3 ms·

> Consider when Amazon successfully sued Barnes and Noble for the One-Click patent. In what way did Barnes and Noble infringe? They do not share databases. They

by anamax 15y ago

> Consider when Amazon successfully sued Barnes and Noble for the One-Click patent. In what way did Barnes and Noble infringe? They do not share databases. They do not share implementations. They do not share architectures. So? The patent is on a mechanism for one click shopping. Like all patents, the mechanism is described as abstractly as possible while avoiding prior art. (The doctrine of equivalents is settled law wrt every other kind of patent. Why do you think that it shouldn't apply to software?) Implement one-click shopping with a different mechanism and the patent doesn't apply. The patent also doesn't cover using one click for anything else. > In each case I guarantee the relevant code in both implementations is orders of magnitude larger than the patent itself, which by simple information theory means that the patent is only a small part of the whole. You write that like it's important - it isn't, at least not wrt any other kind of patent. Why should software be different? > They have a patent on the idea of One-Click shopping. You seem to think that patenting an idea is somehow wrong. Since every patent covers an idea .... > There apparently exists no alternate implementation of One-Click shopping that will not violate the patent, because by any remotely sensible standard that would permit such an alternate implementation, Barnes and Noble must be able to meet it. I haven't read the claims (and I'll bet that you haven't either), so I can't say whether it covers every possible implementation, but even if it did, so what? That's the goal of every other patent as well. Why should software be different? I suspect that you also think that "the abstract mechanism is obvious if you're trying to do one-click shopping" is meaningful - it isn't. In every other domain, novelty can come from asking a new question, such as "wouldn't one-click shopping be a good idea?" Again - why should software be different. > Patents are supposed to encourage innovation by enticing people to create their own alternate solutions, but in software, and more or less only in software, you can patent ideas. The above is wrong on almost every detail. Patents have nothing to do with encouraging people to create alternative solutions. They're about disclosure and blocking free-riders. And, as I wrote above, every patent is an idea patent.

jerf 15y ago
"Implement one-click shopping with a different mechanism and the patent doesn't apply." What different mechanism? What different mechanism implements one-click shopping that isn't one-click shopping? I'm serious. Lay it out for me. Then, if you manage to get that far, explain what your difference has that the B&N implementation didn't have. Don't just handwave. "I haven't read the claims(and I'll bet that you haven't either)" Wrong. In fact... "They're about disclosure..." If you have any programming skills, you should go read the patent and see just how much is "disclosed". First, sit down and sketch out what you would need to implement in order to create a one-click ordering system. No, seriously, sketch out the basic systems on paper. Then go read the patent. Then boil out the legalese. Then observer that your sketch and what the patent contains has roughly the same amount of information. You are at a disadvantage until you do this, by the way, because like I said, I have read this, and several other such patents. You need to read at least one before continuing on. And ask yourself the question, exactly how much help are these patent applications in implementing a solution to the given problem to one "skilled in the art"? This is part of the reason software patents are so stupid, they almost all completely fail this test. You cited one of the handful of counterexamples already, but an exception it very much is. "Patents have nothing to do with encouraging people to create alternative solutions." You need to brush up on your patent defenses if you're going to spend any time defending them. They're for the purposes of promoting innovation, and the stimulation of alternate solutions is one of the big ways they do this. It is only a recent perversion of the goals of IP that they are solely intended to serve as property and create gatekeepers and therefore allow people to block innovation as they see fit.
- anamax 15y ago
  > What different mechanism? What different mechanism implements one-click shopping that isn't one-click shopping? As I thought, you haven't read (or understood) the claims. The claims describe the mechanisms that the patent covers. Do one-click shopping with a different mechanism (that is, eliminate and/or replace one or more elements), and you're home free. I don't know, or care, what mechanism B&N was using. (I'm guessing that you don't know either, so ....) I do know that some combination of B&N's lawyers and a court decided that B&N had used a claimed mechanism. If so, that's the result that we'd want from any other patent, so why is software different. (If B&N didn't actually use a claimed mechanism, that's a different problem, but again, that wouldn't be anything different about software patents.) > If you have any programming skills, you should go read the patent I've both (significant) programming skills and some familiarity with patent law. (I've even written a couple.) Moreover, I have read the patent. > You are at a disadvantage until you do this, Not to anything that you've shown. >> "Patents have nothing to do with encouraging people to c>reate alternative solutions." > You need to brush up on your patent defenses if you're going to spend any time defending them. They're for the purposes of promoting innovation, You need to brush up on your understanding of basic English and/or logic. "create alternative solutions" is not the same as "promote innovation". It is one way, but it is not the only way, so whether a given patent encourages "create alternative solutions" or not is irrelevant. Patents encourage innovation by rewarding it. > It is only a recent perversion of the goals of IP that they are solely intended to serve as property That's simply absurd and has no basis in history. Patent assighment is not new, and that's a fundamental characteristic of "property". Moreover, US Patents have always worked by restricting what other people can do. That's how they funnel money to inventors and the folks who support them. There's a reason why I mentioned AG Bell. What do you think that the telephone patent lawsuits were about if not "gatekeeping"? It's perfectly reasonable to think that there might be more effective ways to promote innovation or to reward inventors, but that doesn't entitle you to misrepresent how patents actually work.
- anamax 15y ago
  > And ask yourself the question, exactly how much help are these patent applications in implementing a solution to the given problem to one "skilled in the art"? You're assuming that a patent is "bad" if the solution is obvious given the problem. That's wrong. Patents for new problems with an "obvious" high-level solution are completely legitmate and well-established in every other domain. In other words, the novelty can be in the problem. Why is software different?

