We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances
Unfortunately we don't. There is great asymmetry in favour of the patent holder, a patent is presumed valid until challenged, and that is easily a six-digit sum. Most people and most small companies don't have that kind of money lying around to state their case that Amazon is patenting basic techniques in studio photography.
And there is the problem. This outcome appears unjust because it is. The civilized way of justice through the courts is not available, consequently we are seeing calls for vigilantism. Someone will uphold the law, and if it isn't the Executive and Congress the street will step in to fill the void.
The civilized way is available. If existing patent law makes it prohibitively difficult to remove a bad patent, the civilized solution is to call your local representatives and work with them to author a bill that modifies the system. It is not to release personal information about the people who disagree and say, "Well, the law isn't what we want it to be right now, so we're going to harass, torment, embarrass, and scare you, because you did something legal which I don't think you should've been allowed to do." Again, look up rule of law. If we can't accept that sometimes we have to obey and respect law while simultaneously working to correct it, whether we agree or not, then we have nothing left.
Unfortunately we don't. There is great asymmetry in favour of the patent holder, a patent is presumed valid until challenged, and that is easily a six-digit sum. Most people and most small companies don't have that kind of money lying around to state their case that Amazon is patenting basic techniques in studio photography.
And there is the problem. This outcome appears unjust because it is. The civilized way of justice through the courts is not available, consequently we are seeing calls for vigilantism. Someone will uphold the law, and if it isn't the Executive and Congress the street will step in to fill the void.