backtop

IT IBM Sues Amazon
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - October 25, 2006 12:51 PM
Print 47 comment(s) - last by Dfere.. on Oct 27 at 8:08 AM
Did we mention it's over patent infringement?

To further today's news of patent infringements, IBM is now suing Amazon over patents that IBM developed during the 1980's. IBM noted that the patents cover a range of technologies used for creating catalogues online and for methods of online ordering. Obviously Amazon uses these types of system on a daily basis, thus making it appear like IBM does have a case. The following patents are what IBM claims have been infringed:

1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities.
5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.

In a release, IBM's senior vice president Dr. John E. Kelly III said "We filed this case for a very simple reason. IBM's property is being knowingly and unfairly exploited." Many have argued that patents such as the ones above are too broad in concept, equating to such inventions as the wheel. Some industry experts are demanding that the US patent office and other international patent offices reevaluate the way patents are granted.

According to some reports, IBM developed several of the above patents with Sears during the 1980's. At that time, sites like Amazon and eBay did not even exist. IBM noted that it had attempted to negotiate with Amazon since 2002 but did not come to a satisfactory conclusion with the online retail giant. With Amazon on IBM's radar, it's only a matter of time before other e-tailers such as Walmart.com will be targeted.

Amazon has not responded.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
time to boycott ibm
By RamarC on 10/25/2006 1:05:13 PM , Rating: 3
since the patent courts are too dumb to know how to handle tech ip, the only solution to stop these suits is to pressure the suing companies.

these guys go get patents on techniques, not physical implementations, and most of these techniques can be arrived at independently or are just common practice. patent 5442771 can be boiled down to storing a user's preference/usage data in a file between web sessions. ASP.NET's cache facility does exactly this and would infringe also, not too mention some web apps i wrote 5 years ago!




RE: time to boycott ibm
By peternelson on 10/25/2006 1:09:02 PM , Rating: 4
Legal fees for the win!

We're all losers in this game except the lawyers.


RE: time to boycott ibm
By Hare on 10/25/2006 1:14:05 PM , Rating: 5
This is exactly what's wrong with the whole software patent business. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are lots of companies that just throw idiotic patents and see if they stick. Then after a year of research they have found a few companies that they could sue and that's exactly what they do. Usually everything is settled but at a big cost.

Anyone remember that eBay had a lots of legal problems with their "Buy it now"-button. It was patented! That friggin button that enabled you to buy an item straight away was patented in 1995...

I'm really pleased that there are no software patents (law) in Europe. I don't have the resources to find out if every (practical and usable) menu or slider I add to an app is already patented.

Say good bye to true innovation and small tech companies...


RE: time to boycott ibm
By tuteja1986 on 10/25/2006 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 4
"Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue." >> this is so stupid :( ... gezz this patent thing is totally out of control. No one should own a patent like that.


RE: time to boycott ibm
By FITCamaro on 10/25/2006 1:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.


RE: time to boycott ibm
By Wwhat on 10/25/2006 3:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well obviously ANY online business is infringing on these patents, but apparantly amongst the big players the system is collapsed into a steady state where they allow companies to become very rich first before suing them, that's nice because the'll probably have plenty left after the suit, and it supplies employment for lawfirms.



RE: time to boycott ibm
By patentman on 10/26/2006 10:21:45 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, if a patentee waits too long to sue for infringement the infringer can raise a defense of laches, which essentially means that "those who sleep on their rights cannot take advantage of them."


RE: time to boycott ibm
By Christopher1 on 10/26/2006 4:55:20 PM , Rating: 1
Well, this is a case where that exemption would DEFINITELY take precedence.

IBM has had HOW MANY years to file a suit on this? Almost 10? They've slept on their rights, unless they are going to try the bullshit that "We only found out about it recently!"


RE: time to boycott ibm
By sdsdv10 on 10/25/2006 3:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not too mention some web apps i wrote 5 years ago!


Watch out, they will coming after you next. ;-)


RE: time to boycott ibm
By sdsdv10 on 10/25/2006 3:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
Come to thing of it, do you have any money? Maybe I can get a finders fee! LOL


RE: time to boycott ibm
By michael2k on 10/25/2006 4:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad these patents were filed sometime in 1990... over 16 years ago.

Let's see, the internet as we understand it didn't exist in 1990 and the first web browser wasn't written until 1991.

It would be like IBM patenting techniques today that are widespread and commonplace 10 years from now. Tell me that is both obvious AND trivial to do.


RE: time to boycott ibm
By patentman on 10/26/2006 10:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
Effective filing date is at least 1989 for all of the claimed subject matter, and 1988 for at least some of the disclosed subject matter.


RE: time to boycott ibm
By Dfere on 10/27/2006 8:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. But the question for society is, does this then tend to stifle progress more than reward innovators. Remember, the basic idea behind the patent process was to foster innovation.

Perhaps we should press for a time limit on certain categories of patents, much like drugs? The broader the patent, the shorter the life? This would seem to me to be the best compromise .......


