EBay Subject of Patent Action 217
spatrick_123 writes "Yahoo! is reporting that a man named Bill Simon is pursuing action against EBay, claiming that he hold patents on essentially every aspect of their operation. Whether or not this is a precedent setting case, it is certainly a large one in terms of what is at stake financially and it will be interesting to watch it play out."
Just two more years.... (Score:4, Funny)
...until I reveal my talking paperclip patent to the world. Muahaha Muuuahahah
-Chris
Re:Just two more years.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just two more years.... (Score:2)
I usually don't reply to sigs, but I keep seeing this one and it's driving me crazy.
10000000019, 10000000033, 10000000061, 10000000069, 10000000097, 10000000103, 10000000121,...
Sorry, I just needed to do that.
Christ.... (Score:4, Interesting)
On second thought, perhaps I should just consider suing Microsoft for infringing on my US Patent #173087007: A Plan and Method for basing a multinational technology corporation in the state of Seattle.
Re:Christ.... (Score:2)
Here's a tip, try suing a corporation based in Seattle.
Re:Christ.... (Score:1)
This should have been bought out into the open long before eBay became they company that they are.. and sheesh, I cant see him making up some bullshit story about having never heard of eBay until recently or something. eBay are in so many films, on so many advert banners.. everyone knows about eBay.
Re:Christ.... (Score:4, Informative)
"MercExchange founder Thomas Woolston, an inventor and patent attorney who has been granted four online auction-related patents since 1998 and has some 10 others pending, said he sued eBay in 2001 after negotiations broke down over the auction site's offer to purchase his patents.
The company first contacted Woolston in 2000 with an interest in buying the patents. E-mail to that effect is expected to figure prominently in the case because it indicates that eBay knew about Woolston's patents but continued to infringe them, he said.
"We expect to be vindicated at trial," Woolston said. "They are rank infringers."
At the heart of the case is patent paperwork Woolston filed less than five months before eBay founder Pierre Omidyar spent Labor Day weekend of 1995 creating the first iteration of his auction site. Today, eBay is one of the most successful online businesses, with nearly $750 million in revenue last year and continued profitability."
Re:Christ.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Christ.... (Score:5, Informative)
Errr, no.
Those are the claims made by one side.
E-bay claims Woolston came to them trying to sell his patents. They claim the relevant patent claims were added in a revision long after the original filing date - after E-Bay was up and running which would the patent invalid. E-Bay also claims to have found prior art which would also render the patent invalid.
If you want facts, Woolston has also sued Priceline over a different patent (yet to be resolved), and GoTo.com over YET ANOTHER patent (settled out of court).
This guy is making a career of filing patent suits. He has yet to actually win a case.
Even if he did win, many people think this entire class of patents should never be granted in the first place.
-
I kinda hope he wins (Score:2)
It could be the beginning of the end of these ridiculous patents if the "big boys" see themselves getting squeezed.
Re:Christ.... (Score:2)
"MercExchange founder Thomas Woolston, an inventor and patent attorney who has been granted four online auction-related patents since 1998 and has some 10 others pending, said he sued eBay in 2001 after negotiations broke down over the auction site's offer to purchase his patents."
Then this should be thrown out before it goes anywhere. I've had my E-bay account since 1997, and they were using the same auction methods then that they're using today. Ergo, prior art; case dismissed!
Re:Christ.... (Score:2)
What does this mean for other auction sites ? (Score:1, Interesting)
Or is he just going for a quick buck?
Old news (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting none the less.
Re:Old news (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Old news (Score:2)
Think about it.
Re:Old news (Score:2)
It's impossible to patent a time machine. Think about it.
Unless it's a time machine that only goes into the future. Ha, gotcha.
-a
"Consignment nodes" (Score:5, Informative)
Patent 5,845,265 - Consigment Nodes [uspto.gov]. It was filed back in 1995. I haven't looked at the claims etc.
While doing the search, I noticed some other auction patents, such as one titled "Distributed Live Auction" that is assigned to Amazon.
Re: "Consignment nodes" (Score:5, Informative)
Consignment nodes
Abstract
A method and apparatus for creating a computerized market for used and collectible goods by use of a plurality of low cost posting terminals and a market maker computer in a legal framework that establishes a bailee relationship and consignment contract with a purchaser of a good at the market maker computer that allows the purchaser to change the price of the good once the purchaser has purchased the good thereby to allow the purchaser to speculate on the price of collectibles in an electronic market for used goods while assuring the safe and trusted physical possession of a good with a vetted bailee.
Wow!
This is an LONG sentence...
Re: "Consignment nodes" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to do an auction and use the computer for bidding and exchanging the money between the seller and buyer.
Dammit, BUSINESS METHODS THAT CAN BE MOVED TO THE COMPUTER SHOULD NOT BE PATENTABLE!!!
Why not? (Score:2)
What reason can you offer to distinguish methods that can be moved to the computer from those that cannot be moved to the computer?
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
The question finesses way too many key issues to answer simply, and is something of a straw man. Suffice it to say that no invention stands alone -- virtually all great new developments are built on the works of those who came before, who saw farther because they "stood on ye shoulders of giants."
The difference that makes something patentable typically derives precisely from HOW it refines the ideas previously developed -- bringing the state of the art to a new level not only by pioneering new inventions, but also by technical refinements and incremental innovation. The Curtis/Wright planes would be useless by modern standards, but for the massive amount of minor technological improvements on what is now unpatentable technology.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
The original poster can't, and shouldn't. He could have spared some verbiage and made the much more accurate statement:
"Dammit, BUSINESS METHODS SHOULD NOT BE PATENTABLE. " Period. The same goes for mathematical algorithms, conceptual ideas (which are supposed to be unpatentable in theory but for which patents are regularly granted), or even any specific idea or design which the patenting party has not built themselves first. No more patenting a matter-antimatter motor unless you've built and operated the damn thing first.
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Where would we be if every use of the telephone or the radio could have been patented simply because they were too obvious to bother publishing about.
1. Append phrase 2. Profit! (Score:2)
I am going to add "in outer space" to every current business technique or algorithm in common use. Then we finally can get up there, I will be rich.
Or better yet, add "in a porno flick" to everything in existence. Then I won't have to wait as long.
I'll just make it into a rubber stamp, and sell it as a IP Patent Kit (after I grab the profitable ones).
DUMBASS PATENT GRANTERS!!!!
simple litmus test for BS patents (Score:2)
For example, if there is NO way to write a usable auction application without violating the patent in question, then the patent is bullshit.
(Note that the reverse is not necessarily true. IOW, just because there is a way to do it does not necessarily mean it is legit. This is only a lameness test, not a legitamacy test.)
Re: "Consignment nodes" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: "Consignment nodes" (Score:3, Insightful)
allows the purchaser to change the price of the good once the purchaser has purchased the good No auction in the world works that way. You haven't purchased the good(s) until a price has been set (read: the end of the auction.) At that point, the price isn't open for debate. (So, this nut doesn't even know how auctions work.)
low cost posting terminals Define "low cost" and "posting terminal". I've used eBay from extremely expensive computers.
Plus, patent filings are not public knowledge, so, exactly how is eBay supposed to have "stolen" his technology when eBay didn't even know who this guy was until a year ago? It's called parallel discovery -- both independantly came up with similar ideas. eBay has made a very successful business from it; Woolston obviously hasn't and never will.
Purchaser price of purchased goods (Score:2)
My guess is that this line is about ongoing auctions; since the patent is about a marketplace for collectables.
Re: A better patent (Score:2)
This is why it might be a good idea for a patent holder to demonstrate the ongoing application of said patent- to take possession of an idea is one thing - to take possession of an idea and then go after those to endure the risk to see if it actually works is a completely different matter. I wonder how it would change the currently rather backward patent process if patents were awarded to those who a) had an idea, and b) can show material evidence that they are or have taken the steps necessary (and the risk) necessary to implement them.
Re: "Consignment nodes" (Score:2)
Why can you patent an age old concept? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for screwing the big corporations but get with the show and invent something real and stop trying to get rich off pantenting the obvious.
Re:Why can you patent an age old concept? (Score:4, Interesting)
FWIW, electronic spreadsheets where created from paper spreadsheets, a technique which is used in theoretical mechanics to compute resulting vectors in space.
If you lookup the story about spreadsheets from Dan Bricklin, you will find that they really started from this concept.
