Slashdot Log In
eBay May Lose 'Buy it Now' Button in Patent Case
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:34 PM
from the ain't-it-obvious-yet dept.
from the ain't-it-obvious-yet dept.
Spamicles writes "A judge has delayed his ruling on the eBay patent infringement case. eBay has been involved in a legal dispute over the use of its popular "Buy it Now" button, which allows consumers to skip the bidding and purchase items on eBay directly. The patent suit was filed six years ago by MercExchange L.L.C. In May of 2003, a jury ruled in MercExchange's favor finding that eBay did in fact infringe on the patent, but in 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that MercExchange was not automatically entitled to a court order blocking the offending service, essentially handing a victory down to patent reform advocates. However, the ruling by the Supreme Court does not affect the final judgment of the court."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't even strike me as a software patent - more of a business process patent.
Parent
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
Shaming.
When companies engage in blatant absurdity, and try to abuse the legal system in the name of lining their wallets, the online community needs to publicize the fact that these companies suck much pond water.
After enough negative profit impact from bogus lawsuits, even the most pointy-haired of bosses will get the memo.
If the gubmint can't do the right thing, then let's rally the market.
Consider this still-steaming loaf of farce: RMS torpedoed this one nicely: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html [gnu.org]
Unfortunately, money both talks and buys legislation.
Parent
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
They won't give a damn about their reputation, lawsuits and patent licensing is how they do business. In fact, probably the more infamous they become the better, as companies would be more likely to just pay up.
What is needed is anti-patent troll legislation: If you don't make it, you don't get to own a patent on it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is why their business should be attacked in the marketplace through better visibility of a) who is the troll, and b) who are they doing business with. We need to create the anti-troll.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this can even be patented is frankly asinine.
If it's not truly original, if it's just stacking a bunch of existing lego pieces together in another configuration, if it's blatantly obvious, then No Fucking Patent!
What I don't understand is why the court system doesn't get this, why it continues to foster this situation by allowing this crap to go on.
It's a fucking BUTTON.
It's NO different when it comes right down to it to walking into a store and buying something from the clerk.
INVENT something and I'll fully support your right to capitalize and prosper from it. Re-package the fucking wheel again, and try to gain the same protection, and you should have your head forcibly rammed as far up your ass as it will go, and then a bit more just to be sure.
Parent
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
An abbreviated list:
I'm afraid I don't see much of anything non-obvious on their list, and there's likely plenty of prior art as well. The "online auction" patent was filed in 1999; eBay was founded in 1995. How bad is it when a patent troll gets away with patenting things that aren't even new?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
And will they take the license fee in game money, since that's all that changes virtual hands? I can just see a party of lawyers riding to Ironforge and Orgrimmar to demand their license fees.
Well, the dwarves might even pay up, but I'd worry about trying to collect from the Orcs. I doubt anyone explained to Thrall yet how the license system works. And troll tribes tend to kill each other on sight, so I'd advise the patent trolls to stay clear of the Darkspear trolls
Parent
Guess they'll just have to make it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Guess they'll just have to make it... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Guess they'll just have to make it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Guess they'll just have to make it... (Score:4, Informative)
Ironically, this already exists in stock markets (double auctions): Market Orders.
If you wanna bid, you do limit orders. If you want to skip bidding, you do market orders (to pay whatever price the other party wants).
This is a no-brainer---the fact that it's patentable is amazing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Buy something now!" (think "I'm feeling lucky!")
"Buyz it now!" (think "P2P")
Hey, this patenting thing is a lot easier than I thought!
Or create a different button with the same fxn... (Score:5, Funny)
Purchase now?
Screw the bidding?
Screw the bidders?
Screw Flanders?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Necessary Option (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This shit keeps up, and before you know it we'll be required to pay some stupid company every time we use a butter knife to spread jam on a slice of bread. What? Too obvious? Yeah, NO SHIT!!!
Patents are a good idea, b
The summary is inaccurate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative (Score:5, Funny)
And they will replace it with (Score:5, Insightful)
The ultimate in stupid patents (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next, they're going so take Walmart to court because Walmart lets me buy something without bidding on it? Are they going to take the owners of the live auction I go to each week to court because after high bid is set on an item, they allow those present to buy multiples of that same item for the same high bid without running another auction process?
I'm all for the rights of a business to prosper and benefit from their original ideas. But this patent is about as far from "original" as you can get, and is as original as my getting up out of bed each morning and taking a piss. This company should be exterminated like the worthless parasite that it is. I said it before about SCO, and it applies here too...those who can innovate, while those who can't litigate.
Hey..I patented that... (Score:2, Funny)
Aye!! You just sneezed!! I have a patent on this style of sneezing! Pay me $$$$ !!
Aye! You just did a double click using the mouse! I own the patent for double clicking! Pay me now!!
Aye!! You just farted!! It smells crap!! ta-da..patent... I will sue ya!!
I wonder what other patents were granted in the past...
The stupidity of the current Patent situation (Score:3, Insightful)
links (Score:4, Informative)
I'm going to patent my doorbell...ding-dong! (Score:2)
A Very Simple Summary Breakdown (Score:5, Funny)
Ebay negotiates a license - How much you want?
Ebay doesn't get a license - Whoa! That's too much
Ebay intentionally uses it anyway - What are they gonna do, sue us?
MercExchange brings a lawsuit against Ebay - Yes
Judge rules in favor of MercExchange - I can see your name on the patent
Judge misapplies injuction process - this stuff is complicated
Ebay appeals the injuction - HaHa! a technicality
Judges rule that the injunction was done wrong - I can see the process wasn't followed
Judges also comment on current patent law - this shit sucks
MercExchange requests the injunction be applied permanently - we hate Ebay
Ebay requests postponement until patent is reassessed - No rush, we can wait 10 years
Judge must now make a decision - damned if I do, damned if I don't
Independent Creation (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that I was taught in college that 2 people can hold the patents to 2 very similar products so long as both came up with their respective products independent of each other. With such a simple idea as "Buy it now", wouldn't a rational judge throw such a case out?
Besides simple corruption of the legal system by big money, what am I missing?
Re: (Score:2)
Still, a rational judge should still throw this out! I think the idea of a buy it now function is exceedingly obvious, and I am no auctioneer!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one of the reasons why a lot of companies file vapourware patents on ideas before they're ready to actually implement them. If they took the time to do all the research, someone else might beat them to getting the patent and t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that I was taught in college that 2 people can hold the patents to 2 very similar products so long as both came up with their respective products independent of each other.
There is no allowance for independent creation. First person to invent and file wins. Infact, if someone has invented something and does not patent it but does publish the invention, someone else cannot patent the same invention unless they can prove they were first. This is because patents should only be granted on inventions that are novel (i.e. no prior art exists) and non-obvious.
With such a simple idea as "Buy it now", wouldn't a rational judge throw such a case out?
It does seem to stretch the bounds of "non-obvious". However this case does not appear to be about evaluating the patent's
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
College taught you wrong, for that is not true. In fact, the very opposite is true -- independent creation is not a defense to patent infringement. From Hyperlaw:
E-bay needs "overtime" bidding (Score:2)
Here's how it should work. Let's say the bid ends today at 5:00pm. However, if someone places a bid at 4:50pm, it should extend the end time to 5:10pm. At this point, it will continue to be extended to 5:20, 5:30, and 5:40 as long as there still bidding going on. Only when there's a period of inactivity, the
Re:E-bay needs "overtime" bidding (Score:5, Informative)
Evidently the people who use these programs want the items you are bidding on more than you do, or it would not matter that they are entering last-minute bids. Enter as your maximum bid the highest possible price you would want to buy the item for, and it won't matter if somebody enters a bid at the last possible moment because you will automatically outbid them.
