Why IBM's patent suit against Amazon could be bad news for the entire Web

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by impossible, Dec 2, 2006.

  1. impossible

    impossible Guest

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3848

    "For years, there have been a handful of companies trying to figure
    out how to erect a toll booth on the Web, if not the Internet
    altogether. In other words, they've been looking for some way to
    ensure that the Internet or some portion thereof can't work unless
    they get to collect a royalty on the majority of the Internet's
    traffic. Now, if a patent infringement suit filed by IBM against
    Amazon.com holds up in court, Big Blue may have finally found a way to
    collar the Web (or most of it). It may be a decade before we know the
    answer

    "Whether it was simply the prescience of IBM's engineers right around
    the time that the Web was born, or just a stroke of serendipity
    (perhaps connected with IBM's original association with the Prodigy
    online service), IBM appears to have a patent for online advertising.
    And now, nearly a decade and a half after IBM filed for the patent,
    and long after the online advertising environment has matured to a
    point that it's generating (in aggregate) billions of dollars for
    everybody from small businesses to Google, IBM's patent infringement
    suit against Amazon is the equivalent of Big Blue saying 'Excuse me
    everyone, we've got something very important to say.' Very important
    indeed if you own or operate a Web site with advertisements on it....

    "There are a lot of directions the conversation can take now that IBM
    has suprised us all with this patent. For example, define
    "advertisement." Or, is there a bit of hypocrisy here given the way
    IBM has, over the last year, been so vocal with respect the benefits
    of open standards vs. encumbered technologies (eg: royalties and
    execution of license agreements) as they apply to computing
    (productivity computing and the Open Document Format to be
    specific)...."

    ..
     
    impossible, Dec 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. impossible

    jasen Guest

    On 2006-12-02, impossible <> wrote:
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3848


    > "Whether it was simply the prescience of IBM's engineers right around
    > the time that the Web was born, or just a stroke of serendipity
    > (perhaps connected with IBM's original association with the Prodigy
    > online service), IBM appears to have a patent for online advertising.
    > And now, nearly a decade and a half after IBM filed for the patent,


    hmm sounds like "gif" all over again.

    > and long after the online advertising environment has matured to a
    > point that it's generating (in aggregate) billions of dollars for
    > everybody from small businesses to Google, IBM's patent infringement
    > suit against Amazon is the equivalent of Big Blue saying 'Excuse me
    > everyone, we've got something very important to say.' Very important
    > indeed if you own or operate a Web site with advertisements on it....
    >
    > "There are a lot of directions the conversation can take now that IBM
    > has suprised us all with this patent. For example, define
    > "advertisement." Or, is there a bit of hypocrisy here given the way
    > IBM has, over the last year, been so vocal with respect the benefits
    > of open standards vs. encumbered technologies (eg: royalties and
    > execution of license agreements) as they apply to computing
    > (productivity computing and the Open Document Format to be
    > specific)...."


    except they're attacking amazon, and not google

    --

    Bye.
    Jasen
     
    jasen, Dec 3, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. impossible

    steve Guest

    impossible wrote:

    > IBM appears to have a patent for online advertising.


    What f*cking idiot gave out a patent for that?

    That's like giving out a patent for breathing in a box.

    You can breathe legally on the street, but if you do it in a box, get ready
    to pay a royalty.

    More evidence the whole IP legal framework needs to be scrapped and
    reconstructed from basic principles.

    --
    Only boring people are bored.
     
    steve, Dec 9, 2006
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. lily

    Redhat files suit against SCO

    lily, Aug 5, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    343
  2. peterwn
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    307
    thingy
    Oct 22, 2007
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,158
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Microsoft Loses Another Patent Suit

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 21, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    360
    Jack Spratt
    May 21, 2009
  5. Usenet Account
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    121
    Usenet Account
    May 28, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page