Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["j. alfred prufrock" <ifoufo AT yahoo.com>]

Steven Champeon wrote:
> Opinions?

me too. :-)

this patent will be challenged in court. and the challenges will win, if
there's any justice, which there often isn't, but whatever. prior art
can be demonstrated. it can be demonstrated that there is nothing unique
about the art. the art is the expected result of ordinary professionals
using readily available tools at hand. the art does not represent any
particular insight or especially creative act.

in the meantime, joining a -vocal- boycott of amazon is our best option.
don't link to amazon. don't shop amazon. tell your friends. tell your
friends why. make sure they understand.

also, the aim of a boycott should be clear. i'm -not- happy with the aim
that amazon might agree simply not to attempt to enforce their patent.
that would only be a display of arrogance on the part of amazon, in my
opinion, as if to say, well we could bludgeon you, but we won't. i'd be
somewhat happy with the aim that amazon should work to have their own
patent nullified and rescinded. i be happier still with the aim that
amazon should work to do the same with some of their other wacky patent
claims, like one click shopping, which is nothing more than the ordinary
use of cookies, server-side processing, and a back-end database. big
flipping deal. amazon filed suit last month against barnesandnoble.com
for one click shopping, as if they invented the freaking shopping cart.
allaire should sue amazon. i'd be happiest with the aim that amazon
should rescind all their ridiculously egotistical intellectual property
claims, then contritely apologize, promise never to do it again, and beg
for our business back.

btw, ibm filed suit against informix last week. ibm is trying to enforce
a number of very silly database patents like record locking. as if a
database without record locking is of use to anyone. as if record
locking isn't part and parcel of database theory. as if record locking
isn't obvious to anyone with half a brain.

this goes right back to the heart of my issues with the site-jackings.
intellectual property is a stupid concept that can only lead to stupid
results. intellectual property is a 19th century concept that appealed
at the time to the monopolistic interests of a rarified and
semi-educated class of would be tycoons. intellectual property is one of
our most glaring excesses of privilege. it's like claiming exclusive
rights on nature (or substiture the word "god" for "nature" is this
helps you understand).

i'm well familiar with this process. you can find one of the more
farcical of my twenty-seven contributions to this feeding frenzy here:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/tdbs/tdb?o=84A%2062146 . back in the dark
ages, as a side project at work, i wrote a system of programs which
would take certain inputs, like diagrams of "a company's" standard
architectural details, the number of people for whom you'd like to
provide a workplace, what the roles of those people are, etc., and would
then 'automatically' generate architectural drawings for a construction
project to provide that workplace, right down to grading plans, hvac and
electrical layouts, etc.. my boss said, wow, better describe the
"algorithm" and submit an invention disclosure. so i did. the program
-seemed- whiz-bangy, but actually it was very rote. rote doesn't matter.
whiz-bangy sells. and nevermind that my "algorithm" was nothing more
than a very bad description of a pretty flakey program design. lawyers
spent three years crawling all over it before concluding it was likely
marketable, so let's publish it.

i've submitted disclosures in the past for things that were actually
extremely original, but because they weren't whiz-bangy, they went
nowhere. if the lawyers didn't have the technical expertise to
understand it, it went nowhere. tip: never submit a disclosure that
describes an actual algorithm in purely and formally mathematical terms.

in my experience with this kind of crap, i can say that the only thing
that matters is what sells. if someone can visualize selling it, it can
be considered original and proprietary to patent attorneys. nevermind
that any monkey, given sufficient nurture with access to the appropriate
infrastructures, can do it or more likely has. also, actual selling is
not necessary, only being able to visualize selling is sufficient. if
you can say, "look at what i could have made and sold if only he hadn't
-stolen- my idea right out of my head," then you can make friends with
lots of attorneys. you don't need whiplash. all you need is a neck
brace.

chris calloway