If you are not willing to do this, chances are the other person wants the item more than you do (i.e. is willing to pay more for it, no matter when they entered their bid) and thus you don't deserve to win it. The system is not broken.
Parent
Re:E-bay needs "overtime" bidding (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I dunno. Is it because people have lives and aren't interested in listings on the glorified yardsale that is eBay being extended indefinitely with nickle-and-dime bids? Or perhaps it's the potential for abuse as shills hammer open-ended closings to maximize gain at the expense of others? Then again, it could just be that eBay doesn't think it worth the effort to rewrite the codebase so an item can climb from $1.00 to $2.00 over the course of another hour?
Compared to real-world auctions, the vast majority of items on eBay aren't worth much and the potential number of bidders is far, far larger. Both these factor into why open-ended closure isn't as cut-and-dried a process as you lay out. It just doesn't make sense, especially to eBay, a company that wants quick sell-through (look at their fee structuring) rather than lingering listings. That was the motivation to the introduction of Buy It Now in the first place, and your proposal runs counter to that.
There's no magic to beating last-minute dropped connections or competing automated bids: just bid what you're willing to pay up front, and if you don't win, wait for the item to turn up again (and again) from another seller. Even under your plan, those two self-indentified evils would still exist, only moreso, as the timeframe for each would be extended. I don't see how sliding auction closure does anything to address either in the least.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bid slightly over what you want to pay and then forget it; that's the secret to eBay. If you get the item, then fine. If not, then at least you haven't paid more than you wanted to. The system you're suggesting would be abused sideways to Sunday.
Personally, I'd like to see the end of "Buy it now" (although not because of a lame patent). I came for an auction, not a row of bloody Hong Kong shops.
TWW
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually think that ebay (or $NewCompetitor) would do well to change the whole system over to blind bidding. That is you put in the max you're willing to pay at the start and have to wait until the auction is over to see who won and at what price and the auto-bid history behind that. Throughout the duration of the auction there would be no "current bid" on display, just the start price and the number
Judicial System: Redo from Start (Score:4, Insightful)
A few days ago we had an idiot judge (yes, a *judge*) suing cleaners $54M for the emotional stress of losing is pants http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
and hot on the heals of that we had an idiotic ruling by a U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian decreeing that RAM shall be archived. And we've got an Attorney General, the #1 lawyer in the country, who smirks "I don't recall" for hours of testimony, then goes back to work and it's business as usual.
The entire judicial legal system is an anachronism. As we've seen, it contains some very clueless (and sometimes downright stupid) people making important decisions. We've got patent law which is way out of control and anti-trust law which might as well not exist at all. The law is written for and sometimes even by corporations like the RIAA and Disney http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_
Time to turf the whole thing out and start again. I mean, how much worse is this going to get?
At least Americans are lucky they don't like in the former British Empire where you get some senile git wearing a black cape and a powdered wig banging a hammer and glaring at you, and expecting to be taken seriously. "This is my court!" they thunder. If any other public servant did that in their workplace, they'd be taken away for psychiatric assessment.
Re:Judicial System: Redo from Start (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Hot Lap Coffee (Score:3, Informative)
I asked Google about the McCoffee. And it told me 300 contradictory things, including that McCoffee was drunk by whoever was on the grassy knoll and if you look closely at footage of the moonlanding, you can see a McCoffee next to a "moonrock." Then Google showed me crotch shots of celebrities getting out of limmos holding McCoffee. In the corner, an Google ad appeared saying "Buy Hot McCoffee Lap from eBay!"
So I gave up on Google and asked Snopes.com. Snopes is the original urban leg
How long is it going to be (Score:3, Insightful)
Arn't obvious patents null? (Score:3, Interesting)
I get really sick when simplistic business practices are considered treated the same as "trade secrets" even when they are publicly released. I get the feeling that America has become less of a free economy and more of a "patent hell". You certainly can build a better mouse trap, until the first company says they thought up the idea of a mouse trap and then your screwed.
Meanwhile, in other news ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)