The Amazon Patent Controversy


Following are links to the articles and columns published on about Amazon's software patent controversy. At the end of this page is a partial list of links to articles that appeared in the mainstream media.

28 February 2000

  • Pissing in the Well -- Tim O'Reilly weighs in on the 1-click patent issue and provides a model for sustainable web development.
3 March 2000 8 March 2000
  • Amazon's Patent Reform Proposal -- In an effort to respond to the hundreds of emails about the patent issue, Tim O'Reilly responds to the most common questions by answering a couple of representative posts.
9 March 2000 18 October 2000
  • Both Tim O'Reilly and Jeff Bezos support BountyQuest, a new Web site marketplace where people can post large rewards for documents proving prior art on a patent, thus proving a patented invention is not really new. Tim O'Reilly has posted a bounty on Amazon's 1-click patent. Earn a $10,000 bounty by providing documentation describing 1-click purchasing published before September 28, 1997.
1 November 2000
  • Patents: Disproving Idea Ownership -- The New York Times reports on BountyQuest, an online company where people "can offer rewards for information leading to the debunking of a patent." Despite their disagreement over Amazon's 1-click patent, Tim O'Reilly and Jeff Bezos agree that something's wrong with the patent system. And to help resolve the problems, they've both invested in BountyQuest.
7 November 2000
  • BountyQuest Subverted? Will the software patent reform site launched by Jeff Bezos, Charles Cella, and Tim O'Reilly be used to subvert the patent reform process? Find out in this Ask Tim.
2 February 2001
  • BountyQuest Winners Receive $10,000 Each -- BountyQuest, the software patent reform web site founded by Charles Cella, Jeff Bezos, and Tim O'Reilly, paid $40,000 in bounties for prior art that casts doubt on the validity of patents held by Cisco, Oracle, Intouch, and Walker Digital.

Following is a partial list of resources and media articles relating to the controversy: