Amazon sued over Kindle SO screensavers

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

patent trolls are just like copyright holders yes?

Not at all. Patent trolls are as close to the definition of evil as you can get on the business world. They impose huge costs on society as a whole - destroying billions of dollars in value (the Boston University paper I just linked estimates something on the order of $80 billion dollars per year!) with lawsuits over vague concepts.

Copyright, on the other hand, is a much trickier issue - especially when it comes to fiction. I just can't call an author evil because he wants to make money out of his work. And the fact that Stephen King holds the copyright to his novels doesn't prevent anyone else from writing another novel (now, if you could patent "a process of creating a written work of fiction using pen and paper" - now that would halt progress).

Of course, copyright laws have been abused, and its extensions are highly objectionable. But this doesn't put them on the same level as patent trolls.

If I'd the choice, I'd probably get rid of patents altogether (or, severely limit them), but keep copyright (in a more limited form, too). See also the excellent Launching the Innovation Renaissance, for a [moderate] libertarian perspective on the issue of innovation.

[QuantumIguana]

Some of these patents are pretty ridiculous. I think Amazon's one-click patent is ludicrous.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

They impose huge costs on society as a whole - destroying billions of dollars in value. (the Boston University paper I just linked estimates something on the order of $80 billion dollars per year!)

Actually, according to the report it's an average of $25 billion over a ten-year period. And it's not a "destruction of value," it's transfers from the manufacturer to the patent holder -- one corporation to another.

Patent insurance is also available, but not mentioned in that report.

Originally Posted by miguel

If I'd the choice, I'd probably get rid of patents altogether...

Yes, rather than reform the system, let's just throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's pretty clear that no judge is going to order the "destruction" of hundreds of thousands of consumer devices, nor is that the goal. They want Amazon to pony up some cash. Dealing with patents -- whether active or inactive -- is part of the cost of doing business.

And let's keep in mind that patent design terms are relatively short -- 14 years in the US.

[JSWolf]

I think the worst case is Amazon will have to update all those Kindle SO with non-SO firmware.

[emellaich]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

... And it's not a "destruction of value," it's transfers from the manufacturer to the patent holder -- one corporation to another.

I see what you are saying, but I guess it depends on your world view. In my world, a corporation doesn't really have any money of its own. If you take it away from them then either: 1) consumers get hit; 2) cost reductions = layoffs; or 3) shareholders (our retirement plans) get hit.

There are a few corporations with large war chests (ie, Apple) but over the long run that will be temporary. It will either be dividended out to shareholders or spent.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I think the worst case is Amazon will have to update all those Kindle SO with non-SO firmware.

Maybe instead of screensavers, they'll push a text document that sits at the top of your book-list that has all the various offers in it.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Copyright, on the other hand, is a much trickier issue - especially when it comes to fiction. I just can't call an author evil because he wants to make money out of his work. And the fact that Stephen King holds the copyright to his novels doesn't prevent anyone else from writing another novel (now, if you could patent "a process of creating a written work of fiction using pen and paper" - now that would halt progress).

If I'd the choice,

On the surface it does appear that patent trolls and copyright holders are different but I am still not quite sure. For instance, you say the patent troll prevents others from implementing an idea, wouldn't Stephen King's copyright holdings prevent someone from implementing an idea (copying King's work) that Stephen King had and filed at the copyright office years earlier?

What I mean is why is literature so different than a technological invention?

Every day we make choices.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Actually, according to the report it's an average of $25 billion over a ten-year period. And it's not a "destruction of value," it's transfers from the manufacturer to the patent holder -- one corporation to another.

From page 2: "We find that NPE lawsuits are associated with half a trillion dollars of lost wealth to defendants from 1990 through 2010. During the last four years the lost wealth has averaged over $80 billion per year."

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yes, rather than reform the system, let's just throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Good job with the quote-mining, you're well-versed on the ways of the internet.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

On the surface it does appear that patent trolls and copyright holders are different but I am still not quite sure. For instance, you say the patent troll prevents others from implementing an idea, wouldn't Stephen King's copyright holdings prevent someone from implementing an idea (copying King's work) that Stephen King had and filed at the copyright office years earlier?

What is the positive value for society if I copy and sell Stephen King's The Stand? I see a massive loss for Stephen King, and scattered profits for a bunch of copiers, but the net result is at best a zero-sum game (although most probably it's negative-sum). It's not like you can start with a work of fiction and then work upon it (as you can do with invention patents.

[drofgnal]

The simple solution for Amazon is to send out blank special offers of just pictures, in effect making all special offer kindles just kindles.

On the good new front, some patent trolls are now losing!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...patent-reform/

[pdurrant]

There are two questions.

(1) Are Kindles "Personal Computers"?
(2) If so, are Kindles and Amazon's servers part of a "Personal Computer Network"

I'd say no to both.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

On the surface it does appear that patent trolls and copyright holders are different but I am still not quite sure. For instance, you say the patent troll prevents others from implementing an idea, wouldn't Stephen King's copyright holdings prevent someone from implementing an idea (copying King's work) that Stephen King had and filed at the copyright office years earlier?

What I mean is why is literature so different than a technological invention?

Every day we make choices.

Short version: Non trolls aim to make a product, trolls aim to sue and settle.

Longer version: Patents are supposed to exist to protect R&D investment by companies and individuals to give them a time limited monopoly to possibly make back their investment and profit from the idea.

That works on the assumption that when you file a patent you're going to actually build a product that uses it. If you do that, there's a benefit to consumers in either trivial or major ways (depending on the product).

Patent trolls have no intentions of ever building a product. They buy up patents that are often so obvious it's surprising they were ever granted then proceed to sue everyone remotely using a similar method in the hopes they'll all settle rather than going to court. If they settle, troll makes money, if they go to court, troll probably has their patent overturned for been too general/obvious/prior art...

One thing people forget with these discussions though, is that just because a patent seems obvious it doesn't mean the company using it is a troll. When people say Amazon, Apple, Google, MS are trolls for fighting patent wars, that's not really accurate. They at least have products that use those patents. In their cases it's often the fault of the patent office for allowing general/overly broad/obvious patents to be granted, but I wouldn't consider them trolls, unlike many of the non-product companies who's sole purpose is to sue and settle as many times as they can in patent friendly states.

To go back to your question, Stephen king has a product. Not only that, copyright doesn't stop you writing about similar things, it just prevents copying/derivative works. You're free to write about a school or wizards or an epic battle involving dwarves, humans and elves so long as your star wizard isn't a clone/derivative of Harry Potter and your races are not lifted from Tolkien.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

(now, if you could patent "a process of creating a written work of fiction using pen and paper" - now that would halt progress).

'Pen and paper', hmmmm

[markbot]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-a...-screensavers/



To the second part - From my cold, dead hands.

Someone needs to reform the patent system. This is getting ridiculous.

[Sil_liS]

The problem is that the patent was granted, and the other companies ignored it. If the patent shouldn't have been given then change the patent system or don't allow patents to be sold and bought.

The patent in question shows a method to implement the screen saver. If amazon is doing this, then they should pay.

Can a reader be considered a PC? If you compare it to what a PC was in 1998, I think that that is a yes.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The problem is that the patent was granted, and the other companies ignored it. If the patent shouldn't have been given then change the patent system or don't allow patents to be sold and bought.

The patent in question shows a method to implement the screen saver. If amazon is doing this, then they should pay.

Can a reader be considered a PC? If you compare it to what a PC was in 1998, I think that that is a yes.

I'd tend to agree, it is certainly arguable that the Kindle SO model fits into what is described in the patent.