Furthermore, to adopt the new phraseology of Opensource, I am considering going further by declaring cost structures - what I call Open Pricing. This is so as to further enhance the confidence of the customer, investor and supplier relationships by declaring openly the actual and detailed financials. What caveats, if any, I might put on this I haven't sorted out as yet. The code pertaining to the development itself, rather than the code which is developed, is closer to the mark of what kind of 'thing' Amazon is trying to claim as their property. It is what Netics or Amazon do with the technologies.
Ownership is the guarantee of nothing.
Again, questions to which I merely likely have additional questions and not too many answers. The remaining issue for me is the competence of the Patents Office to make the decisions that they do. In the case of affiliate programmes, I suspect that Amazon was the first with their lawyers, but not with the idea. Even so, what Amazon should have patented is the specifics of a technology to implement the business model, not the business model itself. For the Patents Office to not make or ignore this distinction might be what is at issue here.