Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95080)	2/28/2000 7:08:00 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 164684

weblog.mercurycenter.com Last update: Sunday, February 27, 2000 at 4:20 PM Pacific. News, Views and a Silicon Valley Diary Sunday, February 27, 2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NoWebPatents Sounds Good to Me Amazon.com is far from alone in its abuse of the patent system. It's only following the lead of such Web heavies as Priceline, patenting -- dare I say it? -- patently obvious business methods that are about as original as a politician's broken promise. But you don't have to sit there helplessly while Amazon, Priceline and the other paragons of greed put up their toll booths everywhere on the Net. You should fight back. Resources: Add your name to the Amazon boycott at NoWebPatents. NoAmazon.com lists other places to shop online. Learn more about why there are so many bad patents being awarded these days. Saturday, February 26, 2000 How Did Amazon Get That Patent, Anyway? You are not supposed to be able to patent things that are obvious or have already been invented. Amazon.com's patent on affiliate marketing (AP story) looks like another example of a system gone beserk -- and a company where the arrogance and greed seem limitless. After I posted an item yesterday about this latest Amazon patent, I received the following e-mail: I agree.. it's OUTRAGEOUS that Amazon should be granted a patent for affiliate programs. We (Cuesta Technologies) have been providing affiliate programs for our client web sites since 1995. For example, our client, Edsoft.com, had affiliate programs in the last half of 1995 -- well BEFORE Amazon!!! We're infuriated! We are a small company and don't have the resources to go after an Amazon... Maybe you can help make the public aware that there were web sites that had affililate programs before Amazon... Keep up the cause! Monty Swiryn President Cuesta Technologies Redwood City, CA If this is accurate, Amazon's patent should never have been granted. Heck, even if it isn't accurate the patent is absurd. If a paid-referral system isn't obvious, what is? But even if that's true, who's going to put up the million bucks it'll take to overturn Amazon's patent? That's what it can cost to challenge even a demonstrably bad patent. Meanwhile, Amazon has deep pockets and lots of legal talent. It can tell people to cease and desist from creating affiliate programs. Even if this this patent is someday found invalid, Amazon will have enjoyed what they call the "first-mover" advantage -- unfairly, of course, but this kind of behavior has nothing to do with what's fair. It's about power and money, period.. Amazon must be worried that it can't compete the old-fashioned way -- on the merits of its services. This company, which started out as a pioneer, is turning into one of the pirates of the Net. It would be sad if it weren't so infuriating. What can you do? Check out noamazon.com for starters. I'm not going to buy anything from Amazon until it stops its war on the Web. ==>MORE about bad patents in general. Friday, February 25, 2000 Another Reason Not to Shop with Amazon Tara Calishain let me know that Amazon, the online retailer, is turning into Exhibit A for the disfunctional patent system. She pointed to a TechWeb reports that Amazon has won a patent on affiliate programs. The patent refers to "an Internet-based referral system that enables individuals and other business entities ('associates') to products, in return for a commission, that are sold from a merchant's website." You'll recall that Amazon got a patent for its "one-click checkout" system. This was outrageous enough. This is yet another another patent that should never have been granted, and it's probably even worse. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DoubleClick Isn't the Only Online Surveillance System Even if federal and state investigations force DoubleClick do the right thing on the privacy front, other companies will be happy to step into the breach (Forbes.com story). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95080)	2/28/2000 8:33:00 AM
From: Robert Rose	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Hey William, sybb is up to 8 before hours. Incredible!

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95080)	2/28/2000 10:31:00 AM
From: mogwai8myball	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

PHCM going on sale 10 points. Any reason why?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95080)	2/28/2000 10:43:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Bought PHCM at 145 1/4

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95080)	2/28/2000 10:48:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

didn't read it. You didn't have a link. I have it fourth hand from you, and it's a direct hit on Jeff Bezos' credibility. Should I be less skeptical of your post? I will link them again later. Jeff Bezos' credibility...hmmm. I believe it was and still is. Oh my LOL.

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95080)	2/28/2000 11:31:00 AM
From: Wizard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>Barron's (Im pretty sure Barnes & Noble is Barron's largest outlet) I wonder if Barron's has studied their own cost structure relative to printing and distributing their magazine versus its electronic web-delivery. You would think this company might understand something as intuitive as efficient distribution but we are talking about Journalists here so go figure. At least this week's Amazon jab was based on somebody other than one of their journalists making an attempt to discredit a model they have never understood. However, the short seller misses the point by 'splitting hairs' about whether revenues per customer was slightly up or slightly down. The financials of Amazon are ugly right now. Selling short based on some financial statistic that is slightly negative (and arguable at that) is really odd to me given where we are in the evolution of ecommerce.