Slashdot Mirror
Online Auctions Patented, eBay Sued
mattfusf writes "This article from News.com talks about a guy who has filed a lawsuit against eBay for patent infringment. Patent 5,845,265 covers a "method..for creating a computerized market for used and collectible goods""
While everything's getting patented, I'm going to go take out a patent for sex, smoking, and eating. That should be a little more profitable than online auctions.
My sig sucks.
Thomas Woolston could just auction those patents off on eBay. He'll make a killing and save on lawyer fees.
And can you imagine "what if" someone had a patent on *normal* auctions?
This whole issue of patents for "doing things with computers" is getting a bit out of hand. I'll be curious to see the outcome of this.
This one is interesting, since it does not seem, on the face of it, to be one of those patent squatters-key in this is that EBay approached the patent holder to try and buy the patent (as opposed to one of those out of the blue lawyer letters asking for millions) Will be interesting to see where this goes-DP
This might actually help in the effort to get people to rethink the role of the patent office in the digital era. I welcome this nonsense...the higher the profile (eBay!), the greater the impact.
What's that saying? The worse the better?
IANAL, but as I understand it, you must make an effort to defend any patent you are issued within a reasonable timeframe or the patent can be contested. Unless this guy lives under a rock, he should have been aware many years ago of eBay and other online commerce sites.
Is it just me, or does this look a little bit like some greedy guy who managed to sneak a patent in under everyone's noses during the dot-boom? The timing of this is rather suspect...
What's next, anyway? Everybody and teir dog online is trying to get auction systems off the ground... This guy gonna sue em all?
Patent Seems valid if we accept the idea of Business method patents.
I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
I have a new idea for a business model:
Come up with a really generic idea, wait, say, ten years for another company to come up with the same idea and become successful and then sue them!
Part 2 of the business model is to sue people who sue companies under the above premeses for patent infringement. Oh wow! Looks like I got my first target!
----------
Something cleverpatent method of acquiring money solely from exploiting patent institutions. In this way I can sue everyone who tries to sue anyone for patent infringement. I can even sue anyone who tries to sue me.
Ben Dover, meet eBay. eBay, meet Ben Dover.
I have patented the very "method" of patent. So from now on, you'll be unable to patent anything until you pay me the goodies. Yeah, I am also planning to sue all those idijots who have patented stuff before me using my patent "method".
University of Turku has had an online aucion server for 10 years or so. They used to e.g. auction all their old computer gear, instead of throwing them away. It was pretty popular, although I think they have taken the service offline now.
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
This sounds just like the arguements people made when they squatted on domain names. Did this guy have a working model or not? I'm inclined to think eBay's getting screwed but this story really didn't give to many details or case history on online patent areas. This wasn't the same guy who patented that sideways swing a while back, is it?
Bill, can you factor this prime number for me?
The patent was filed in 1995, and other companies are already licensing it. Looks valid (under the current rules) too. The only way I see for eBay to keep from getting raped in the courts is for business method patents to be tossed entirely.
Adobe getting hit with DMCA problems, Verizon and the RIAA going at it over DMCA, eBay with patent problems. If enough large and publicly traded companies get hurt by this sort of stuff it could be a good thing. In the long run.
Best Slashdot Co
IANAL, blah blah, but I remember auctions on usenet groups ages ago. Specifically for collectible goods!
I haven't read their patent, but can't some silver-tongued "law-talking-guy" (simpsons ref) spin this patent into the ground?
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I am going to go and patent the wheel and then hold to ransom the entire automobile industry. In fact, if I word it correctly, maybe I can get it to include anything circular that allows the forward or reverse motion of a vehicule...
How about patenting the "nation state" or democracy...That's it, I will patent democracy...
And what about patenting the idea of a "an object that allows the access to an otherwise inaccesible araa (a door)"
The world will hopefully grow up one day...
And how long did this individual wait until he decided to "sue" for his patent? How about UBID as well? Crazy people. www.ssabbs.com Relive the BBS past - One Byte at a time!
Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
But am I missing something?
Patenting an online auction in my mind is akin to patenting the idea a selling milk in refrigerated display cases, ie,
This patent is for a system that creates a refrigerated marketplace for milk using a refrigerator in a store. The patent also covers the use of a payment-processing service to allow purchasers to pay for the goods.
