Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consider when Amazon successfully sued Barnes and Noble for the One-Click patent. In what way did Barnes and Noble infringe? They do not share databases. They do not share implementations. They do not share architectures. So? The patent is on a mechanism for one click shopping. Like all patents, the mechanism is described as abstractly as possible while avoiding prior art. (The doctrine of equivalents is settled la…
"Implement one-click shopping with a different mechanism and the patent doesn't apply." What different mechanism? What different mechanism implements one-click shopping that isn't one-click shopping? I'm serious. Lay it out for me. Then, if you manage to get that far, explain what your difference has that the B&N implementation didn't have. Don't just handwave. "I haven't read the claims(and I'll bet that you haven't…
As I thought, you haven't read (or understood) the claims. The claims describe the mechanisms that the patent covers. Do one-click shopping with a different mechanism (that is, eliminate and/or replace one or more elements), and you're home free.
I don't know, or care, what mechanism B&N was using. (I'm guessing that you don't know either, so ....) I do know that some combination of B&N's lawyers and a court decided that B&N had used a claimed mechanism. If so, that's the result that we'd want from any other patent, so why is software different. (If B&N didn't actually use a claimed mechanism, that's a different problem, but again, that wouldn't be anything different about software patents.)
> If you have any programming skills, you should go read the patent
I've both (significant) programming skills and some familiarity with patent law. (I've even written a couple.) Moreover, I have read the patent.
> You are at a disadvantage until you do this,
Not to anything that you've shown.
>> "Patents have nothing to do with encouraging people to c>reate alternative solutions."
> You need to brush up on your patent defenses if you're going to spend any time defending them. They're for the purposes of promoting innovation,
You need to brush up on your understanding of basic English and/or logic. "create alternative solutions" is not the same as "promote innovation". It is one way, but it is not the only way, so whether a given patent encourages "create alternative solutions" or not is irrelevant. Patents encourage innovation by rewarding it.
> It is only a recent perversion of the goals of IP that they are solely intended to serve as property
That's simply absurd and has no basis in history. Patent assighment is not new, and that's a fundamental characteristic of "property". Moreover, US Patents have always worked by restricting what other people can do. That's how they funnel money to inventors and the folks who support them.
There's a reason why I mentioned AG Bell. What do you think that the telephone patent lawsuits were about if not "gatekeeping"?
It's perfectly reasonable to think that there might be more effective ways to promote innovation or to reward inventors, but that doesn't entitle you to misrepresent how patents actually work.