Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Your Rights Online

eBay guilty Of Patent Infringement, Ordered To Pay 70

Posted by timothy from the cure-worse-than-disease dept.
theodp writes "Remember that patent infringement lawsuit brought against eBay? A U.S. District Court jury just ordered the online auction house to pay $35 million for infringing on patents for programs and procedures to operate an Internet-based auction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

eBay guilty Of Patent Infringement, Ordered To Pay More

eBay guilty Of Patent Infringement, Ordered To Pay

Comments Filter:

  • There's No Way... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by avalys ( 221114 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @07:54PM (#6053174)
    There's no way this won't be turned over on appeal. Ebay has enough PR clout that they can easily raise a real stink about this in the mainstream press.

    Maybe this will prove to be the best thing that happened for patent law in recent history. It could lead to some actual productive reforms...

    • Federal PR (Score:5, Informative)

      by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @08:27PM (#6053338) Homepage Journal
      PR clout? Federal appeals court judges serve for life. Once appointed by the Prez and confirmed by the Senate, they can't be removed short of impeachment, which is pretty rare. Makes it hard to apply political pressure to them.

      • Re:Federal PR (Score:3, Interesting)

        by shaitand ( 626655 )
        This didn't stop microsoft.
      • Political pressure is hard. Financial incentive wouldn't be. Not that I'm saying anything about any particular judge.
      • No, you don't bully justices, you just buy them. Or buy the president that appoints them. Or both.

        • Buy a judge! (Score:4, Informative)

          by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Monday June 02, 2003 @03:22AM (#6093975) Homepage Journal
          Buying a federal judge is hard. Not impossible. But be very careful when you hand that envelope over. Always some silly FBI guy trying to make a name for himself.

          Buying a President is easier, I admit. Just give him a "campaign contribution". But so you get your favorite judge on the bench. So what? One they have that lifetime tenure, federal judges tend to quickly develop a nasty sense of independence.

          Consider Richard Nixon. He managed to appoint no less than 4 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not one of those justices voted in his favor when his most important case came in front of them [landmarkcases.org].

          If you have any actual evidence that Microsoft fixed any of its cases, let's see it. Otherwise, spare us your glib ignorance.

          • The judicious use of money through lobbying and campaign contributions allows big business to create a political environment which is friendly to them. If you believe this reality is ignorance, we'll agree to leave each other to their seperate delusions.
            • In other words, you think I'm naive. Hey, I'm not saying that politics or corruption can't touch the federal court system. I'm simply attacking the assumption that Microsoft must have won through corruption. Which is a dangerous cop-out.

              What eventually saved the day for MS was George W. Bush the election. Which put a Microsoft-friendly guy in charge of anti-trust prosecutions, effectively ending the case. Now who elected this guy? You did. That's true even if you assume the Florida vote was rigged. That s

              • Okay, this is niggling, but:

                1) I did not make the accusation that Microsoft bought any judges or presidents. You read too much into my comment. I was trying to be funny.

                2) I agree with your ideas about politics and I am a politically progressive person.
                • OK, fair enough. But if you jump into a thread where some controversial topic is being debated, people are going to make assumptions about your belonging to one side or the other. If you want to make your loyalties clear, you need to be explicit abou tthem.
    • fair point -- but now think about it from E-Bay's position.

      To goto court they have to expend legal costs (L) they also have a large investment in the patent system via a number of patents (P) and we are talking about a one time 35 million dollar free (X).

      If X P + L then it makes sense to simply pay it, and it has the added benefit of making software patent law more rock solid for them to stand on in future cases.

      I am guessing that P + L outweight X by a good amount -- add in the benefits of stro
      • Interesting. Another aspect is that it creates a barrier to entry. Presummably by paying the $35 mil they are saying that Amazon et al would also have to pay $35 mil. Kinda sneaky if you ask me.

  • This is great because, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr. Bent ( 533421 ) <ben AT int DOT com> on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @08:09PM (#6053231) Homepage
    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    You can boycott Amazon.com all you want. You can make T-Shirts. Post on slashdot....whatever. But until you get a big company with lots of lawyers and money, fighting for what you want, it's never going to happen.

    Now, E-bay will probably not want to do away with the entire software patent system (which is the right way to go, in my opinion), but unless you have someone to fight the battle, you're never going to win the war.
    • Perhaps this needs to be taken somewhere else, but your signature intrigued me. I have several critiques though. The essay makes the two following assertions:

      "The first states that information conveyed by market prices is necessary to determine how best to use scarce resources in production."

