Case 3- Patent War on the Web: Amazon v. Barnes & Noble

In September of 1999, Amazon.com was awarded patent no. 5,960,411 ("411") for their "one-click" ordering system that was introduced in 1997. This system enabled consumers to be able to complete an online transaction in just a single action or "one click". Barnes & Nobles introduced its own ordering system where only a single action was needed to purchase a product called "Express Lane" in May of 1998. Amazon quickly sued Barnes & Noble in violation of patent 411 and sought a preliminary injunction which would prevent the Express Lane from being used. In December 1998, the District Court sided with Amazon and granted the preliminary injunction forcing Barnes & Noble to add a second step or action. Barnes & Noble appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit and in February of 2001 the U.S. District Court vacated the injunction on grounds of the validity of the 411 patent. Eventually the case was settle out of court by Amazon and Barnes & Noble under a confidential agreement.

-Kayla

Does the Amazon one-click method meet the standards for a valid patent?

According to our text a valid patent is "novel, unknown or unused by others, not referenced in publications, must satisfy the criteria on non-obviousness and must be useful" . According to this previous quote in our book this would classify the Amazon "one-click" system as a valid patent. I agree that this type of patent should have a limited time frame that is shorter then a traditional patent. Technology pushes us to progress and innovate to its highest level. This type of innovation should be able to be modeled especially since it would benefit and create further advances. The "one-click" system is merely an innovation of technology. The patent itself should be placed for the coding to make this system, not merely the idea of the "one-click" system. How is it fair, if you can create a system just as good if not better, you can't use it because there is a patent on the innovation of the "one-click" system?

- Michael LaPan, Adam Magiera

Do you agree with Bezos' suggestion that cyberpatents (or business method patents) should only last 3-5 years?
Yes, we agree that cyberpatents should have a limited time frame that is shorter then a traditional patent. Technology pushes us to progress and innovate to its highest level. This type of innovation should be able to be modeled especially since it would benefit and create further advances. Also, if one person or company were to have complete control over an idea or business method it could create a monopoly in their favor. On page 131, Spinello states "...from a purely economic perspective, business method patents are costly because they allow companies to reap monopoly rents and this leads to a deadweight loss of consumer surplus for society."  We also believe the duration of such patents should be shortened not just for this reason but also because as such patents accumulate, it becomes difficult to not accidentally infringe on these patents when creating a new business model.(Spinello, p.131) This would greatly slow innovation in the field of business causing harm to many more people than it helps which makes it unethical to keep the standards as they are today according to utilitarianism.
 -Michael Lapan, Kayla, Angela, James Hignite, Adam Magiera

Are online patents, such as the ones awarded to Amazon and Priceline, necessary for "the progress of science and the useful arts" in the context of cyberspace? Which philosophical theory best supports your position?
My take on this case study is that Amazon should not have been allowed to patent just the idea of the "one-click" checkout. I feel that if they were seeking a patent, it should have been on something more like the coding for the one-click checkout. Another argument against Amazon being allowed to patent this idea is that it doesn't pass the "non-obviousness" criteria that is required in order to be granted a patent. For something to be "non-obvious" it cannot be obvious to anyone "skilled in the art." (Spinello, pg 107) It seems like it would be obvious to other companies in the industry that using only one click would make the checkout process easier for customers.
You can use Utilitarianism in this case to argue that giving Amazon(or any company) a patent for just an idea would not promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. In fact it would do the opposite. Allowing a company to have a monopoly on an idea by way of a patent would promote more discord rather than happiness.
-Angela
I also believe that based on utilitarianism Amazon's patent was not ethical. This is because the patent was beneficial only to Amazon in helping increase their business but hurts all consumers by forcing them to take longer shopping everywhere online except Amazon. While granting an advantage like this is the intent of patents the business method patents are unique in that they harm consumers as well as rival businesses.
-James Hignite

 Some say that Amazon and other Internet companies like Priceline are adapting old ideas to new forum. Should a company be allowed to get a patent for doing this?
We agree that Internet companies are adapting old ideas to new forums. The one-click system could be compared to the express-lane or self-checkout at a grocery store. By taking this old idea and putting it in cyberspace and getting a patent is unethical. According to utilitarianism this would not promote the most good for the general good because it is not giving credit to the idea already formed. 
-Angela, Kayla

Sources:

Amazon's 1-Click Patent. N.d. Photograph. N.p. 22 Feb. 2014. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57412683-94/amazons-new-appstore-feature-could-be-patent-suit-bait/>

Spinello, Richard A. Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2014. N. pag. Print.

Case 2- Are Video Games Free Speech?

This case started out with some history about video games and how many of them contain questionable content such as violence and sexual aggressiveness. The video game industry adopted it's own internal rating system, much like movies, rating from "Early Childhood" to "A" adults only.

 Sellers were encouraged not to sell "M" rated violent games to minors without consent from parents. The state of California decided these ratings were not adequate and established a law preventing the sale of violent games to minors.
 
"Violent games were defined as those which gave players the opportunity to kill, main, dismember or sexually assault the image of a human being" (pg 96, Spinello).

This law took effect in 2005 with the reasoning being that graphic and violent video games increase aggressive thoughts and feelings in those who play. This law was quickly challenged in court by Video Software Dealers Association with the reasons being the law violated their First Amendment rights of taking away their creative expression and the definition of violence was too vague. California state argued the health and well-being of child was of more importance.
The case eventually went to Supreme Court where the question of whether or not games are entitled to First Amendment protection  like books and movies are.
In 2011 the Supreme Court ruled that "..video games are no different from protected books, plays, and movies. They took communicate ideas and so qualify for First Amendment protection" (pg. 93, Spinello).

Kayla, James, and Angela agree with the Supreme Courts ruling on this case because we believe that games are just like other forms of speech and have the right to be protected by the First Amendment and the freedom of speech.

The ethical theory of contractarianism, or rights-based analysis, can apply to this case. We have the negative right, meaning "one is free from external interference in one's affairs" (pg 13, Spinello), of free speech. If this right is taken away, that can be considered unmoral. When the state of California put that law in place in 2005, it took away the Freedom of Speech because games communicate ideas just like books and movies. They should be protected the same way because that is what is legally best for all and is not violating anybodies human rights.
Kayla, James, and Angela also do not believe that their is a casual connection between aggressive behavior and violent video games because there's been no real life proof or evidence and what would have caused aggressive behavior in humans before video games if they are the cause?

Case 1- American or Australian Libel Law?

 The case our group was assigned on page 56-57 was about an Australian businessman, Joseph Gutnick, who decided to file suit for libel(defamation) against Barron's which is owned by Dow Jones & Company. Barron's posted an online article accusing Gutnick of money laundering and tax evasion. Dow Jones & Company tried to have the trial held in the United States since that is where the company is based and where the article was published online. Mr. Gutnick argued that he should be allowed to sue in Australia because that is where his reputation was damaged.

The dilemma here is Dow Jones & Company argued that if they were allowed to be sued in Australia then Mr. Gutnick could then try and sue them in other countries that he read the article in. The High Court of Australia sided with Mr. Gutnick. The reason that they gave was that " is where the damage to his reputation of which he complains in his action is alleged to have occurred, for it is there that the publications of which he complains were comprehensible by readers." (Spinello, pg 56) Dow Jones & Company decided to settle out of court with Mr. Gutnick and issued a retraction.


                                                             Defamation:

 
The questions that we were faced with in this case are: do you agree with the ruling in this case? Why or why not? Are Dow Jones' fears unfounded or do they have some merit?
  

      I think that weather or not you agree with the ruling in this case depends on from which perspective you view the case. From the perspective of Dow Jones & Company, I do not agree with the ruling. I say this because the company is based in the United States and that is where the article was conceived and published. The laws of the country in which the company resides should be the laws that govern what the company does. To have a company be held libel for the laws of all the countries in the world is unreasonable, especially when the company is an internet based company. But from the perspective of Mr. Gutnick, the ruling was the right ruling. I say that because Australia is not only the country in which he resides, but where his reputation would suffer the most damage from the article. If he were to have sued in the United States, Dow Jones & Company could have argued that his reputation wasn't damaged because he wasn't well known in the United Sates.
     I believe that the Dow Jones' fears of being sued by Mr. Gutnick in different countries because of this same article are unfounded. But I do believe that it was reasonable for the company to fear that it could then be held libel for things that were said in their articles in other countries. Take for example if they were to post an online article about Kim Jong-un. And in the article they stated facts about him that are completely true, but the posting of such facts in North Korea, where he is the leader, were punishable by death. Should he be allowed to hold the author and publisher accountable in North Korea for his actions? Or should they be judged by the standards of the United States for libel, that the truth is a defense to libel? I know that this is a rather extreme example, but I state it to make a point.
      Using the principle for justice, you can argue that the libel case Mr. Gutnick filed should have been held in the United States. The basic formal principle of justice is that: "Similar cases ought to be treated in similar ways."(Spinello, pg 25) This case would give precedence to other similar cases in other countries. It would then allow people from one country(plaintiff) to sue a company based in another country(defendant) based on the laws of the plaintiff's country

Conflicting views in group: 

Yes I agree with the high court ruling, to allow him to be trialed within his own jurisdiction. It is clear in the article that Mr. Gutnick and his lawyers realize that it is best to complete the trial here due to the different laws. Unfortunately when things like this happen on the internet it is hard to decide as to which state or country the violation occurred. The internet allows access to the entire world. There for crimes can be committed and it can be unclear who is the responsible country or state. 

Spinello, R. (2000). Cyberethics: Morality and law in cyberspace. (5 ed., p. 57). burlington main: jones and bartlett learning.