of the Nazgul cometh! (obligitory) RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

  • Dugg (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Wayne247 ( 183933 )
    Dugg for the creative title.

    Hmm what's with all those nested comments?
  • Silly question:

    What if two companies with very similar patents sue each other for violating each other's respective patents?

    Let me use a exaggeratedly simple example:

    Amazon has a patent on "one-click shopping". IBM has a patent on "single-click shopping". Due to USPTO incompetence and laziness, both patents were granted at the same time. Each sues the other over their respective patents.

    What happens? How do the courts deal with the respective lawsuits? How does the patent office settle each disputed pa

Slashdot Top Deals

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.

Close