by anamax 15y ago

jerf 15y ago

"Implement one-click shopping with a different mechanism and the patent doesn't apply." What different mechanism? What different mechanism implements one-click shopping that isn't one-click shopping? I'm serious. Lay it out for me. Then, if you manage to get that far, explain what your difference has that the B&N implementation didn't have. Don't just handwave. "I haven't read the claims(and I'll bet that you haven't either)" Wrong. In fact... "They're about disclosure..." If you have any programming skills, you should go read the patent and see just how much is "disclosed". First, sit down and sketch out what you would need to implement in order to create a one-click ordering system. No, seriously, sketch out the basic systems on paper. Then go read the patent. Then boil out the legalese. Then observer that your sketch and what the patent contains has roughly the same amount of information. You are at a disadvantage until you do this, by the way, because like I said, I have read this, and several other such patents. You need to read at least one before continuing on. And ask yourself the question, exactly how much help are these patent applications in implementing a solution to the given problem to one "skilled in the art"? This is part of the reason software patents are so stupid, they almost all completely fail this test. You cited one of the handful of counterexamples already, but an exception it very much is. "Patents have nothing to do with encouraging people to create alternative solutions." You need to brush up on your patent defenses if you're going to spend any time defending them. They're for the purposes of promoting innovation, and the stimulation of alternate solutions is one of the big ways they do this. It is only a recent perversion of the goals of IP that they are solely intended to serve as property and create gatekeepers and therefore allow people to block innovation as they see fit.

anamax 15y ago
> What different mechanism? What different mechanism implements one-click shopping that isn't one-click shopping? As I thought, you haven't read (or understood) the claims. The claims describe the mechanisms that the patent covers. Do one-click shopping with a different mechanism (that is, eliminate and/or replace one or more elements), and you're home free. I don't know, or care, what mechanism B&N was using. (I'm guessing that you don't know either, so ....) I do know that some combination of B&N's lawyers and a court decided that B&N had used a claimed mechanism. If so, that's the result that we'd want from any other patent, so why is software different. (If B&N didn't actually use a claimed mechanism, that's a different problem, but again, that wouldn't be anything different about software patents.) > If you have any programming skills, you should go read the patent I've both (significant) programming skills and some familiarity with patent law. (I've even written a couple.) Moreover, I have read the patent. > You are at a disadvantage until you do this, Not to anything that you've shown. >> "Patents have nothing to do with encouraging people to c>reate alternative solutions." > You need to brush up on your patent defenses if you're going to spend any time defending them. They're for the purposes of promoting innovation, You need to brush up on your understanding of basic English and/or logic. "create alternative solutions" is not the same as "promote innovation". It is one way, but it is not the only way, so whether a given patent encourages "create alternative solutions" or not is irrelevant. Patents encourage innovation by rewarding it. > It is only a recent perversion of the goals of IP that they are solely intended to serve as property That's simply absurd and has no basis in history. Patent assighment is not new, and that's a fundamental characteristic of "property". Moreover, US Patents have always worked by restricting what other people can do. That's how they funnel money to inventors and the folks who support them. There's a reason why I mentioned AG Bell. What do you think that the telephone patent lawsuits were about if not "gatekeeping"? It's perfectly reasonable to think that there might be more effective ways to promote innovation or to reward inventors, but that doesn't entitle you to misrepresent how patents actually work.
anamax 15y ago
> And ask yourself the question, exactly how much help are these patent applications in implementing a solution to the given problem to one "skilled in the art"? You're assuming that a patent is "bad" if the solution is obvious given the problem. That's wrong. Patents for new problems with an "obvious" high-level solution are completely legitmate and well-established in every other domain. In other words, the novelty can be in the problem. Why is software different?