      "The second states that a centralized planner can never acquire all of the information that is in the hands of decentralized economic actors, and that prices allow that information to be harnessed by individual deci
    • The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      That's just the kind of wooley headed thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

  • Jury Nullification (Score:4, Informative)

    by seann ( 307009 ) <notaku@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @08:22PM (#6053310) Homepage Journal
    Maybe this looks like a job for:
    Jury Nullification [greenmac.com]
    • I don't think they often have juries on this sort of thing, but (going offtopic) I think some cases of interest to slashdot readers would have juries. If you're interested in jury nullification, check out theFully Informed Jury Association [fija.org]. Note that they attract a lot of interest from, shall we say, fringe groups (of whom we might be as well). However they do a good job of staying on their message.
    • That has to be the most informative post I've ever read on slashdot. I'm especially interested in the power of juries, since I just appeared in response to a jury summons last week. I wasn't one of the ones chosen to serve, but the process is much more real to me now. I had been under the assumption that it was a jury's responsibility to render a verdict based only on the facts and actual law. I had no idea a jury could decide against a bad law. Now, I'm thinking that serving on juries may be a more import

  • Deja-vu (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alomex ( 148003 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @09:05PM (#6053524) Homepage

    Reading back the original discussion is amazing how many posts were far off the mark and how few were right on the button. For one, I didn't see any among the dozens and dozens I read who even mentioned the "buy it now" aspect of the patent...

    • it always bothered me... yeah, 'buy it now' is REAL innovative and deserving of patent protection. damn that evil ebay for trying to use such advanced technology without paying the little wittle innocent IP firm's bullshit patent scam fees... er...

  • Jurors. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by saden1 ( 581102 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @09:27PM (#6053597)
    Nothing worse than incompetent jurors. The idea of someone being able to patent the processes of auctioning is just appalling. What these jurors need to get through their head is that if something exist in some other form it shouldn't be patentable. I care not for eBay but this is ridiculous.

    • From the Article (Score:3, Informative)

      by aridhol ( 112307 )
      Last year a judge ruled that the third patent, covering online auction technology, is invalid and unenforceable.
      The article doesn't detail what the other two patents are, but this one wasn't one of them.

      • Re:From the Article (Score:4, Funny)

        by secolactico ( 519805 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @10:04PM (#6053807) Journal
        The article doesn't detail what the other two patents

        One of the others is the "Buy Now" button. How can this be pattented is beyond me, tho (i guess some brick-a-brack behind the scenes (I always wanted to use the "brick-a-brack" expression)).
        • 'Course, "Buy It Now" might infringe on Amazon's "One Click"...? We could have Internet Patent Deathmatch!

          ;)

          • actually, the auctions page at amazon also has the buy-it-now feature...wonder if they're up for a patent exchange, giving the jackass who filed the suit full free rights to use "one click", even though he really is trying to live only through the patent, and not through providing a real service for anybody. bloody parasite.

        • Re:From the Article (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          And you would have got away with it too, if it hadn't been for those pesky ks.

          bric-a-brac [reference.com]

  • New Business Model . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @07:47AM (#6055889) Homepage

    From the Article:

    "Woolston said he is 'walking on sunshine' over of the favorable verdict. The former technology expert for the CIA has prevailed in patent violation cases with other Internet companies before, including GoTo.com, now Overture Services. He enforced his patents with online car seller AutoTrader.com, which offers auctions as part of its service. He's also in the midst of a patent dispute with Priceline.com." [Emphasis mine]

    When companies sue, lawyers profit. Looks like a profitable e-commerce business model now exists where the e-commerce business is sued for violating questionable patents. What we really need is for the US Supreme Court to overrule the previous ruling that business practices are patentable. This would ease the burden on the USPTO and quash these law suits.

    • When companies sue, lawyers profit. Looks like a profitable e-commerce business model now exists where the e-commerce business is sued for violating questionable patents. What we really need is for the US Supreme Court to overrule the previous ruling that business practices are patentable. This would ease the burden on the USPTO and quash these law suits.

      I agree with your comment that business methods should not be patentable, though the bash against lawyers seems to have nothing to do with the issue o

      • though the bash against lawyers seems to have nothing to do with the issue or the rest of your post.

        A common theme on slashdot. It's bad for lawyers to get paid for what they do.

        Here's some others I'm sure we'll see someday:

        "When cars break down, mechanics profit."
        "When bodies break down, doctors profit."
        "When people want homes, realtors profit."
        "When people want cars, dealers profit."
        "When nerds want to be entertained, CmdrTaco profits."