I mean, where's the creativity that patents are supposedly supposed to protect? In my mind, virtually any business transaction can be ported to the internet. It would be like someone patenting sales calls over a telephone when telephones were first invented.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
This guy invented the electronic auction format
Al Gore invented the internet
It's time for me to claim a hot trend and profit. I'm going with XML. That's right, you heard it here first. I INVENTED XML. I just never told anybody.
Step 3: PROFIT!!!
Karma: NaN
Personally, I think the "cure" is for patent law to be modified so that an absolute description is needed for a patent to be validly claimed rather than the woefully ambiguous "a method of performing auctions..." What kind of crap is that? Can I patent "..a method for transmitting gaseous oxygen in a liquid medium..." then sue everyone for having blood? Of course not, but that's just as silly (ok, so actually that's more silly, but you get my point.)
Shakespear was right: First thing we do, kill all the lawyers. They're the reason this sort of mess is around in the first place.
which says that just because a normal, everyday, commonplace, process is implemented on a computer that does *not* make it patentable.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Edison is supposed to have said "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - today it's 1% inspiration and 99% legalese and marketing.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
And is it neccesary for the moderators to moderate down the criticism of the moderators?
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Best Slashdot Co
I want to patent the process of getting a patent. I could be a millionaire.
This is getting tedious. There is a patent article on Slashdot nearly every day now. Linux was absolutely right when he said that we should just ignore software patent issues. The vast majority of patents are never enforced or are overturned in any case.
If you define "sneak a patent in" as in apply for a patent half a year before ebay was founded, yes he snuk it in.
Read the article.
and defended those patents ferociously. AT&T even more so. This is nothing new.
Best Slashdot Co
So LEGALLY, it appears that eBay is at fault. This doesn't address the fact that there is such a huge hole in the entire software patent/intellectual propterty concept.
Legally, this guy has a claim, but by all rights he shouldn't. This is exactly why patenting ideas and business models is stupid. This guy is a lawyer (patent attorney no less), and has gone after priceline.com and goto.com for infringements on some of his other patents.
As long as the system is broken, people will take advantage of it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
- Having to pay huge fees for patent searches. Because of this it usually ends up being cheaper to send in a patent application and then let someone else scream prior art.
- Now with international law protecting patents of other countries, it just became even more complicated to make sure that there was no prior art.
- The obvious is being patented (this is obvious to
/. readers). Then again, when you aren't working in a given field what is obvious will vary. This means that we really need a means of public screening of patents.
There is no such thing as a perfect system. Anything is open to abuse, so there needs to be guidelines and reviews for a system to be run as close to the original intent as possible.Jumpstart the tartan drive.
When Amazon has the patent the little guy gets screwed. When the little guy has the patent, Amazon (or ebay) might have more motivation to fix an obviously broken system, as it isn't operating to their benefit anymore.
The trust issue is the key to the online patent, not the auction.
Online auctions are obvious, a trustworthy auction is the innovation.
That's what my dad was told in the early days... if only the patent office had been right!
sir_haxalot
stuff |
Price: $200,000. (reserve not yet met)
Quantity: 1
Time Left: 10 days, 4 hours +
Description
Patent 5,845,265 covers the right to buy and sell used and collectible goods on a computerized market like ebay. The winning bid is also responsible for costs of shipping and insurance.
Had I been smart enough to start eBay way-back-when, I would not have had the resources to examine patents, I would have just programmed the site and put up the business. As it grew, I might have been notified about the patent, and from there consulted a lawyer. There is no way I would have shut down, saying, "Well, I have found out about a possible infringement, and while in the process of speaking with a patent holder we are out of business." The company by this time is multi-million dollars a year.
When does the American dream come through? If I have an idea, I want to protect anyone that had a like idea, but don't kill my business while I am working with the original idea holder. All I can see from this is money in lawyers' pockets.
Click here or here.
I remember auctions on Fidonet a looooooong time ago, which definitally falls under the realm of "a computerized market for used and collectible goods"
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
...that I patented the business model of getting generic patents, then going after large companies with lots of money. My patent covers both bullying them to settle out of court and having a technologically impaired judge award in my favor.
I'm going to sue the pants off of Woolston!
(When did the USPO go "For Profit?" Who was in power, albeit not in possession of any higher cognitive abilities?)
This type of mandated idiocy won't stop until the USPO get sued for some really big bucks and whoever issued the patent, reviewed it, supervised and made money from letting it escape it, gets their ass fired.
I think this might be the case that breaks the camel's back. ebay should sue the patent office for interfering with their normal existing legal business operations.
In fact, it might be fun to try taking out a patent on the information recording portions of the patenting process and sue the USPO for patent violation.
Bill Gates was right in his 1991 memo. The application of software and process patents will bring the very concept of innovation to a stand-still.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"A method of sending out unsolicited mass electronic mailings to email addresses of individuals who have expressed absolutely no interest in the product or service being offered. Such 'spam' is to consist exclusively of worthless potions, creams, and pills for enlarging or reducing areas of the body, pyramid schemes to get rich quick, offers for clubs no one in their right mind would join, and letters from deposed heads of state begging you to help move money from poor African nations."
If only someone would patent *that* and sue the #$%@! out of all of the infringers!
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
Am
Not
A
Lawyer
Click here for a glossary of these "net" terms.
Click here or here.
I have a patent on a "Computerized method of sex, that involves masturbation by both persons while talking about it over a computer network." I'll call it cybersex!
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
I think the guy will lose.
There should be (and may actually be) a statute of limitations saying that if you patent something and don't actually use your patent AND/OR enforce it in a certain time period that you should LOSE the patent.
The idea of selling stuff online isn't new and shouldn't be a patentable idea.
I can imagine that back in caveman days some shmuck patented the "wheel". Every single idea based on it is now his and we owe him 1.4 qua-zillion clams.
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
Sorry -- I think this has already been done too many times by other people (sadly). You'd have a hard time proving that there was no 'prior art'.
My $.01
Can someone explain how is that not the patenting of an idea without any regard to it's implementation. So what this patent means is that you can't create an auction system whatever your implementation is !?
Are ideas really non patentables ?
Back in the day, the days of BBS's, there were many auction doors availible. This jerk is just trolling. What a pussy!
Does no one think of the effect their frivolus patents might have on the industry as a whole? So, let's assume Woolston does indeed have an enforceable patent, and he manages to sue eBay and either get a big chunk of cash, or force them to change their business model to avoid infringement... does this guy realize the potential damange he can cause to the industry as a whole? Does he care?
Probably not. Personal greed is the American Way. It's more important that I get MY piece of the pie, even if it means letting the rest of the pie spoil -- at least I got mine!
eBay is one of those *few* examples of a pure internet business that is doing well and making money. Given the state of the economy today, I feel this kind of attempt is almost criminal in intent. It's pretty close to sabotage for this corner of the technology sector, way to go! Make sure your lawyer asks for the firstborn of their CEO too!
I'm pretty certain that the exact implementation details of eBay's software (the algorithm, if you will) are pretty different than what this guy envisioned for this baseball trading-card exchange system. I'm quite sure that had he written software to do this, there would be no copyright infringement between the two... and there's the problem. He's claiming an overly broad patent on an idea, when he probably only has the right to an algorithm. Yeah, *I* had ideas about online trading in the 1980's too buddy, so did half the people who had even heard of the internet (or how about fidonet? or just plain bbs's???). Anyone remember the online trading games from those days? If anything, THOSE probably pre-dated his scheme -- they just didn't handle real products.
I got called to pay my "voting tax" next week (Jury Duty), and I would dread being on a case like this. While common sense would have me acquit on the basis that a broad "patent" like this is a mockery of the Office, and that even if eBay were abusing it with intent, I'd still not have much sympathy for this guy -- it's still the law, and I'd still have to vote according to what the law says, not what it means (since laws are no longer by the people -- if you need a lawyer to explain a law, there's something WRONG!).
The Nasdaq has been running on-line "auctions" for quite some time now. The patent claims the autions are for "used goods and collectibles", and stocks probably don't count as "used goods or collectibles" (except for my portfolio...) but come on, that's a pretty small difference...
Isn't there a clause in patent law about making an effort to protect your idea or losing rights to it? Or am I thinking of trademark/copyright law?
/. on the concept of software patents)
It sounds to me like this guy was sitting on his patent until the time was right to sue, which should force him to lose his rights to the idea. (the ethics of which I will not go into as I'm in agreement with 99.999% of
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
If I read it correctly, there was a requirement of bar code scanners and printers at the server location... I'm guessing eBay doesn't have/need those. Next it listed a single computer as the system for storing images, and 'textual data' to the database system. I think it's safe to say eBay uses multiple computers for doing this. IANAL, but I would think that they've taken the concept much further than this guy's silly excuse for a patent.
Oh, and you haven't already done so, please commence shunning people who hold silly patents, AND attempt to enforce them.
"...I'll need guns" --Chow Yun-Fat in 'Replacement Killers'
Just because moronic Americans pronounce
It was the Americans that had the foresight and intelligence to correct idiotic spellings that the British imposed. Examples include:
color vs. colour
check vs. cheque
maneuver vs. manoeuvre
license vs. licence
Given the British penchant for inconsistency and convoluted spellings of what should be easy-to-spell words, Americans are far less "moronic" than the British when it comes to the English language.
I don't get how someone can just have an idea, do nothing at all to try and make it work, give up, patent it, and then sue a company that actually built the idea and made it work? someone should just patent woolstons consciousness already!
In this brave new age of patent ambushes, I need to be reminded...
Tell me again how using open source's evil viral licensing might one day affect your company's valuable IP and business processes at some future date?
If we can patent "business methods" that come about because of new technology, what's to stop me doing a bit of crystal ball gazing and patenting things that might be possible in a few years time?
Let's see... In a few years time, mobile phones with video are likely to become commonplace. So, what new business method might arise because of that? OK, how about this. Florists where you can phone your order through and actually see the actual bunch of flowers that are going to be sent in your name, and perhaps make changes to the arrangement via the phone. That will probably happen. And now I can patent it!
Hey that was easy. Think of an idea and sit back and wait. In a couple of decades I might be richer than Bill Gates!
I won't argue that ebay wasn't the first auction site, but I'm not aware of any back in April 95, which you would need to be prior art to his patent.
Ok, I know nothing about patents. But I thought you could patent the same idea over and over, modifying it slightly. And you were only infringing upon a particular patent if you followed it exactly.
The patent (No. 5,845,265) states "...using a database on one computer to store digital images, text descriptions, prices and legally binding offers..." But ebay does not do this. As far as I know ebay does not host images, they are hosted else where by the seller and are referenced from ebay. Ergo ebay isn't infringing upon this patent. Any patent lawyers out there that can explain this to me?
Even besides all this how can someone possible patent such simple concepts as "accepting payment" and "a marketplace for used goods." Currency was invented a long time ago, as was flea markets.
Perhaps it's time for the patent office to be run by a non-profit group instead of the government. Which is clearly incapable of handling money, security and 'now' patents.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
if eBay had bought the patent, and then filed lawsuits?
Best Slashdot Co
I just want you all to know that I am sueing each of you for posting messages on a computer run message board. I currently hold patent #1234567890 which gives me the right to said technology. I am willing to settle out of court for 1 million US dollars each.
Step 1. Patent ...
Step 2.
Step 3. Profit!
It covers collectible or used goods auctioing which is automated in a local area. Sounds like it is a U-Scan type system for a small auction house or something at the mall. Not a WWW enabled auctioneer. Gotta love it when people patent things and don't do anything other then sue, isn't America great. Oh well back to work on that "Bubble Sort" Patent of mine.
Why did it take him 4 years since he first got the patent to do something about? He got his first patent in 1998, and in 2000 eBay came to the guy and tried buy access to his patent.
eBay didn't get what they wanted so they went out, improved on the concept[not the patent] and made money.
Sounds like this is more about sour grapes then patent infringement.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
- 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;
Unless ebay has been holding back their digital camera from me, I'd say there's no infringement.The reason ebay dropped out of the licensing talks is probably because they realized there's no infringement.
--Joe
Forgive me if I seem newbieish but I only know about patents what I read here and the linked article.
Patent 6,000,000
This patent covers a method of holding automated sales using computers, databases and the Internet to register and link buyers to a seller, and facilitate transactions.
Change a couple of words and we could patent e-commerce. Better hurry!!!!
-An American Revolutionary
Hmmm...I think I will patent Democracy. Then you can pay me one trillion dollars to remain a democracy, or become communists.
Seriously though, you shouldn't be able to patent things like this that are so generic. If you come up with an original idea, but as if it took a lot of thought to come up with this!
I think we are looking at an entirely new business model here and a new field that is rapidly growing! Move over dot coms here come the big players of the 21st century and the beauty of it is that you don't have to work to meet your goals all you have do is have an idea and get the patend first.
I wonder if this is not the single largest problem with a service economy, defining the value that you produce. Put another way, if this guy sold shares in his company, MercExchange, publicly would you buy them? And what would that say about you?
You have smooshed them all together in one big mass of confusion.
As others have pointed out, you must defend your trademark in order to keep it.
There is a law similar to what you are talking about, but it refers to specifically trying to camoflauge your patent. You still aren't forced to enforce it right away.
