From: Adam Rifkin -4K (adam@XeNT.ics.uci.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 10 2000 - 02:02:52 PST
Gotta hand it to Jeff Bezos, he sure knows how to talk the talk...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/misc/patents.html/102-7460898-3016060
Darn if he doesn't sound like Jerry Maguire at the beginning of the
movie when he's losing it:
> Bottom line: fewer patents, of higher average quality, with shorter
> lifetimes. Fewer, better, shorter. A short name might be "fast patents."
Here's the whole letter...
> AN OPEN LETTER FROM JEFF BEZOS ON THE SUBJECT OF PATENTS
>
> I've received several hundred e-mail messages on the subject of our
> 1-Click ordering patent. Ninety-nine percent of them were polite and
> helpful. To the other one percent -- thanks for the passion and color!
>
> Before I go on, I'd like to thank Tim O'Reilly. Tim and I have had three
> long conversations about this issue, and they've been incredibly helpful
> to me as I've tried to clarify in my mind what is the right thing to do.
> I had previously known Tim as the publisher of the successful and
> excellent O'Reilly technical books. He off-handedly proved his narrative
> and editing skills when he took what was our first rambling hour-long
> conversation and somehow made sense of it all in a posting on his site.
> My thinking on the topic of business method and software patents has
> been strongly influenced by Tim's observations, and especially his
> ability to ask excellent questions. I also read the first four hundred
> or so responses to Tim's summary of our conversation -- these too were
> helpful.
>
> Now, while we've gotten substantially less e-mail on this issue than we
> have over several other lightning-rod issues in the past, I've spent a
> lot more time thinking about this one. Why? Because the more I thought
> about it, the more important I came to realize this issue is. I now
> believe it's possible that the current rules governing business method
> and software patents could end up harming all of us -- including
> Amazon.com and its many shareholders, the folks to whom I have a strong
> responsibility, not only ethical, but legal and fiduciary as well.
>
> Despite the call from many thoughtful folks for us to give up our
> patents unilaterally, I don't believe it would be right for us to do so.
> This is my belief even though the vast majority of our competitive
> advantage will continue to come not from patents, but from raising the
> bar on things like service, price, and selection -- and we will continue
> to raise that bar. We will also continue to be careful in how we use our
> patents. Unlike with trademark law, where you must continuously enforce
> your trademark or risk losing it, patent law allows you to enforce a
> patent on a case-by-case basis, only when there are important business
> reasons for doing so.
>
> I also strongly doubt whether our giving up our patents would really, in
> the end, provide much of a stepping stone to solving the bigger problem.
>
> But I do think we can help. As a company with some high-profile software
> patents, we're in a credible position to call for meaningful (perhaps
> even radical) patent reform. In fact, we may be uniquely positioned to
> do this.
>
> Much (much, much, much) remains to be worked out, but here's an outline
> of what I have in mind:
>
> 1. That the patent laws should recognize that business method and
> software patents are fundamentally different than other kinds of
> patents.
>
> 2. That business method and software patents should have a much shorter
> lifespan than the current 17 years -- I would propose 3 to 5 years. This
> isn't like drug companies, which need long patent windows because of
> clinical testing, or like complicated physical processes, where you
> might have to tool up and build factories. Especially in the age of the
> Internet, a good software innovation can catch a lot of wind in 3 or 5
> years.
>
> 3. That when the law changes, this new lifespan should take effect
> retroactively so that we don't have to wait 17 years for the current
> patents to enter the public domain.
>
> 4. That for business method and software patents there be a short (maybe
> 1 month?) public comment period before the patent number is issued. This
> would give the Internet community the opportunity to provide prior art
> references to the patent examiners at a time when it could really help.
> (Thanks to my friend Brewster Kahle for this suggestion.)
>
> To this end, I've already contacted the offices of several Members of
> Congress from the committees with primary responsibility for patents to
> ask if they would be willing to meet with me on this issue. Since some
> of them have previously expressed an interest in similar issues, I have
> every expectation that at least some of them will want to talk about it.
> I've also invited Tim O'Reilly to attend any such meetings with me. Tim
> and I are also going to try to pull together some software industry
> leaders and other people with an interest in this issue and an ability
> to help.
>
> If done right -- and it could take 2 years or more -- we'll end up with
> a patent system that produces fewer patents (fewer people will bother to
> apply for 3 or 5 year patents, and fewer patents means less work for the
> overworked Patent and Trademark Office), fewer bad patents (because of
> the pre-issuance comment period), and even the good patents won't last
> longer than is necessary to give the innovator a reasonable return (at
> Internet speed, you don't need 17 years).
>
> Bottom line: fewer patents, of higher average quality, with shorter
> lifetimes. Fewer, better, shorter. A short name might be "fast patents."
>
> Many have noted, and I too would like to point out, that given the laws
> they operate under and the resources at their disposal, the Patent
> Office and examiners are doing a good job and it's unfair to criticize
> them.
>
> On a related issue, to further try to help with the prior art problem,
> I've also agreed to help fund a prior art database. This was Tim's idea,
> and I'm grateful for it. Tim is poking around to find the right people
> to run with that project.
>
> On an important meta-level, one thing to note is that this episode is a
> fascinating example of the new world, where companies can have
> conversations with their customers, and customers can have conversations
> with their companies. I've been saying for 4 years now that, online, the
> balance of power shifts away from the merchant and toward the customer.
> This is a good thing. If you haven't already, read the cluetrain
> manifesto. If you want the book, well...you can get it at several places
> online...
>
> Jeff
>
> Tell us what you think. How would you like to re-invent the patent
> system? Share your views:
> http://amazon.remarq.com/amazon/transcript.asp?g=discuss%2Eamazon%2Ehelp%2Eus%2Ebuild%2Ethis%2Eservice&tn=656&sh=0145dfffc1891b43&idx=-1
---- Adam@4K-Associates.comThere is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. -- The Matrix
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 10 2000 - 02:04:10 PST