Is the Amazon Kindle infringing patents?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by shousa

ISo 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?

No, it doesn't. A patent may not be granted or denied for years after it is applied for. I know this from personal experience. I currently have a patent application pending and it has been pending with the Patent Office for 2 years. I have no idea when the Patent Office will make a decision on my application (although I would like it to be positive and soon ).

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by RWood

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.

That's not exactly true. A patent applicant can choose not to have it disclosed, but must do so affirmatively (the default is that it is disclosed) and by making that choice, limits the patent's geographic scope to the U.S. You cannot choose nondisclosure and apply for the same patent in, for example, France.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Did Einsten work as a patent clerk.

Yes, he did.

[Edit: Sorry. I should have read further to see that my reply was, as is often the case , unnecessary and unneeded.)

[carld]

Originally Posted by Amalthia

Does this mean they have to change their DRM scheme? Or the way they deliver ebooks?

It certainly seems like it would. It's bad news for all the device users and manufacturers, not just Amazon and the Kindle.

Edit: I also don't see any reason for laughter at Amazon's expense. If this patent is upheld it will cover ALL e-ink readers, hell it seems so broad it could cover all ebook reading devices period.

[NormHart]

It appears as though Discovery is not asking for the process to be stopped they just want their share = higher cost for books from any ebookstore that uses DMR style encryption that infringes on their patent. Amazon is the logical first target due to deep pockets.

I can't help but believe that this is going to cause the price of all DMR encrypted ebooks to rise assuming the suit is upheld. Whether this impacts DMR free ebook prices remains to be seen.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Dave Berk

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

This is why the patent system in the US is horribly broken. Stupid patents like this exist all over the place, just waiting for some patent troll to come in and try to cash out on it.

The checks and balances that are supposed to be in place to stop this nonsense don't work. The patent office is so swamped, that as long as you have the money to push it through their system you can get just about anything patented.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

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

You're not supposed to be able to patent that stuff, but companies get away with it all the time.

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

The main problem is that the patent clerks are so swamped with new patent requests, that they don't have the time to research (or even understand) them. They basically just rubber stamp everything that comes across their desk and let the courts figure it out later.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by 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 didn't see it listed in the article, but I wouldn't be surprised if this suit was filed in Texas. There is a specific court system there (can't remember which one), that is well known for being friendly to patent trolls. Almost all of the "we have an obvious patent and want to cash out quick" suits are filed in Texas because of that.

[Xenophon]

A few comments on patents...

First, the standard of 'obviousness' really isn't obvious. That is, the relevant question is not "what is obvious today?" but rather "what was obvious to an average practitioner in that field at the time the patent was filed?" This distinction is very important! Some things are "obvious" only after someone thinks to ask the right question (or the same question viewed a different way) -- the core algorithm in my Ph.D. dissertation springs to mind as an example -- but are forehead-smackingly obvious after someone explains them to you. And these are exactly the things that make the best patents! They tend to be relatively fundamental. Please note -- I'm not claiming that my research would be deeply fundamental! just using it as an example of something innovative that is nevertheless thoroughly obvious after it is explained.

Second, while patent clerks are indeed swamped with new patent requests, that's not the main problem. The big issue is that the patent office is very good at searching for prior art by looking at existing patents, and very bad at looking in the broader scientific (and trade!) literature for prior art. Thus, for example, Adobe once patented "tool selection from a palette" (in the context of a graphics program) -- even though my father had demonstrated exactly that capability in his Ph.D. research more than 20 years earlier. (See this link over at wikipedia for more info.) To Adobe's credit, they immediately abandoned the patent when this was pointed out to them.

Thirdly, the patent office has a very hard time hiring examiners who know software (in particular). This really handicaps their examination of software patents, and especially their determination of what is "obvious." This issue is an ordinary and normal part of the history of every new technology that comes within the purview of the patent system. It happened for VLSI. It happened for Television. It happened for radio. For Aeronautic technologies. For hydraulics (as in cylinders on bulldozers and the like). It happened for steam engines! The history of new technologies shows that there is a 20 to 50 year period of lousy rotten patents that should never have been granted before things settle down to reasonableness. Of course, during that same period there are also lots of patents granted for things that are real inventions that truly deserve protection.

Xenophon

[Daithi]

I don't think an electronic book reader that receives the electonic books over the phone network is obvious. I'm much more inclined to think that Amazon's "one-click" patent is obvious, but that was granted a patent and existed for about 7 years. When it was over turned it was due to someone digging up some prior art.

[RWood]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

A few comments on patents...

First, the standard of 'obviousness' really isn't obvious. That is, the relevant question is not "what is obvious today?" but rather "what was obvious to an average practitioner in that field at the time the patent was filed?" This distinction is very important! Some things are "obvious" only after someone thinks to ask the right question (or the same question viewed a different way) -- the core algorithm in my Ph.D. dissertation springs to mind as an example -- but are forehead-smackingly obvious after someone explains them to you. And these are exactly the things that make the best patents! They tend to be relatively fundamental. Please note -- I'm not claiming that my research would be deeply fundamental! just using it as an example of something innovative that is nevertheless thoroughly obvious after it is explained.

Second, while patent clerks are indeed swamped with new patent requests, that's not the main problem. The big issue is that the patent office is very good at searching for prior art by looking at existing patents, and very bad at looking in the broader scientific (and trade!) literature for prior art. Thus, for example, Adobe once patented "tool selection from a palette" (in the context of a graphics program) -- even though my father had demonstrated exactly that capability in his Ph.D. research more than 20 years earlier. (See this link over at wikipedia for more info.) To Adobe's credit, they immediately abandoned the patent when this was pointed out to them.

Thirdly, the patent office has a very hard time hiring examiners who know software (in particular). This really handicaps their examination of software patents, and especially their determination of what is "obvious." This issue is an ordinary and normal part of the history of every new technology that comes within the purview of the patent system. It happened for VLSI. It happened for Television. It happened for radio. For Aeronautic technologies. For hydraulics (as in cylinders on bulldozers and the like). It happened for steam engines! The history of new technologies shows that there is a 20 to 50 year period of lousy rotten patents that should never have been granted before things settle down to reasonableness. Of course, during that same period there are also lots of patents granted for things that are real inventions that truly deserve protection.

Xenophon

Thanks for the link, I had heard about Sketchpad back in my early days around computing. Most of the tales were with awe and deep regard. It is interesting that there is now a copy of your Father's PhD thesis available on-line. Yes, I remember when you posted links to your thesis. I did read most of it and recall that my comments were on the order of "but of course." Like Father like son.

[Ervserver]

Amazon and the Kindle are at the top of the heap, at least in the media these days. They have a target on their back

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by RWood

[SNIP] Yes, I remember when you posted links to your thesis. I did read most of it and recall that my comments were on the order of "but of course." Like Father like son.

Thanks for the compliment. I wasn't fishing, really... just trying to illustrate an important point about patents.

Xenophon

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I don't think an electronic book reader that receives the electonic books over the phone network is obvious.

This patent covers a lot more than that, it has 171 claims. It covers many distribution channels for DRM ebooks (kiosks, internet, wireless, cable, device to device, publisher direct, etc.), way beyond just "over the phone network".

As someone on slashdot said, this patent is not trying to protect an invention, it's trying to corner a market.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

A few comments on patents...

First, the standard of 'obviousness' really isn't obvious. That is, the relevant question is not "what is obvious today?" but rather "what was obvious to an average practitioner in that field at the time the patent was filed?"

There are many patents that fail both standards for "obviousness".

Second, while patent clerks are indeed swamped with new patent requests, that's not the main problem. The big issue is that the patent office is very good at searching for prior art by looking at existing patents, and very bad at looking in the broader scientific (and trade!) literature for prior art.

...

Thirdly, the patent office has a very hard time hiring examiners who know software (in particular). This really handicaps their examination of software patents, and especially their determination of what is "obvious."

It's a combination of not having the resources to do thorough research (being swamped) as well as not having examiners with the expertise required.