Can't Edit Without A License From Amazon
from the where's-the-innovation? dept
theodp writes "A day after criticism prompted the European Parliament to postpone voting on a controversial software-patents directive, the USPTO granted another single-action ordering patent to Amazon that also covers the use of buttons to expand/collapse sections of a form, as well as the use of an EDIT button to (you guessed it!) present data to the user for editing." Theodp likes to submit every single patent that Amazon is granted, and has a clear anti-Amazon bias. However, in this case, the patent does seem particularly questionable.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Business Process Patents
Just because you computerize a manual process you should not receive a patent. At most you should receive a copyright so that your competitors have to write the code from scratch instead of copying yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Amazon caught a lot of PR flak when they wielded their one-click patent as an offensive weapon. If they did that with every patent, or if their CEO never noticed the negative reaction to their maneuver, then I'd have a big problem with it.
However, many companies file for patents on as many things as possible, as a defense. Microsoft, for all the acrimony against them, has been pretty good about their patent holdings. IBM is wielding patents as a defensive countersuit to the SCO idiocy.
If the USPTO is going to grant stupid patents on obvious things, and if the courts are going to assume validity on stupid patents, then the companies have to protect themselves somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
How about by channeling some of that lobbyist money into reforming the patent system so that software and business processes aren't patentable.
IBM can stave off Microsoft with a patent arsenal. Amazon can stave off eBay, or whatever -- but all of these companies are vulnerable to suits from "companies" that are nothing more than a front for patent suits. Microsoft, Amazon and eBay have each been bitten recently by patents that are absurd -- for millions of dollars each.
It's time to reform the system, not just shrug it off like it's not a big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defensive Patents
Bezos's intentions could be all well and good, but his patents could easily outlast him as CEO. Is Amazon's next CEO going to be so benevolent? What if Amazon gets in deep trouble financially? The primary duty of a CEO is to serve the shareholders. Right now, enforcing the patents arguably does not serve the shareholders, because of the ill-will that would be a product of enforcement. However, if a day came when Amazon had no other way of making money, then the CEO has no choice but to enforce the patents, or potentially worse, assign them to someone else in a bankruptcy sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derisive patents
Of course this will have to be carefully choosen and orchestrated so that the case runs for a while before being dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
using patents defensively
At the very least, the person making such a statement wasn't around in the last decade, before a certain company's vandalism and advertising-rewritten-as-linux-development somehow caused the dope smoking linux-heads to forget what an 800-lb gorilla smells like.
The destruction, when the dragon wakes up again, will be bittersweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
So the financial incentives to amass and wield a large patent portfolio are great, and I expect we'll see more companies becoming more aggressive in pursuing license revenue to support their weaker, increasingly commoditized business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]