RE: time to boycott ibm
By patentman on 10/26/2006 10:19:26 AM , Rating: 3
THe '771 patent was filed in 1995 as a divisional off of a prior patent applicationfiled in 1989, which was a continuation in part off of a patent application filed in 1988. This means that the specification of the '771 patent is the same as that of the application filed in 1989, and at least partially the same as the application filed in 1998. Even if you exclude the 1988 date, did anybody know about storing user preference data in a file between web sessions in 1989? I doubt it. If you think otherwise, prove it.


DailyTech is next!
By casket on 10/25/2006 2:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
"Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service."

This forum, with interactive buttons like "Post Comment", has a banner advertisement at the top. I guess DailyTech is next to be sued.




RE: DailyTech is next!
By casket on 10/25/2006 2:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
"Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service."
-- Web Form

"Storing Data in an Interactive Network."
-- Cookies and Shopping Carts

"Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service."
-- Banner Advertising and Links

"Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities."
-- Rotating Banners

"Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue"
-- Online Stores


RE: DailyTech is next!
By casket on 10/25/2006 2:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
"Method for presenting applications in an interactive service"

I mis-read it. This one pattents:
Menus and Toolbars
JavaScript Function - open window
Screen Partitions -
HTML Functions - Table Row, Table Column, Frames


RE: DailyTech is next!
By Spivonious on 10/25/2006 3:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Crap, now I'll have to take out all of those menus, toolbars and screen partitions in every single windows app I've ever written!

IBM owns the GUI!


RE: DailyTech is next!
By michael2k on 10/25/2006 4:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
"Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service."
-- Submitted in 1993, before the invention of web forms

"United States Patent 7072849"
-- Submitted in 1993, before the invention of cookies and shopping carts. Cookies were not implemented until June of 1994 by Netscape.

"Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service."
-- Submitted in 1993, right around the time the first web banner was sold by Global Net Navigator.

"Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities."
-- Submitted in 1994, again before user tracking, goals, and activity was being captured for use in rotating banners. In fact it wasn't until Google that this was being used effectively.

"Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue"
-- Submitted in 1990, before any online stores were opened. Before the Internet with text and graphics even existed!


RE: DailyTech is next!
By Bytre on 10/25/2006 5:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
IBM and Sears were backers of the early Prodigy service. Before it was a generic ISP, it was a dialup service with graphics and sound, online catalogs, and online ads, based on the NAPLPS graphical standard.


RE: DailyTech is next!
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/25/2006 3:14:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I guess DailyTech is next to be sued.

I'll add it to my queue!


RE: DailyTech is next!
By patentman on 10/26/2006 10:22:54 AM , Rating: 2
Might want to base that assertion on something more than the title of the patent, i.e. the claims.

As Giles Rich said, in patents, "the name of the cgame is the claim"


why?
By msva124 on 10/25/2006 5:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
The people at IBM who are behind this are human scum.




RE: why?
By michael2k on 10/25/2006 5:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
Because the people who applied for those patents applied for them as far back as 1990.

You tell me then, what was the prior art that made all of these things OBVIOUS?

It may not be right, but it was definitely pioneering. Too bad Sears dropped the ball and let Amazon into their turf.


RE: why?
By msva124 on 10/25/2006 5:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, maybe they are suing Amazon and not other e-commerce sites for a reason. Had Amazon not pissed everyone off by pursuing their "One-Click" patent several years ago, maybe they would not be the target. Still this is not a classy move by IBM. It will only result in bad PR.


RE: why?
By Dactyl on 10/25/2006 11:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who is thinking "Poor Amazon" should remember 1-click.

If Amazon wants to play rough with IP, IBM should play rough with Amazon.

Big Blue has one of the largest patent portfolios in the world (if not THE largest). They license it out aggressively. They aren't sitting on patents to prevent others from using them. IBM is as much of a "good guy" as you will find in terms of willingness to license patents.


friendly tip / "under radar'
By mgambrell on 10/25/2006 2:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
If youre under radar then that means youre invisible. What was meant was that amazon was "on ibm's radar"

Live and learn. Please.




RE: friendly tip / "under radar'
By Wwhat on 10/25/2006 3:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
indeed.


RE: friendly tip / "under radar'
By sdsdv10 on 10/25/2006 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Live and learn.


In my experience, these two unfortunately don't seem to be in anyway related...


By blwest on 10/25/2006 1:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.


This one pretty much sums up any online store. Stupidity FTW.

I'm going to patent "getting dressed in the morning, if you're >18 but <25 years of age and if your weight is between 105 and 145" That way I can see most of the chicks with nice bodies that don't run around nekked!




By blwest on 10/25/2006 1:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
see=sue the chicks if they get dressed.


By patentman on 10/26/2006 10:26:24 AM , Rating: 2
That patent was filed in 1990. Name a company that had an electronic catalogue in 1990 with the features of the claims in this patent and I will give you your cookie.


Quote from John Carmack
By msva124 on 10/25/2006 8:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
"In the majority of cases in software, patents affect independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement. Why should society reward that? ... The programmer that filed the patent didn't work any harder because a patent might be available, solving the problem was his job and he had to do it anyway. ... Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. It's basically mugging someone."




