[ic] Patent issues?

[Doug Alcorn]

"Warren Odom" <warren-odom@stenocall.com> writes:

> Besides being novel (i.e., no prior use), patents have to be
> non-obvious also.  In my book, Amazon's one-click is neither.  Also,
> the patent holder gets the right to sue infringers, but in practice
> that may be problematic.  Unless I'm sadly misinformed, Amazon has
> sued no one.  If they did, it would be somebody big, not your basic
> mom & pop site.  Then it has to go through the courts, etc.  If
> Amazon should prevail in the test case (again, unlikely in my
> estimation), then you might have to pay them royalties.

I was under the impress that they _had_ sued someone, Barnes & Noble
(as you said, someone big).  In fact, that is the reason for the
boycott (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html).  Holding stupid
patents is only a reflection on USPTO.  Enforcing them is a reflection
on the holder.

IANAL, but I say use the one-click if you want to.  It's called civil
disobedience.  This is a stupid patent.  It is obvious even if there
isn't any prior art (which I'm sure there is).
-- 
 (__) Doug Alcorn (mailto:doug@lathi.net http://www.lathi.net)
 oo / PGP 02B3 1E26 BCF2 9AAF 93F1  61D7 450C B264 3E63 D543
 |_/  If you're a capitalist and you have the best goods and they're
      free, you don't have to proselytize, you just have to wait.