<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<title>Amazon letter from RMS to Tim O'Reilly
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/amazon-rms-tim.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>Letter from RMS to Tim O'Reilly</h2>
Here's a message that <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
M. Stallman</a> sent to Tim O'Reilly on March 11, 2000, in regard to
the statement by Jeff Bezos, <acronym title="Chief Executive Officer">CEO</acronym>
of Amazon, which called for software patents to last just 3 or 5 years.</p>
Please <a href="/philosophy/amazon.html">read more</a> about this boycott.
Please also support us by making a link from your own home
page and sites to
The idea that software patents should last 3 or 5 years has been
proposed for a decade now, as a compromise that would eliminate most
of the harm that software patents now do. Support for this idea from
Jeff Bezos is a good thing, since it may bring us a step closer to
action by Congress. Congratulations for helping to bring this about.
But such a law is far from imminent, and in the mean time, Amazon is
still responsible for its actions.
We singled out Amazon for a boycott, among the thousands of companies
that have obtained software patents, because Amazon is among the few
that have gone so far as to actually sue someone. That makes them an
egregious offender. Most software patent holders say they have
software patents "for defensive purposes", to press for
cross-licensing in case they are threatened with patent lawsuits.
Since this is a real strategy for self-defense, many of these patent
holders could mean what they say. But this excuse is not available
for Amazon, because they fired the first shot.
Bezos's letter reaffirms Amazon's continuing intention to engage in
unrestricted patent warfare, saying that the decision of when and
where to attack will be decided by "business reasons". I would gladly
join Bezos in supporting a bill to limit software patents to 3 or 5
years, but I believe we must continue to criticize and boycott Amazon
until such a bill is actually adopted--or until Amazon makes some
other suitable change in its own conduct to justify a change in ours.
This does not mean insisting that Amazon must go so far as to
terminate its own patents. Deterrence with patents is an inadequate
defense against aggressors armed with patents, but it is the only
defense, so I would not ask Amazon (or anyone) to refrain from using
patents for self-defense or for collective security. Rather, Amazon
and other software patent holders should abjure the use of patents for
aggression, and adopt a no-first-use policy. If Amazon does this, in
an irrevocable and binding way, I would have no further criticism of
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org"><email@example.com></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
to <a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">
<p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
our web pages, see <a
Please see the <a
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
of this article.</p>
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
document was modified, or published.
If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
<p>Copyright © 1999, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2014/06/04 00:29:35 $
<!-- timestamp end -->