RE: Quote from John Carmack
By Tamale on 10/25/2006 8:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
very well said.


RE: Quote from John Carmack
By patentman on 10/26/2006 10:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
Except there is one fatal flaw in Carmack's statement:

be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent

The U.S. patent system is a first to invent system, not a first to file.

see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id...


Patent reform
By FightingChance on 10/25/2006 1:13:29 PM , Rating: 3
At the very least, I hope this brings to light some of the more inane aspects of software patents, and how they hinder future software development and improvement.




RE: Patent reform
By Christopher1 on 10/26/2006 5:17:14 PM , Rating: 1
I hope it will bring up that as well. I have no problem with a WHOLE PRODUCT being patented, such as Photoshop or ACDSee, but PARTS of a product or the way they do certain things?

No, just no.


Technologies should not be patentable.
By xKelemvor on 10/25/2006 2:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
Patents should not be able to be gotten for a general technology process that is just an idea. Sure if you design something that is proprietary to only you, then patent it. But not if it's just some general way of storing data or something like that.

This is just ridiculous. Almost as bad as suing because you didn't know the coffee was hot.




By patentman on 10/26/2006 10:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
Its easy to say something is obvious with 16 years of hindsight reasoning to aid you.


Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service
By Perium on 10/25/2006 2:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service"

Wonder if google is watching this case!




By patentman on 10/26/2006 10:31:54 AM , Rating: 2
Again, might want to base your comments on something more than the title of the patent, i.e., the claims.


Copyright stupidity
By Hakuryu on 10/25/2006 4:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to comment on a previous article today where ATI was being sued for using floating point calculations to process graphics but decided maybe I was missing something. Are they supposed to use integers only, or does someone hold a copyright for processing graphics using whole numbers?

Now after reading about this new IBM lawsuit, I'm trying to think ahead to the future to get rich myself. Could I possibly patent the idea of space travel or cloned food sources?

Where does this nonsense stop? I can understand if you had spent money to develop a proprietary system of doing something that is easily distinguished from other similar routines, but broad based practices being patented just seems extremely silly to me. Is this requisite for a job at the patent office a 4th grade education?




RE: Copyright stupidity
By vhx500 on 10/25/2006 6:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm.. patents != copyright. Please get your terms right. What you are trying to say is 'patents', not 'copyrights'.

This whole IBM patent suit thing rather runs contrary to what it promised to the Linux community.

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5296787.html

IBM has probably the largest patent portfolio in the IT industry. If it was to unleash its patent litigation army, all hell would break loose. Thank God they haven't (yet). So them suing Amazon is nothing but a drop in the bucket.


Omg, IBM Vs the Internet!
By KashGarinn on 10/26/2006 9:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
1. Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
ok, java, flash, html, microsoft, you're all doing this, shame on you! IBM 0wnz0rz U!

2. Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
ok, all search engines, email servers, web servers, even IRC and usenet! Thieves and murderers! IBM 0wnz0rz U!

3. Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
ok, every. commercial webpage. ever. IBM 0wnz0rs U!

4. Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals and Activities.
ok, intelliad, adwords, and inventive cg and php scripting.. IBM.. u know..

5. Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue.
ok.. Every.. Single.. E-store.. Ever..

Amazon is just the first step.. they're coming for all of you.

Well I welcome the new internet overlords.. it's a wonder everything on the net was stolen by such evil, malicious bastards like these: http://www.raginggrannies.com/

and of course, we should all be ashamed and have used IBM's version of youtube, google, msn webmessenger, girls gone wild videos, amazon, ebay and web solutions back in the 80's when they clearly had the solutions then and the need to protect them.. wait.. they didn't have any.. but still, we owe then the internet.. Go on, send them all the porn back, they seem to need it.

K.




RE: Omg, IBM Vs the Internet!
By patentman on 10/26/2006 10:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
Good god people, for the third time, when talking about patents, you have to look at the claims, as they define the scope of patent coverage. Looking at the title and making a bunch opf remarks about the content of the patent is like looking at the label on a package and then making detailed remarks about what is in the package without ever opening it.


US patents
By PrinceGaz on 10/25/2006 6:56:15 PM , Rating: 3
Do you have to be a US citizen to file a patent under US law?

It would be a shame if I couldn't jump on the US patent lunacy machine just because I live in the EU, because I can think of any number of potential future uses of upcoming technological advances (some technology of which have been talked about here). Rather than do something worthwhile for a living, maybe I could make more money in the long term filing patents for all the potentially useful uses of what those technologies could make possible? :)




Let's inundate IBM...
By Muirgheasa on 10/25/2006 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
Much as I'm sure someone will tell me that this is a stupid idea, everyone who feels that this is ridiculous should stand up and tell IBM. http://www.ibm.com/scripts/contact/contact/us/en , there is a form you can fill in for "non-technical questions, concerns or feedback". I'm just about to tell them what I think about this lawsuit, not because it's likely to make a difference but because at least that way I'm not just moaning about it here. Just do it.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki