Is the Amazon Kindle infringing patents?

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Not yet, Daffy. The heart of the patent has to do with using wireless service to deliver content, not with the ebook device per se. Right now, in the U.S. that means Amazon.

Gotcha. Gotta read the PDF. The Karma, she is tough.

[Traciinaz]

I think this is mainly in relation to devices that can directly link to a website (such as through whispernet) and download ebooks. Everybody else's devices require plugging into a computer to transfer the material. That was my impression anyway.
__________________________________________________ ______

Originally Posted by daffy4u

Am I confused (haven't read the PDF yet) but doesn't this affect all ebook readers and retailers?

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by Traciinaz

I think this is mainly in relation to devices that can directly link to a website (such as through whispernet) and download ebooks. Everybody else's devices require plugging into a computer to transfer the material. That was my impression anyway.
__________________________________________________ ______

My confusion had to do with "portable book shaped viewers" and ebook readers coming that will have wi-fi and can link and download directly (I think the iLiad can do that now).

[shousa]

I looked through the PDF.

So roughly a patent is given about the same time the actual kindle is released.

Does this not mean that the kindle's plans were made well before the patent was lodged?

Can someone state in a patent, "I patent an ebook with wireless" so then all others cannot make it?

What if (a) the circuitry is either standard (lets face it wireless not new technology) which means it was going to be done anyway that way or (b) the kindle went about it their own way? - does this mean the patent still can be enforced? If it can then it makes no sense to me.

If that is the way it works how about this: "I hereby patent a device which will <insert everything you can think of here> eg anti-gravity belt, pen that does not use ink, car which is nuclear, dog kennel with automatic door, toilet which makes a burping sound, business tie which ties itself, shoes with air-conditioning, hat with bird waste deflector, laser gun steak cooker etc etc.

Right now all I need to do is sit back and watch the money come in!

The US with all the "suing" for this and that which goes on seems insane from the rest of the world's perspective (many cannot eat well, even developed countries don't seem to have this issue like the US does).

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by shousa

Can someone state in a patent, "I patent an ebook with wireless" so then all others cannot make it?

No, obvious things can not be patented. Neither can the combination of two existing things.

Then again, mathematical algorithms can't be patent either but software algorithms get patented all the time.

Also, you can't really patent and idea, only the implementation of that idea.

Then again, was is obvious to Steven Hawking is not necessarily obvious to a patent office clerk.

BOb

[brecklundin]

is Discovery Communications run by Al Gore?

It is flat amazing the ambiguous patents allowed today. Once was a time you had to provide a proof of concept model, detailed doco and a report describing the product or process in question.

Sometime soon the shotgun approach to patent applications has to be put to a stop.

It is so sad it is funny on some dark level.

[shousa]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

No, obvious things can not be patented. Neither can the combination of two existing things.

BOb

Oh I see, that is a relief.

[Enola]

My first reaction when I heard about this was to giggle, a lot, at the irony here. My second reaction was to wonder if Discovery's patent will stand up in court. I'm definitely not a lawyer (legalese makes my eyes cross), but I do read slashdot and there's been quite a lot of discussion there about the Supreme Court ruling In re Bilski which says that "a claim to a process qualifies to be considered for patenting only if it (1) is implemented with a particular machine, that is, one specifically devised and adapted to carry out the process in a way that is not concededly conventional and is not trivial; or else (2) transforms an article from one thing or state to another."

I saw a lot of process flows, high level data flows, theoretical interfaces, but no actual circuit or mechanical diagrams. But then, i'm not a lawyer or a coder-type person who'd really understand the nuances of the diagram (and I only made it halfway through the document before I cried uncle). Of course, if you consider encrypting and transmitting a file a "transformation" it might hold (ignoring the possibility of prior art here).

Any lawyer/technical types got any insight? I'm sure there are nuances here I've missed.

[gwynevans]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

No, obvious things can not be patented. Neither can the combination of two existing things.

But "obvious" does appear to depend on a patent clerk's viewpoint, so in practice, that's not as reassuring as it should be...

Certainly, these days it appears that someone will have tried (and possibly suceeded) in patenting the most obvious things...

[slayda]

Seems to me that this proves the old adage, "What goes around, comes around."

[GntlmnBndt]

Originally Posted by shousa

So roughly a patent is given about the same time the actual kindle is released.

Does this not mean that the kindle's plans were made well before the patent was lodged?

Can someone state in a patent, "I patent an ebook with wireless" so then all others cannot make it?

What if (a) the circuitry is either standard (lets face it wireless not new technology) which means it was going to be done anyway that way or (b) the kindle went about it their own way? - does this mean the patent still can be enforced? If it can then it makes no sense to me.

If that is the way it works how about this: "I hereby patent a device which will <insert everything you can think of here> eg anti-gravity belt, pen that does not use ink, car which is nuclear, dog kennel with automatic door, toilet which makes a burping sound, business tie which ties itself, shoes with air-conditioning, hat with bird waste deflector, laser gun steak cooker etc etc.

I am NOT a lawyer, but two points here:

Yes the patent was granted about the same time as the Kindle was released, but it was filed WAY back in 1999. About the same time as some of the early commercial ebook solutions were hitting the market. I think Peanut Press (which would eventually become eReader) and Rocket both started selling to consumers in 1998 or so. Wonder if those will be sticking points.

With regards to patenting a "a device which will <insert everything you can think of here> eg anti-gravity belt, pen that does not use ink...", the key point is that you have to include a workable design. Someone with normal skills in the field (electrical engineering, aerospace design, whatever) should be able to read your patent and find the technical information they need to build a ... whatever. So, yes, if you can explain how to build that anti-gravity belt, write that patent up ASAP!

The Bandit

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Dave Berk

I don't understand patents nowadays. How can something so simple and obvious and so generic be patentable?

Were you not aware that anything can be patented?

"A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct."

Anytime you wave a laser-pointer around and a cat chases it... YOU OWE THIS GUY MONEY!!

[larisa0001]

Originally Posted by brecklundin

is Discovery Communications run by Al Gore?

It is flat amazing the ambiguous patents allowed today. Once was a time you had to provide a proof of concept model, detailed doco and a report describing the product or process in question.

Sometime soon the shotgun approach to patent applications has to be put to a stop.

It is so sad it is funny on some dark level.

You still do have to provide a lot of documentation (though not a model) - but a lot of total garbage has, unfortunately, been allowed in the early days of the computer revolution when the USPTO did not really understand what computers were about.

The nice thing about patent lawsuits is that the court also scrutinizes the patent for validity. So if you've got a garbage patent that somehow got past the examiner, and you sue someone else based on it, the court may very well conclude that your patent is garbage and invalidate it. I haven't read the complaint or the patent, but if the patent in question really is obvious, or invalid in some other way, it may well get thrown out.

[RWood]

Originally Posted by rhadin

More interesting is that the patent was granted at the same time (or within a month thereof) as K1 was released. Had Amazon done its due diligence, it should have seen the pending patent applications as well as the older patents issued that are involved.

Pending patents are not published in the US. There is no way (unless Discovery told them) that Amazon knew about the patent until it was issued. If Discovery did try to market a licensing scheme to Amazon prior to the patent being issued (when it was "patent pending") then we can only assume that they did not reach an agreement.

It is often the strategy to let an organization that infringes to go about its business. If you alert them too early they can alter their design so as to not infringe ("go around your patents") and you get nothing. If the device fails in the marketplace there are not enough dollars generated to justify going after them. Discovery utilized the best strategy, wait until the device was a success and then sue.

I was impressed by the following final claim:

171. The method of claim 129, wherein the electronic book comprises one or more pages and wherein a viewer decrypts the electronic book page by page, each page of the one or more pages of the electronic book being decrypted just before viewing.

First, that they were able to get 171 claims beyond the prior patent claims and, second, that they followed the current TV method of decrypting on a frame-by-frame (page-by-page) method.

I do agree, many of the claims are obvious and I feel not supportable. Thankfully, both companies are well heeled and can fight a lawsuit with each other.

The question now is: "How quickly will they settle?" As word of this spreads many people will back off from buying the Kindle (and perhaps other readers as well) for fear that they cannot get new books for the unit. The quicker Amazon settles, the more likely the settlement will be favored toward Discovery. This could set a bad precedent for other companies wanting to incorporate wireless communication in their devices.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Then again, was is obvious to Steven Hawking is not necessarily obvious to a patent office clerk.
BOb

Hmm you think Hawking is smarter than Einsten?