  • The gory details (Score:5, Informative)

    by AB3A ( 192265 ) on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @08:13AM (#6056037) Homepage Journal
    For those who are curious, the actual verdict is here [findlaw.com], and the patent in question is 5,845,265 [uspto.gov]

  • Beating to the punch... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) * on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @09:09AM (#6056503) Journal
    Turns out this guy has a lawsuit against priceline as well.

    Odds are none of these companies getting these ridiculous patents thought that someone might beat them to the punch!

    If someone is gonna benefit and make mucho $$$ might as well be that little guy.

    I'm suprised that the big ass companies haven't flip-flopped, "Software patents are a bad idea".

    Oh yeah now they are, sure.
  • That decision is ludicrous. How about if I go and patent a machine with four wheels and an engine [about.com], never bother to test or use it and sue everybody for royalties. Why, oh why are we judged by a jury of our peers not smart enough to get out of jury duty? BTW I do answer the call when it comes [$15 a day woot!].
  • Although I have to agree with most of the posts. We need to remember that the true evil one here are the members of the legislative branch around the country. Why? Their the ones that allow intellectual property to be patented. Ebay was in the wrong and should pay. They knew the patent existed and willfully violated it. That is the law, unfortunately. And until legislators get their heads out of their butts and turn their brain on, this is the world that programmers and businessman must abide by. L
    • Although I have to agree with most of the posts. We need to remember that the true evil one here are the members of the legislative branch around the country. Why? Their the ones that allow intellectual property to be patented. Ebay was in the wrong and should pay. They knew the patent existed and willfully violated it. That is the law, unfortunately. And until legislators get their heads out of their butts and turn their brain on, this is the world that programmers and businessman must abide by. Like it or
      • That's true, the voters are truely to blame. But how many voters understand the issues, or even what the legislator does in office. Most of them are so corrupt and stupid that I swear anarchy (or atleast a benevalent dictator) is the only way out of having the charismatic stupid lead the ultimately stupid.
      • Don't forget the power of juries. They have the power to decide against bad law. Since I just learned that today (thank you Slashdot), I'm now wondering if serving on a jury is generally more important than voting (though both are important).
  • Ever seen those 50's ads? Everything was atomic-this and electro-that. You could take something mundane, hyphenate it, and give it gee-wiz factor.

    Tired of the same old cars? Get the atomo-car: of future!!!!!

    This supposedly patentable idea seems to be of the same variety. It's not a old fashioned auction (where people accidentaly bid on things with hilarious results), no siree, it's a computerized auction: of the future!!!!!

  • I just had a look at Patent 5,845,265 [164.195.100.11]. The bit covering online auctions says

    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
    • What I'm most confused about is how come eBay didn't get the patent on "Buy It Now" invalidated. There is plenty of prior art available in Google Groups, and it was exactly this sort of thing that inspired eBay. Here's one from 1993 which shows the "Buy It Now" feature.
      December 24, 1993 M:tG auction [google.com]
      It's easy to find others which show the proxy bidding feature and there may well be other features with prior art.
  • Can't wait until my patent apps are approved. Whine all you want, but I'll have mine hanging on the wall and damn proud of them and the rest of you be damned! Maybe if you were smart enough to get patents you might change your tune. Sure I know there will be one or two with patents who will disagree with me, but the vast majority of you can cry all you want. If I thought of something first, then I own it and you're going to pay me to use it.
    • OK, I'll bite. You imply that only somebody with a patent should be able to complain; I have one; I will complain.

      While I have no problem with getting a patent on a product or process that is truly new, I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the "do X on a computer" where X is a current/old practice.

      I also have problems with many of the "algorithm" patents as in many cases this is tantamount to patenting a fact. (historically you could not patent the discovery of a fact, ie Newton could not have pate
  • It would be interesting to see the actual arguments presented to the jurors to bamboozle them into a verdict favorable to the plaintiff.

    Each of these two patents appears to have exactly one claim which could even remotely be considered broad enough to be applicable to eBay.

    Most of the independent claims are cluttered with enough extraneous and hoary specifics to make them just laughably inapplicable.

    When you get further down to the broadened independent claims without so many specifics, it still doesn

  • The bottom line is that they are allowing the patenting of goals rather than specific algorithms. That is really dumb.

    BTW, perhaps if ebay made their site nearly identical to the prior art of auction systems, they would have an easier time.
  • This makes about as much sense as allowing a brick and morter store to have a patent for using a cash register to check out customers.

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close