eBay May Lose 'Buy it Now' Button in Patent Case

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."

Re:Yeah

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

That makes sense. Yay for software patents!

Doesn't even strike me as a software patent - more of a business process patent.

links

[wizardforce]

Ebay vs MercExchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_Inc._v._MercExch ange%2C_L.L.C [wikipedia.org]. the patent they are apparently fighting over [US Patent 5845265] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5845265.PN.&OS=PN/58452 65&RS=PN/5845265 [uspto.gov]

Re:E-bay needs "overtime" bidding

[MaelstromX]

Screw them. Until E-bay institutes a much needed "overtime" change, I will never do business anymore. I'm tired of all the 1-second-till-end phantom biding programs and online services screwing me over.

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.

Re:Judicial System: Redo from Start

[Anonymous Coward]

And lets not forget about hot cups of coffee

Gah, everything else in your comment is spot on but people always bring the McCoffee thing up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit when it actually wasn't. The coffee was very hot, enough to cause serious burns (she needed skin grafts). They had previously been advised it was dangerously hot but carried on serving at that temperature. The cup it was served in was flimsy and tended to collapse when the top was taken off. In short, it was inherently dangerous to be serving at a drive-through and it was quite reasonable for the court to find them criminally negligent for doing so.

Re:Independent Creation

[TheoMurpse]

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.

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:

In the United States, patents confer rights to exclude others from making, using, or selling in the United States the invention claimed by the patent for a period of seventeen years from the date of issue. To gain patent protection, an invention (which may be a product, process, machine, or composition of matter) must be novel, nonobvious, and useful. [Patents] . . . protect[] an invention not only from copying but also from independent creation . . ."

http://www.hyperlaw.com/ipguide.htm [hyperlaw.com]

Thus, not only can two people hold very similar patents (because the second patented would not be "novel" and thus not eligible for patent protection), but "independent creation" is not a defense to patent infringement.

Hot Lap Coffee

[BillGatesLoveChild]

mod parent 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 legends guy from the days when Internet was e-mail and news groups. Think of him as Mythbusters long before beries became unfashionable again. Snopes pointed me at this, which he claims is an accurate summary of the incident:

http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg =facts [caoc.com]

As Snopes says, the details of that case were exaggerated, but there's still a strong case for tort reform. I suspect Judge "No Pants" Pearson will be on poster. For an encore Pearson should sue himself for emotional distress for making an ass (no pun intended) out of himself.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp [snopes.com]

BUY, from a merchant site? How revolutionary!

[172pilot]

OK, granted, the article wasn't specific on what the patent was based on, but it seems to me that if you've got a website that intends to SELL something, that somewhere on that page, there should be a button to allow a potential customer to BUY the item. I am going to assume for a moment that the act of BUYING an item is not a patentable concept (I hope this assumption is correct).. If so, what is patented? The color of the button? The exact wording? What the heck? The Patent office is truly out of control.

Add to Cart

[rdx565]

Apart from the usage of words how is 'Buy it now' any different from 'Add to Cart'? The process seems exactly the same to me. Maybe this is why I don't have any patents to my name.

Lawsuits are for losers

[Austin Milbarge]

> eBay has claimed that they have changed the code in order to prevent any patent violations claimed in the suit, but
> MercExchange lawyers say that they are still entitled to a hearing in order to force eBay to license the patents.

But that's not good enough for MercExchange because they're entitled to a few bucks, no?? I'm surprised Ford hasn't sued GM for making a car that looks similar to theirs. A LAW SUIT OVER A F**KING BUTTON!!! Give me a break!! This is exactly why countries like China, India, Israel and Japan are kicking our ass!! American companies don't innovate anymore, they sue!! Lawyers are destroying this country one suit at a time.

Re:Guess they'll just have to make it...

[Prof.Phreak]

How about "Skip bidding?"

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.