7 ms·

What immediately sprung out to me is that Amazon isn't held accountable for selling goods that directly violate patent laws, which should protect small business

by dgb23 1y ago

What immediately sprung out to me is that Amazon isn't held accountable for selling goods that directly violate patent laws, which should protect small business and reward innovation. The current US administration claims to be concerned about domestic manufacturing and so on, but hasn't even mentioned this issue at all.

AmVess 1y ago
I was going to manufacture a line of useful products here in the USA, but decided against it. I'd release the product, then a month later counterfeits would be on Amazon for 10% of the price. As a small operation, there are 0 affordable resources at my disposal to fight IP theft.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Right, as a small operation patents are rarely worth your bother. You might eventually win in court with a patent, but by then your company is bankrupt. Just make the thing, and hope that you can develop a good name and reputation for quality that keeps you afloat, even if you only are 1% of the market, that can be a lot of money. Avoid selling on Amazon where you are more likely to be noticed by cloners, at least until you already have a business.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
  I thought Walmart was infamous for making a house brand of competitor products.
  - burningChrome 1y ago
    You're probably thinking about Target and their Up and Up label where they do that. They also place all of their knockoffs right next to the product they are imitating.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
nottorp 1y ago
The US textile industry was built on ignoring UK patents though :)
- warkdarrior 1y ago
  So one past illegal activity allows future illegal activities?
  - permo-w 1y ago
    precedent is a real thing, de jure and de facto
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    No, but it does make people crying about competition very difficult to sympathize with.
    - nottorp 1y ago
      Exactly. All that whining about "intellectual property" is at best funny. Especially since the US patent office is mostly known for allowing anyone to patent anything, even if there is prior art from the Mayan and Roman empires.
- loudmax 1y ago
  The 19th century US cotton industry was built on far worse crimes than patent infringement.
  - sudobash1 1y ago
    Indeed, but patent infringement too. Although the Cotton Gin was patented, Eli Whitney famously was unable to enjoy those protections. Imitations sprung up all around.
- kubectl_h 1y ago
  Similarly: though William Jarvis wasn't the first American to import Merino sheep, he was the most successful because he was able to utilize an ongoing war in Spain to circumvent around the Merino export ban in the early 1800s and get a ton of them over here, too. He was even a diplomat to Spain and probably knew better, but did it anyway.
throw0101d 1y ago
> What immediately sprung out to me is that Amazon isn't held accountable for selling goods that directly violate patent laws, which should protect small business and reward innovation. (IANAL) This may fall under a DCMA-like concept where sites are not responsible for 'user content'. The 'user' in question is the vendor and their 'profile' of sellable items is the content. Similar to how eBay is not (?) responsible for the items put up for sale. (Not saying this is (morally) right, just describing the situation. I would really like to see some accountability as well.)
kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
Which is funny because he could drive a stake through Bezos' heart with some sweet FTC rule making.
MangoToupe 1y ago
As far as I can tell, consumers have never benefited from patents, and they seem blatantly anti-competitive. Perhaps if only "small business" (whatever that actually denotes) were allowed to hold them it might make sense, but we all know that's not even remotely how patents are wielded today. Personally I strongly prefer knockoffs. Same quality, but cheaper.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  well innovation is where it helps consumer. Innovating new products over time, patents give them some runway to make a profit assuming one can defend those patents. why innovate the next iphone equivalent if someone is just going to steal your idea and make it in china for 1/4 the price
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    It was not patents that helped the iphone succeed, it was a massive river of cash and keeping the development mostly secret. All patents ensured was that android operated in a visually slightly different manner. Anyway, where is all this "innovation" that's supposedly worth caring about? It seems to me that patents stymie innovation by holding competitors hands behind their back (or even in the case of medicine, holding it off the market). > patents give them some runway to make a profit assuming one can defend those patents. I'd be shocked if this actually described even 1% of patents issued. Anyway, yea, fuck all intellectual property except maybe the first ten years of copyright held by actual humans.

by dgb23 1y ago

AmVess 1y ago

I was going to manufacture a line of useful products here in the USA, but decided against it. I'd release the product, then a month later counterfeits would be on Amazon for 10% of the price. As a small operation, there are 0 affordable resources at my disposal to fight IP theft.

bluGill 1y ago
Right, as a small operation patents are rarely worth your bother. You might eventually win in court with a patent, but by then your company is bankrupt. Just make the thing, and hope that you can develop a good name and reputation for quality that keeps you afloat, even if you only are 1% of the market, that can be a lot of money. Avoid selling on Amazon where you are more likely to be noticed by cloners, at least until you already have a business.
0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
I thought Walmart was infamous for making a house brand of competitor products.
- burningChrome 1y ago
  You're probably thinking about Target and their Up and Up label where they do that. They also place all of their knockoffs right next to the product they are imitating.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

nottorp 1y ago

The US textile industry was built on ignoring UK patents though :)

warkdarrior 1y ago
So one past illegal activity allows future illegal activities?
- permo-w 1y ago
  precedent is a real thing, de jure and de facto
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  No, but it does make people crying about competition very difficult to sympathize with.
  - nottorp 1y ago
    Exactly. All that whining about "intellectual property" is at best funny. Especially since the US patent office is mostly known for allowing anyone to patent anything, even if there is prior art from the Mayan and Roman empires.
loudmax 1y ago
The 19th century US cotton industry was built on far worse crimes than patent infringement.
- sudobash1 1y ago
  Indeed, but patent infringement too. Although the Cotton Gin was patented, Eli Whitney famously was unable to enjoy those protections. Imitations sprung up all around.
kubectl_h 1y ago
Similarly: though William Jarvis wasn't the first American to import Merino sheep, he was the most successful because he was able to utilize an ongoing war in Spain to circumvent around the Merino export ban in the early 1800s and get a ton of them over here, too. He was even a diplomat to Spain and probably knew better, but did it anyway.

throw0101d 1y ago

> What immediately sprung out to me is that Amazon isn't held accountable for selling goods that directly violate patent laws, which should protect small business and reward innovation. (IANAL) This may fall under a DCMA-like concept where sites are not responsible for 'user content'. The 'user' in question is the vendor and their 'profile' of sellable items is the content. Similar to how eBay is not (?) responsible for the items put up for sale. (Not saying this is (morally) right, just describing the situation. I would really like to see some accountability as well.)

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago

Which is funny because he could drive a stake through Bezos' heart with some sweet FTC rule making.

MangoToupe 1y ago

As far as I can tell, consumers have never benefited from patents, and they seem blatantly anti-competitive. Perhaps if only "small business" (whatever that actually denotes) were allowed to hold them it might make sense, but we all know that's not even remotely how patents are wielded today. Personally I strongly prefer knockoffs. Same quality, but cheaper.

EasyMark 1y ago
well innovation is where it helps consumer. Innovating new products over time, patents give them some runway to make a profit assuming one can defend those patents. why innovate the next iphone equivalent if someone is just going to steal your idea and make it in china for 1/4 the price
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  It was not patents that helped the iphone succeed, it was a massive river of cash and keeping the development mostly secret. All patents ensured was that android operated in a visually slightly different manner. Anyway, where is all this "innovation" that's supposedly worth caring about? It seems to me that patents stymie innovation by holding competitors hands behind their back (or even in the case of medicine, holding it off the market). > patents give them some runway to make a profit assuming one can defend those patents. I'd be shocked if this actually described even 1% of patents issued. Anyway, yea, fuck all intellectual property except maybe the first ten years of copyright held by actual humans.