With computers, you can automate many things which where previously cumbersome.
However, with computers you can do things that are impossible in reality : magic, anti-gravity, maybe we should go for patents on these because we can implement them on a computer...
Re:Why can you patent an age old concept? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why can you patent an age old concept? (Score:2)
oh, i almost forgot!
phew...otherwise my computer would start floating about in the room.
Re:Why can you patent an age old concept? (Score:2)
Instead, US courts have a strong presumption of validity about all the sh^H^Houtput from the patent office. I've even seen it argued (by RMS, I think) that prior art databases are a bad idea because only prior art that wasn't already considered by the (overworked and wrongly incented) patent examiner can really help overturn an invalid patent.
I know reading the article is bad but... (Score:5, Informative)
More about Simon (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More about Simon (Score:2)
if you put up a political Parody you are protected by the 1st amendment quite clearly.
They have no chance, and they will only make themselves look stupid if they try and sue him/them on something that is obviosually a parody for making a political statement.
Re:More about Simon (Score:2)
However, I should point out that though there is quite a bit of precedent and law that seems to protect parody fair use for copyrighted material, trademark use is less clear cut. See Copyright Law Section 107 "fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism or comment...is not an infrigement". Also see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994)
for some precedent (this is the 2 Live Crew case on the Pretty Woman parody song).
HOWEVER, trademark usage is still subject to standards of dilution avoidance - if a parody is judged to be confusing or causing trademark value dilution, a court may rule against its use even for parody. The political speech trump card likely wins out every time, however, due to its special consideration within the law and jurisprudence.
Re:More about Simon (Score:2)
yes, I know, it's fucking annoying that different forms of speech have different levels of protectection, but such is the case according to all of my friends in law school
Er, just out of curiosity, why would you expect anything else? Libel, slander, Yell-fire-crowded-theatre are obvious examples of speech that don't deserve the same protection as political speech.
And for my next patent... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And for my next patent... (Score:2)
Re:And for my next patent... (Score:2)
How can anyone stand up and say... (Score:5, Insightful)
The person who holds the patents - even if they are valid - did not do the difficult thing which is set up a successful company around the idea. If he had been trying to run an auction company and had been driven out of business or was being threatened by ebay then maybe he would have a gripe. But ALL this guy has done is have a fairly obvious idea (lets face it - letting people sell stuff to one another is not that new - car boot sale patents anyone?).
The patent office should take a long hard look at what it is trying to achieve.
Re:How can anyone stand up and say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the time, the applicant doesn't have the resources, either technical or financial, to build up a successful company around one patent. Most patents are issued to people who have filed them for things they have invented whilst researching and developing for a parent company, which then has the resources to back the project.Everything is obvious once it's been done, isn't it? The best inventions are the simplest, and their genius shines through by way of seeming an "obvious solution". But they aren't - it needs someone to actually think laterally around the subject, or to have a flash of inspiration to solve a problem in such a way. My favorite examples of this sort of thinking are a matchbox manufacturer who cut costs spectacularly by putting a striking surface on only one side of the box (when there had been two previously), and British Airlines saving thousands by way of halving the number of olives in their Martinis.
I'd love to be able to come up with these ideas myself - the guy who invented TetraPaks has made a fortune for himself and his family - but, sadly, it takes a true flash of inspiration and creativity. By no means am I taking sides in this eBay thing - I haven't looked into it deeply enough...
Re:How can anyone stand up and say... (Score:3, Insightful)
- My favorite examples of this sort of thinking are a matchbox manufacturer who cut costs spectacularly by putting a striking surface on only one side of the box (when there had been two previously), and British Airlines saving thousands by way of halving the number of olives in their Martinis.
... or Subaru saving tens of thousands by not quite topping up the engine oil in new cars by 1/2 litre.I'm quite glad *such* things can't be patented, at least: cutting costs by cutting corners. Great business idea, but the innovative thing about them is that they wouldn't occur to a product designer simply trying to make a good and usable product, because they don't make design sense. Hooray for "good value", but I wouldn't call it revolutionary.
As for this case: non-obvious *to whom* is always a question. Another important question is how hard something is. Examples:
- A McPhearson shock absorber: ingenious (IMHO), hard to get right, needed a lot of R&D
- Any rocket engine or similar: check out things like SCRAM jets. No moving parts (apart from the fuel pump), but engineering magic nonetheless. Needs a lot of R&D
- ... and so on
Compare stuff like this with web auctions, and they fade into "oh, like taking part in an auction over the phone, yea?"Naturally, you can equally tell any hypothetical computer agent the same thing, if the agent is programmed to accept such commands.
Maybe the last bit is only obvious to typical
If and when you happen to re-invent something (as in the case of the original article, as far as I understand) that has already been patented by someone else, there is no "onus of proof", neither on yourself, nor on the patenter. Even if you *did* invent whatever it is from base up, it's already patented, and you must enter negotiations for a license to use it, the cost of which may by prohibitive to your undertaking.
Fine, in that case you're just SOL; better luck next time. The fact that the patenter may not be using the patent (i.e. producing something based thereupon) is just secondary bummer.
But where it gets really buggy is when you, as an inventor, are severly encumbered by a minefield of trivialities. "Hey, we could do auctions over SMS" ("short message system" - big in Yurp, not so much in the US)
Anyway - I'm in rant mode. To the last I can only paraphrase The Matrix: "There is nothing to patent."
Re:How can anyone stand up and say... (Score:3, Insightful)
The natural argument that occurs to me is that I may come up with lots of ideas that would be highly impractical to start a company and sell. Let's say for laughs that I design a new CPU or a new airplane. I could spend the next 20 years just trying to figure out how to get a fab built or a production line running and never actually make & sell the gizmo that I designed.
However, the design is impractical for me to build, not impractical for Intel or Boeing to build. So instead of me forming a successful business around making my design, I license my patents to someone who really can make and market my designs.
I see your point, though, and would argue that perhaps patents shouldn't be licensable, only sellable and only enforcable by the owner of the patent IF they are actually using the idea in their trade after some grace period of for "development of trade", ie the time between desinging the thing and actually getting it to market.
So if I come up with a great new CPU design and patent it, I have some grace period where I get enforcement of the design without having to market my CPU. I can either start making CPUs or sell the patent outright. Whoever I sell it to has to start making my design or they can't enforce the patent.
This would clear some egregious uses of patents; the supression of innovative designs and the profiteering of patent holders who don't actually contribute anything to the economy. Wouldn't affect patenting of obvious designs (eg, 1-click) but it could really help software patents, since you'd actually have to be *making* software that did something, not just blocking someone else from doing so.
Re:How can anyone stand up and say... (Score:2)
The system works, every day. You don't hear about the cases where the system is proven to be fair, where it is proven to give the protections it was intended to, because those cases aren't controversial. They aren't scandalous. They aren't news.
In another comment, someone said that this guy has yet to win any of the patent infringement cases he has filed. Doesn't that suggest that perhaps, the system isn't so broken after all?
You snooze you lose. (Score:1, Interesting)
Duplicate! (Score:3, Informative)
For the lazy, news.com originally reported [com.com] the story early September:
eBay, one of the biggest success stories on the Web, is being threatened with a patent infringement lawsuit that could force it to modify its winning auction format.
A loss could compel the Internet auction company to pay millions of dollars inroyalties and damages and even to make significant changes to its business model.
MercExchange founder Thomas Woolston, an inventor and patent attorney who has been granted four online auction-related patents since 1998 and has some 10 others pending, said he sued eBay in 2001 after negotiations broke down over the auction site's offer to purchase his patents.
Ebay's been talking to him for awhile (Score:1, Informative)
I don't believe this guy is a nut - I read a couple of weeks ago about this guy and apparently he's been talking with ebay for quite some while now. If I recall correctly, Ebay eventually severed the negotiations a few months ago and hence this guy is now following things up with a suit.
If he's got a legitimate claim against Ebay then don't start cutting him down - my first impression was the same as everyone elses when I first read about this case - but he apparently filed and received these patents years ago - just because Ebay is so big doesn't mean he may not be right.
Re:Ebay's been talking to him for awhile (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe this guy is a nut
He's not a nut. He's a shrewd guy with an understanding of patent law and the dollars to go to court.
When you review his patents (see http://www.mercexchange.com [mercexchange.com]), you'll find he's an expert at taking descriptions of business processes that have been around for years and placing "on a computer" at the end of them in a patent document. But there is nothing on his web site that indicates that he is a software designer, a database designer, a product developer, a computer scientist, or a business developer. There are no links to any actual products developed, or services delivered, or companies created. He is the patent equivalent of an ambulance chaser.
He's a nutcase (Score:3, Interesting)
His next target will be force feedback joysticks--on his website is listed Patent No. 6,162,123: An electro-mechanical device for providing an input to a computer program and said computer program providing a tactile output through said electromechanical device to a user. More specifically, the present invention provides an electro-mechanical virtual sword game apparatus that receives positional information from sensors on the sword apparatus and the sword apparatus contains a propulsion gyrostat that under the control of a computer process may be toppled to provide a torque on the housing of the sword apparatus that may be used to simulate the impact of sword blows.
And I wouldn't count on patent reform any time soon. The economic world is a food chain, with law firms at the top. In this case the industry of patent law would have a lot to lose. Our legislators (who are bought and sold every day) will consider that first, though of course the fact that they are mostly lawyers themselves won't in the slightest way affect their judgement...
Re:Ebay's been talking to him for awhile (Score:2)
Also fun is the paragraph on the home page. This guy is a classic suit-monkey:
- Mercexchange's mission is to improve businesses through the application of new digital technologies, especially in networked environments. The businesses and products developed by MercExchange address large-scale consumer needs and business inefficiencies, resulting in new ways of doing business, new ways of creating value, and new industry paradigms.
Uh-oh. He used the word "paradigm". Beware! Basically, according to the home page, they specialize in taking old busniess ideas and adding "with a computer" to them. Lot's of people make money assisting others in computerizing their businesses. This moron doesn't do that, though. He just wants to patent it so others will have to pay him for having the idea. I say we form a lynch mob.Ummmm... copy editors? Fact checkers? (Score:4, Interesting)
We really need an open patent "office" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We really need an open patent "office" (Score:2, Insightful)
That's also a point about a lot of the patents that some Slashdot readers object to; *what* they do is not novel but *how* they do it may be. The exact way eBay run online auctions is clever and innovative (whoever it was thought of it first!). The idea of auctions themselves, even online, is not.
Anna B
Re:We really need an open patent "office" (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance, if I have prior documentation on how to build a time machine out of a 1985 DeLorean, and just sorta fudge a step, scribbling out something about a "flux capacitor"...can I still nullify someone's later patent claim on the aluminum car/time machine? To what degree of detail does the USPO generally require to consider something prior art? Also, if the patent is on something abstract or limited by current technology, who's to say that a prior non-patent-filing claim of art would actually work, or even that the patent claim would work?
Re:We really need an open patent "office" (Score:2)
Recursion is your friend (Score:5, Funny)
Too much! (Score:3, Insightful)
I decided to come with a short list on what had happened if 50 years or 100 years before such stupid patents had been accepted, note that what is stupid today may not have been stupid 50 years before, so its kinda contexted to that era. lets start
-
Flying... Yea man dosent fly, if somebody can then its very much patentable, infact much more patentable than swinging sideways in a swing.
-
Using fire for locomotion... think in that era it was actually an achievment
- Using non matter to transmit information, ie radio waves instead of paper
Scary huh, these are a few examples. By having thse stupid patents all we are doing is creating a ditch for the future generations. Ever wonder why all researchers and scientists prefer europe to amer.?..A Quote (Score:1)
"I'm Tired, TIRED, **TIRED** ah this shit!"
The "throw the law suit up there and see if it sticks" philosophy has got to go... Ebay should be counter-suing this guy for malice and fraud. Then, whoever talked about online auctions on that Stamp Collecting newsgroup in 1994 should get to take over Ebay, since they thought of doing an auction online first (tic).
Let's thing about one other aspect. Auctions have been around forever. Auctions have been done over the telephone since the telephone was invented. How the hell is doing an auction over the internet any different? I want to patent "Method of Advancing Prior Art through Advents In Technology." That way, everyone would owe me everything they own, and I could pay off my student loans :)
Featured auction (Score:2)
Patents covering just about everything eBay does. You won't win in court, but you're sure to get a healthy settlement. 48 hours only! Seller will ship via fax. Serious inquiries only!
why the involved patents suck (Score:2)
Re:why the involved patents suck (Score:2)
I quess I still have not woke up from the internet time/space continuum and the tweaked concept of time. I quess that's also the main reason why people with ridiculous software patents think they have created something new and innovative :))
Novelty (Score:5, Insightful)
There seems to be a lot of patents being issued for an old idea in a new medium.
An online auction is still an auction. Putting a picture, or a song on a computer doesn't stop it being a picture or a song.
Patents of this kind are purely money grabbing schemes, often by people who have spotted the new medium & have no plan to exploit the idea, just rip off those who do.
It's basically a different type of domain squatting. (Wonder if I could patent it as such...)
D.
Re:Novelty (Score:2)
A friend and I started a company with this idea and very, VERY little cash. We don't have the money to compete with major ad firms that could take this business away in seconds flat without our patent.
I'm seeing TONS of posts saying "patents are bad" and "take away patents", but lets remember who else they help. Small businesses without the capital to protect themselves from large businesses that would rip off their novel idea. Are there problems with the patent process, definitely. But it's better than nothing.
Sort it out Timothy (Score:5, Insightful)
This [dictionary.com]could be useful to help you decide if you really are an editor or not.
This can only speed up the collapse of patents (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, things have changed in the last 100 years. Physically making something new is no big deal any more - there is far more money to be made in software, and we are increasingly going to see countries that couldn't care less about I.P. blatently ripping off U.S., Europe, and Japan patented ideas, and open sourcing their product.
Open source is difficult to apply to hardware - you can open source the design, but it doesn't really make it freely available to everybody. That might change in the future, but seriously, who has the ability to fabricate a cpu themselves? Maybe some of the larger universities, for example, but not Mr Average.
Software, on the other hand, is easy to open source. We are increasingly seeing software doing what should be done in hardware. Yes, this is stupid in some instances, (E.G. Winmodems), but very cool in some instances, (Transmeta Crusoe CPU).
Now, say somebody made a completely generic CPU - this is not a new idea, it is called a ULA - Uncommitted Logic Array. Not quite a CPU, but a ULA which is intended to be used as a CPU would be cool. Now, you could just program it to emulate an X86, MIPS, ALPHA, whatever you wanted. Patents on a lot of those would have expired by the time this technology was available.
So, fast forward 20 or 30 years, (maybe less, who knows)...
To build a computer, you buy the following:
* Motherboard - very little on it, basically a passive back plane with a few USB 10.0 connectors on it.
* CPU - cheap as anything, probably under $10, because it's just a huge ULA - in the same way that a RAM chip is basically a whole load of transistors, not much logic like a CPU of today, (that's over simplified, but bear with me).
* Whatever peripherals you want.
Now, you just flash the ULA with whatever microcode you want, and this is the clever bit, you can either use a proprietary microcode from, say, Microsoft, or Intel, which includes DRM, and a whole load of bugs^Wfeatures, or you can flash an open source microcode from China, which is freely available, customisable, and updated frequently.
In that world, what would be the point of patenting anything? There wouldn't be any hardware worth patenting.
Re:This can only speed up the collapse of patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that the whole of US copyright has been distorted just in order to protect Mickey Mouse, I'm not optimistic that patent law will be reformed in this century.
TWW
Re:This can only speed up the collapse of patents (Score:2, Insightful)
I bloody well do.
Think about it. Rich people hold patents. Rich people have money. Money buys people who make laws.
Laws dont get changed when rich people buy politicians, and this is the ultimate case. Every corporation holding a patent would be against it. Just because a law is stupid doesnt mean it wont get changed, doubly so when you've got a big lobby group campaigning against the change and this would be the biggest lobby group of them all.
Online sales - clicks (Score:2, Interesting)
"The growth of online commerce has spawned dozens of lawsuits over intellectual property. One highly publicized case involved online bookseller amazon.com, which was granted a patent for the process that allows customers to complete purchases with a single mouse-click."
How on earth did they win that one? How do you patent a mouse click? Is that why everytime I want to buy something online, I have to go through several extra meaningless steps like. Are you really, really, really, sure you want to do this?
Who holds the patent on the two step online purchase Process forcing everyone to add a third step? You see how that can go on forever.
actually (Score:2, Interesting)
you see, we've been saying for a while that hopefully someone would try and take on a gigantic company with some totally bunk business method patents. Said giant company would enter in a big lawsuit, and the f'd up nature of the USPTO would be exposed.
Only thing that could happen bad is they settle. Which, unfortunately, is fairly common. But as long as they don't, there is really the potential to set legal precedent, because this guy (founder of MercExchange and holder of thee patents) did everything by the book. He tried to negotiate, he tried to agree to terms, he didn't hide his patent, etc. And it seems he was the first to patent this business method (online auction).
So if this is debunked, it won't be because of some petty reason. The overturning of this case could potentially throw into sharp relief the problems with patenting business methods, especially the ease of unassociated rediscovery, and the application of obvious things to the internet (when suddenly, at least according to the patent office, they become "nonobvious" [groan]). At least, it seems the case will show how stupid the USPTO is.
Of course, if the guy wins, none of the above applies. But I am counting on the power of the american legal system to prevail. And by "power," I mean "tendency," and by "prevail" I mean "have the person with the deepest pockets win." It is a fair assumption that ebay is going to out-muscle the guy, since they have a lot more to lose. Anyways, settled, won, or lost, I am hoping this case gets an enormous amount of publicity. Cross your fingers.
Submarines can be sunk (Score:2, Interesting)
Pavel v Sony Corporation and Others - The Times 22 March 1996
It's generally a case of "whoever has the biggest lawyer, has the strongest patent"
This particular case is not all that interesting in the "patenter vs. corporation" stakes because the patent was filed recently, and e-bay knew about it. They were obviously in the wrong.
What IS interesting is that this patent is ridiculously simplistic and obvious - so we're hoping for the big, evil corporation to beat the "little guy" inventor
p.s It doesn't matter if the "little guy" is little or not, he's an individual against a corporation, and that's how it will be viewed
Now you'll see patent reform.. (Score:5, Funny)
Damn shame it's not Amazon.
Purpose of patents (Score:5, Informative)
Now, for a patent to be granted, the invention it describes must be:
New
Useful
Nonobvious
For a good definition of new, see new [bitlaw.com]
The useful property is questionable, but the nonobvious is very interesting, see nonobvius [bountyquest.com]
A quote from this link:
It was never the object of patent laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an
idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of
manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate
invention.
And that kind of sums it up...
Another purpose of the patent idea, combined with licensing, was to open up trade secrets. Let the rest of the world know how we do it, so that all may benefit. But, if you want to use it, you need to license it.
Again, a good idea spoiled by insane capitalism.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a genuine capitalist, but it is scary to see what happens when capitalism goes berserk.
History of patents (Score:2)
"...This lead Jefferson et. al to set up the first patent board some 200 years ago..."
Of course, outside of the US, patent systems have been in existence much longer much than that. For a history of the UK's (one of the oldest stretching back about 500 years) try: Patent Origins [patent.gov.uk]
Re:History of patents (Score:2, Funny)
Re:History of patents (Score:2)
Of course, outside of the US, patent systems have been in existence much longer much than that. For a history of the {yadda yadda}...
Cripes, man, he was talking about US Patent law and the USPTO. This story is about US patent law and the USPTO. The "first patent board" referenced can be contextually taken to mean "first patent board in the United States". We all know that other countries exist outside the US. Irrelevant defensive spoutings of "That wasn't first! We had it first! Not you!" make it sound like you have an inferiority complex. Try to be aware of context and you won't feel so offended.
Re:History of patents (Score:2)
I wasn't offended, but it sounds like someone else is. FWIW, I'm not British. I was just supplying some more info on the background of patents and the long history behind them.
Re:Purpose of patents (Score:2)
these People and Companies are all acting like 3-5 year old children.
and they should be treated as such.
Remember When (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, it's not really this guy's fault that the patent system is so fubar.. If he didn't have the patent, Ebay surely would and they'd be buisy suing everyone else right now.
Ebay gets what they deserve (Score:3, Interesting)
These dot-coms have done an incredible amount of damage to the IP system by patenting bogus business methods. Amazon, Priceline, etc. Nobody cared when it was just little guys getting the brunt of these archiac laws, but now that a popular company is getting hurt it just might get some attention.
Anyone against software/business method patents should be rooting for the injunction. Imagine seeing the Ebay site closed!
Re:Ebay gets what they deserve (Score:2)
Ive said it once Ill say it again... (Score:2)
(from the patent)
1. A system for presenting a data record of a good for sale to a market for goods, said market for goods having an interface to a wide area communication network for presenting and offering goods for sale to a purchaser, a payment clearing means for processing a purchase request from said purchaser, a database means for storing and tracking said data record of said good for sale, a communications means for communicating with said system to accept said data record of said good and a payment means for transferring funds to a user of said system, said system comprising:
a digital image means for creating a digital image of a good for sale;
a user interface for receiving textual information from a user;
a bar code scanner;
a bar code printer;
a storage device;
a communications means for communicating with the market; and
a computer locally connected to said digital image means, said user interface, said bar code scanner, said bar code printer, said storage device and said communications means, said computer adapted to receive said digital image of said good for sale from said digital image means, generate a data record of said good for sale, incorporate said digital image of said good for sale into said data record, receive a textual description of said good for sale from said user interface, store said data record on said storage device, transfer said data record to the market for goods via said communications means and receive a tracking number for said good for sale from the market for goods via said communications means, store said tracking number from the market for goods in said data record on said storage device and printing a bar code from said tracking number on said bar code printer.
Re:Ive said it once Ill say it again... (Score:2)
this reminds me of the BT hyperlink patent. It looks like this guy had in mind some sort of dedicated network terminal of a specific design rather than generic HTML browsers on home computers. The clue is the barcode scanners. Who has a barcode scanner? (cuecat folks put your hands down, that doesn't count!) It seems to me that the patent is more about a dedicated auction network and the hardware it runs on than it is some nebulous notion as "electronic auctioning". He's trying to stretch the patent to cover ALL online auctions and that, IMHO, is the problem. Patents can't be that broad (well, some are, but shouldn't be).
Re:Ive said it once Ill say it again... (Score:2)
This guy's patents are bunk (Score:5, Insightful)
and check out this guy's company's site... the patents are bunk. He has patents for agents that search multiple auctions and marketplaces, he has a patent for routing packets based on hierarchical information in it's headers. This is stuff that 1) has very obvious analogs in meat-space, and is therefore no more of a leap than ecommerce is a leap from mail-order commerce, or 2) are things that any software developer worth his or her salt would come up with in the course of solving a problem involving, say, routing packets. This guy isn't and inventor - he's a patent lawyer who finds little obvious holes in the current canvas of patented technologies, and grabs the patents with the hopes of licensing them. I'm unimpressed.
"addendums" to patents (Score:3, Informative)
Old hands will recall that RAMBUS used to do that too, and got nailed by that.
The sad part about this story is that the company (EBay) will realise that its not worth their time to fight this, and just settle out of court for a couple of million bucks; a trivial amount to them, but a non-trivial amount to the likes of Mr. Woolston, who will continue to indulge in such "submarine patenting".
Afterthoughts (Score:2, Funny)
Look out Shick and Bic, I'm coming after you.
USENET post one year earlier (Score:3, Informative)
Re:USENET post one year earlier (Score:2)
The system described (other than relying primarily on email - but using ambiguous enough terms that the web would qualify) sounds to me exactly like how eBay actually works. Much moreso than having "low cost computer" set up as terminals to access the system, which is more like how Nasdaq works (hey anyone know if he has been talking to Nasdaq?)
Interesting to watch it play out? (Score:3, Funny)
Patent *Auction*? (Score:2)
I did, and thought, what a great idea! All patents should be biddable on eBay!
My Thanks for a Great Article (Score:2)
Payments accepted via... (Score:2)
And, what kind of feedback will he leave for eBay?
That patent application would be rejected.... (Score:2)
No, you would not be able to patent sex due to prior art (eg Kama Sutra or the simple existence of humans). (Besides any position considered non-obvious might also be considered illegal
On the other hand (and i can't believe I'm typing this) if you found a novel use for sex, say, "a new way of powering airborne vehicles via copulation", then you could probably apply for a patent for that. You could at least enjoy the research.