2/29    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html#whyBoycott
        http://www.oreilly.com/ask_tim/amazon_patent.html
        \_ USE WINDOWS. WAREZ REWLZ. LINUX SUX.
        \_ Uh huh, communists and a guy who made his millions on the
           copyright system which is the printed version of the patent
           system.  I'm impressed.  I'm also stoned, stupid, and a libertarian.
           \_ There is a BIG difference between the patent system and the
              copyright system. You can have two books that describe how
              to use the same algorithm, in detail, and not violate copyright.
              But the way the PTO is going, you wont be able to have two
              separate programs that use the same algorithm, without
              violating patents.
                \_ Bullshit.  Stop repeating the ignorant drivel from the
                   slashdot crowd and do your own research.  Start with a law
                   degree.  "But I don't need no stinkin' law degree to know
                   that my rights to other people's work is being infringed!"
                   \_ One of the cornerstones of patent law is that no one
                      should be allowed to patent prior art (something which
                      someone has done before) nor any trivial extention of
                      prior art (something which would be obvious to anyone
                      in the field even without it having already been done)
                      The trick is that the patent office's track record for
                      letting prior art leak into patents is abysmal.
                      [Dubious reference to prior art accidentally deleted]
                      \_ Please quote the spec example and provide URL.  If
                         it was that simple the judge would not have granted
                         an injunction.  That's only done when there is a
                         high probability of victory.  If the example you
                         claim is in the cookie spec covered the whole patent,
                         then B&N's lawyers could have easily not only not
                         been on the wrong end of the injuction, but could
                         have had the patent declared invalid long before now.
                         Patent law isn't as simple as slashdot makes it out.
                      \_ Were any of the online brokers up and running in
                         1997?  Any one of their stock purchase systems
                         would constitute prior art if in place then.  -mel
                         \_ No, it wouldn't.  You have no idea what a patent
                            even is.  It is defined by the claims, not the
                            oft and over quoted summaries printed on slashdot
                            and other anti-IP sites.  Violate so much as a
                            single minor claim and you're infringing on some-
                            one else's property.