Slashdot Log In
EBay Fined $29.5M in Patent Case
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Aug 07, 2003 02:24 PM
from the absolutely-ridiculous-patents dept.
from the absolutely-ridiculous-patents dept.
pigreco314 writes "As reported by Washington Post and many others a federal judge Wednesday ordered online auction house eBay to pay $29.5 million to a Virginia inventor (former CIA engineer) who accused the company of stealing his ideas." This case has been going going on for awhile, but this looks to have some finality. Patenting "Buy it Now" is almost as stupid as One Click Shopping.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This is very bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, how does the court system justify an award of $29.5 million? This seems like a huge amount for such a simple patent. Does the defendant own his own auction house? Is ebay's use of buy it now seriously impacting him financially? This is just absurd.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Jerome Friedman said he would not require eBay to abandon the disputed technology, saying Woolston's lawyers failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the court did not issue an injunction.
If they failed to show that there would be irreparable harm from future use than how did they show that there was harm from prior use? I guess they don't need to prove any harm, they just need to show they own the patent and they get a huge sum of money. Wired's article [wired.com] says that both sides plan to appeal, maybe ebay can get a better deal in this process.
Re:This is very bad news (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not bad news. Ebay is known for trouncing on people who claim IP infringement, yet slapping others for using "their" IP. They are an example of all that is evil with regard to corporate America and intellectual property laws. They may not be as bad as Microsoft or others in this regard, but that's probably because they're not quite as broad or powerful yet.
They deserve this, and maybe it will teach them to play nice in the future.
Re:This is very bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
While they may well "deserve this", given their own portfolio of ludicrously obvious patents, the lesson that eBay will most likely take away from all of this is that they should be even more aggressive with their IP portfolio, not less. Clearly, if an individual was able to prevail over them in court, surely this implies that their own patents are at least equally defensible.
The bottom line is that this is in no way a good thing for anybody -- except perhaps the patent holder and the IP legal industry.
Parent
Re:This is very bad news (Score:4, Insightful)
Get serious -- this biblical maxim is understood by lawyers only in the following modified form:
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, unless he has a bigger sword than everybody else. And in any case, we still get paid.
There is no sense of "karma" in the intersecting corporate, political and legal worlds than dominate the tech industry.
Parent
Re:This is very bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This is very bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the GWB deserves a bullet in the head, but I would be tremendously unhappy to see someone give it to him and get away with it. Mostly, because it would set a tremendously bad precedent for when someone decides that I deserve one.
Parent
Re:This is very bad news (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it's not the PTO's fault. If anyone is to "blame" (and how can you determine blame unless you've actually read the patents and heard the evidence) it would be the jury that found the infringement. Remember, even if the PTO grants a patent, the courts can still strike it down as being invalid.
Re:This is very bad news (Score:5, Interesting)
Historically, patent systems in most countries haven't allowed business methods to be patented. This had always been the case in the US - the most well known precedent involved a guy named Hicks in the 1890s who tried to patent a bookkeeping method which he claimed reduced shoplifting; he successfully registered the patent but it was held by the court to be invalid.
However to just about everybody's surprise, the Federal Courts overturned all this in the State Street case in 1998, and the AT&T case a year later. The law is a mess, but it seems anything "useful" can be patented.
It's extraordinary that so radical a step (and one that's arguably a violation of the US constitution) can be taken by the US court system, and neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seems willing to do anything about it.
so don't blame the jury.
End of rant.
Parent
Re:This is very bad news (Score:3, Funny)
Why would you think it is obviously invalid? (Score:3, Interesting)
"obviously frivilous" how? Why would you possibly imagine a patent is obviously frivilous after surviving a jury trial? Certainly, the patent may, in fact, be invalid, but where do you come off suggesting that the patent is invalid at all, let alone obviously frivilous?
If they failed to show that there would be irreparable harm from future use
Re:This is very bad news (Score:3, Insightful)
Drastic reform in the uspto is necessary
Amen brother.
1. Moratorium on Software and Business Method patents aka, S&BM (which coincidently also stands for S*** and Bowel Movements). 2. Reduce filing fees to zero so that the USPTO no longer generates revenue. That would give the government an incentive to reduce USPTO instead of expanding it. 3. Alternatively, impose fees only on rejected patents. That would give them an incentive to reject as many patents as possible, while still passing a fe
he wanted more than Buy it Now. (Score:5, Interesting)
From: Another [uspto.gov] patent of his (February 1999)...
Auctioning an uniquely identified item (e.g., used goods or collectibles) with a computerized electronic database of data records on the Internet includes creating a data record containing a description of an item, generating an identification code to uniquely identify the item, and scheduling an auction for the item at the computerized database of records. The item is presented for auction to an audience of participants through a worldwide web mapping module executing in conjunction with the computerized database. The data record connotes an ownership interest in the item to a seller participant on the computerized electronic database of data records. The worldwide web mapping module translates information from the data record on the computerized database of records to a hypertext markup language (HTML) format for presentation through the Internet. Bids are received on the item from participants on the Internet through an auction process that executes in conjunction with the computerized database of data records. Auctioning of the item is terminated when the auction process reaches predetermined criteria. The auction participant is notified of the high bid in the auction process. The unique identification code is provided to the auction participant with the high bid to uniquely identify the item.
Seems like this fool was trying to go after EBay by filing patents that were VERY similar to what EBay had already been doing. Nevermind "Buy it Now", he wanted it all.
At least (Score:2, Funny)
Re:At least (Score:2)
This is a bit wierd. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a bit wierd. (Score:3, Funny)
Let us introduce you to Senator Hollings, D-Disney.
Re:This is a bit wierd. (Score:5, Funny)
I guess in the context of an auction it could be novel, but it still seems odd.
Indeed. Given the amount of transactions that involve computers today, I don't see how things like this can continue to be "novel". Maybe I can just apply random modifiers and try and patent them under the same giuse:
- Conducting an auction using a computer
- Conducting an auction over the phone
- Conducting an auction while wearing pants
Having said that, I know some people who'd be more than willing to work around the last one.
Parent
Re:This is a bit wierd. (Score:3, Funny)
Too... contextually... relevant.
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
damn.. I hope.. (Score:2)
eBay has hundreds of lawsuits against them currently.
Their stock dropped like mad after this as well http://quote.money.cnn.com/quote/quote?symbols=eb a y&submit3.x=0&submit3.y=0 [cnn.com]
But.. on the good front, so did SCO's ( http://quote.money.cnn.com/quote/quote?symbols=sco &submit3.x=0&submit3.y=0 )
Stupid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Something needs to be done soon (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Wooo man will the judges have fun with that one.
Re:Just wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
-The wheel was invented
-The method of sparking a fire using stones and/or sticks was found
-The idea of using some kind of 'tender' as exchange rather than plain trading.
-A design of a boat/ship were devised
-Crop-rotation was invented and implemented
- etc, etc, etc
what if the patent office was always like this? (Score:5, Funny)
horsenbuggy: your car uses four wheels!
ford: oops
$29.5M found in favor of horsenbuggy.
How is this new (Score:5, Insightful)
i hope... (Score:5, Funny)
Buy It Later (Score:5, Funny)
- You click it and it charges your credit card on a random date and sends you the merchandise whenever the seller feels like it!
Or maybe not. Sshhhhh... no stealing .... sshhhh
A great idea (patent pending) (Score:2, Funny)
Jury? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like presenting a Jury with DNA evidence:
DNA Expert: "There is a 1/1,000,000,000 chance that this DNA comes from someone else."
Jury: "Holy crap! That guy wasn't 100% certain. Not guilty!"
He did the right thing (Score:5, Funny)
I hear that you can avoid litigation yourself by leasing his IP for $699 for small auction sites, $1499 for sites utilizing 20 servers or more.
It should be noted that... (Score:5, Insightful)
1.) Reduced the jury award from $35 million to $29.5 million. Not a LOT, but a few million here, and a few million there, you're soon talking REAL money.
2.) Did NOT make the case "special" even though the jury found that eBay was a "willful infringer." The judge COULD HAVE tripled the award AND added attorney fees.
3.) Ruled that eBay could STILL maintain their "infringing ways" even though patent law clearly provides that a patent holder has the right to excluded others from practicing their invention. Of course, the reports could have failed to notice that eBay was required to post a bond pending appeal and that that's the reason they can keep "infringing" the patent, at least until the Federal Circuit rules on this in a year or two.
These facts lead one to believe that the judge didn't agree with the jury in this case. While it most certainly will be appealed, I still wonder if the judge is concidering overturning the jury verdict, not withstanding the verdict.
So, while the posted comment seems to make it look like the judge is "going after eBay" and this now has some "finality" it actually appears to be quite the opposite.
And as to it being "stupid" to patent this? I can site 29.5 million reasons it wasn't for the inventor to patent it.
Verdict and Patent in question (Score:5, Informative)
Well, that explains everything. (Score:3, Funny)
Of course it's a dumb patent.
Vague Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
While speaking with the patent attorney and describing the details of the "invention" he said that his job is to make the patent as broad and general as possible (read vague) to make it easier to litigate an infringement. You could see his mind working as he worked out the patent application in his head.
While I agree we need patents to protect intellectual property, patenting obvious ideas, not even actual working inventions, is amazing. Customers have been able to "Buy it Now" at any retail store in the world since the dawn of time! Why is it that when we get a computer involved we need a patent and ~$30 million USD in compensation for this idea?
The attorney would constantly look at other things we were doing and ask about them. The only plus to this is that I'll have my name on a few patents soon, if you call that a good thing. I was also told that if in a few years the need to litigate the patents arose I would be deposed. I'm imagining myself at a different job in a different location getting a letter saying I need to be present at a law office some where!
ebay plays the same game (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y03
http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/06/
I dunno, maybe this does sound right. (Score:4, Interesting)
The $30m is stated as punitive, a pretty good slap on the wrist. Maybe next time eBay will actually license a patent from the little guy and save some money in the long run rather than have a free lunch
Should we restrict certain types of patents? (Score:3, Insightful)
The patent... (Score:3, Informative)
At the auction date, perspective participants log onto the consignment node auction mode locally or through the consignment node network and await the first good to be auctioned. It is understood that in the best mode of the invention the participant will have a data terminal with a digital to analog converter such as a "sound blaster" and speaker, the digital to analog capability may be used in the auction mode to bring the aural excitement of an auction, e.g., the call of the heckler, the caller and bidders, home to the auction participant. This is discussed in more detail below.
The consignment node takes the first item to be auctioned and posts the image of the good and the good's text record to the participants. The consignment node then posts the opening bid. It is understood that the bid postings may be in a protocol that invokes the generation of an auctioneer's voice at the participant terminals. The participants may then respond with a higher bid. The consignment node mode scans electronically the participants for bids and accepts the highest bid. If bids are tied the consignment node may take the first highest bid by the participants log on order. A particular bidding participant receives a special acknowledgment from the consignment node that her bid was accepted. The consignment node then posts the higher bid to all the electronic auction participants. The consignment node repeats this process until no higher bid is received for a predetermined amount of time and closes the auctioning of that particular good.
Doesn't sound anything like Ebay to me. If the patent is meant to cover every single conveivable form of "competerized auction house" why don't they just say so? If they were really honest they could say "Joe bloggs has thought of something to do with auctions and computers. He isn't going to do anything with it, but has provided enough techno-babble to convince non-technical people that he could do something with it. Therefore, if anyone else tries to do something remotely similar they must give him money."
This is really bad for small companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst nothing in our systems is so exceptionally original or complicated that it should warrant a patent, this news now means that all the obvious problems we've solved in developing our product so far are potentially vulnerable to being extorted by paper-idea profiteering sleezebags-- and it's all legal and fair according to Uncle Sam.
The only good thing that might come out of this situation is it might wake up america's sleeping legislators and force them to face and solve this situation that is quickly escalating to an environment lethal to REAL innovation.
Why should anyone try to start a business on the internet in this climate? Every idea you come up with is susceptible to having a prior patent claim the way things seem to be currently working. It's already bloody hard enough to start a business without having to worry that the processes you want to implement are owned by USPTO licenced crook who is going to wait until it hurts-not-to-pay to come collect on you.
Re:This is really bad for small companies (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't steal an idea (Score:5, Informative)
Why do people always use the wrong words? You can not steal an idea, except perhaps in some far-out science fiction where neuron transplants occur (Spock's brain?).
Now you can copy my idea, you can be inspired by my ideas, you can derive the same idea I had by examining some tangible expression of the idea (e.g., product reverse engineering), or you can have the same idea as me all on your own. The later is actualy the most likely reason why two individuals have the same idea, they just had the same thoughts. Thoughts are not mutually exclusive.
Now, you can steal blueprints, computer printouts, prototypes, webservers, money, or even customers; practically anything that's tangible and where ownership is by nature mutually exclusive. But you can not steal ideas.
If I actually could steal your idea, then three things must be true:
Short of that, it's simply not stealing. So the headline should have more correctly read:
Re:great (Score:2)
I can only hope you're being sarcastic with your comment, but I can't really tell.
Re:The worst thing about software patents (Score:2)
Yep. That would be me. I'll license the technology to you for a mere $699. After October 1, it jumps to $1399.
Re:The worst thing about software patents (Score:2)
Re:The CIA has been stealing my ideas for years!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Note that I said temporarily. In order to keep them from hearing you all the time, you've got to chew on the foil all the time.
That, or rip all your teeth out with a rusty set of vicegrips or light an M80 and stick it in your mouth.
Parent
Re:The CIA has been stealing my ideas for years!!! (Score:3, Funny)
See you in court, buddy!
Re:Political BS and Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because two people have the same idea does not mean one stole it from the other.
This is especially true when the patent is about a concept, instead of a method; and double-especially true when the concept is a simple or obvious one.
The rant isn't about patent infringement; it's about how silly patents have become (such as the "concept" patent of "buy it now"), thereby undermining the whole meaning of patents.
Legal 101 there's no in betweens in the law or else it wouldn't be fair.
Since when has the law been about being "fair?"
People shouldn't rant on about something which is not trivial,
Near as I can tell, this patent is trivial, as in, given frivolously to a trivial concept which is neither unique nor innovative.
Now some of you may not agree, but to follow the law to the letter eBay was wrong.
Not really. If the patent office followed the law to the letter, they would not have issued this patent due to its obviousness.
Parent
Re:Political BS and Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
I also think it is important to see how the patent holder deals with patents. For example, the company I work for is after as many patents as they can get. This is not to go out and sue everyone, but to protect itself against other companies l
Re:Redundant (Score:3, Informative)