[ic] Patent issues?
08 Jan 2001 15:39:51 -0500
"Warren Odom" <email@example.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:firstname.lastname@example.org 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.