You are responsible of enforcing your patent yourself, as a matter of civil law. This is different from Copyrights, in which the government is obliged to protect your IP as a matter of criminal law.
Trademarks = civil = must enforce or can lose
Patent = civil = may or may not enforce, can't lose (unless found to be invalid after issued)
Copyright = criminal = government enforces, can't lose
A patent on the posting of redundant, karma draining material. This patent also applies to the method of getting posts moderated -1, Troll.
Here in Europe online banking is also patented. Take a look at this: http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn=EP00504287 B1 Hopefully the patent laws will be changed when it starts to hurt the big companies.
I remember buying baseball cards and other stuff through Prodigy years ago (before the Internet took off). You had to talk about "how many dead presidents" would an item cost since you weren't allowed to openly sell items on Prodigy. How is this different from what the patent tries to stipulate?
Doesn't this fall under prior use?
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
Okay, so what about online games?
In some MMRPG ther are market places where characters meet, sell items to one another or have items up for bid.
Even though it might be for an imaginary currency for an imaginary object, the system is still the same, so would this guy be able to collect from Sony, EA, Microsoft, etc? Or would the game companies drop the public market place model where this type of action could happen?
Anywhere where 3 or more characters could meet could be a problem.
Mighty Hero: I have a magic sword +10 DM that I no longer need. Who wants to buy it from me?
Newbie: 10 zenny
Hero wantabe: 20 zenny
...
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
It's about time eBay was brought to justice. Hopefully they won't escape their fate like those lawless rogues at Prodigy with "their" hyperlink.
I, and many others, conducted online auctions via usenet (rec.games.deckmaster.marketplace.auctions) prior to 1995.
So when is this guy putting his patent up for auction on Ebay?
BTW, isn't obviousness suposed to be an adequate defense?
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
Here is the first ebay post dated 1995/09/12 from google groups: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pierre-120995 2317370001%40pierre.vip.best.com
The patent was filed November 7, 1995. Sorry, two months too late!
-Yeah, riiiight !
Who cares if he had the idea patented before Ebay. Who cares if Ebay knew about it and willfully violatd the patent. The big thing that matters here is the fact that someone can patents something like "online auctions." That's not what patents were designed for. Patents were designed to protect inventors... inventors of new ideas, not people looking to make a quick buck or own a group of ideas. Auctioning something offline or online should not make a difference. If you can't patent something offline you shouldn't be able to patent it online, it makes no difference. A good majority of these stupid patent claims come from the patent office to allow people to patent things that they normally wouldn't be able to patent, just because they are doing them online.
Click here or here.
- Someone claims he invented something painfully obvious (like the question mark). Usually claims he patented it a long time ago. (Given that patents take years to process, this is probably true)
- Said someone fires off lawsuit to largest offender of his patent.
- World + Slashdot get into a tizzy. Many people (myself included) start to think its time to get rid of the patent system.
- World + Slashdot start thinking about how far and wide the patent claim could reach. My favorite example is that guy a while back who claimed a patent on computer graphics - every GUI amd game in history could owe him big time.
- Then... Nothing happens. We never hear of this guy again, we never hear of the outcome of the lawsuit, we never hear anything.
So is it that these lawsuits are being settled out of court for undisclosed terms, are the lawsuits dropped, or are they being pitched out by some (smart) judge?And don't we all know that this is what is going to happen here?
Schnapple
Back in my c64 days.
I remember a BBS in particular (actually a network of them) that was very eBay-like, and had hundreds of users selling, bidding and buying in much the same fashion.
Does the "internet" really make a difference, here? Isn't this prior art?
I mean the guys just another extortionist that uses the system instead of a baseball bat.
I'd really be interested in reading the original ruling that made it okee-fine to patent 'business practices'. Did it make sense in context of the case? Was it a loony judge who wants to make law, rather than interpret it? Can someone point me in the right direction?
I wonder when someone will think of patenting the act of "Filing a lawsuit for patent infringment". :)
"I love the smell of burning Karma in the morning." Codito Ergo Sum.
Given the British penchant for inconsistency and convoluted spellings of what should be easy-to-spell words
Huh?
tap vs. faucet
lift vs. elevator
I'd love to see the bidding war and the snipe attempts if this yay-hoo were to list his patent on eBay.
Actually, it strikes me as proper that a patent would be used to protect an individual's invention (in this case, a business process, which is allowed under current rules) against a large and otherwise unasailable uberCompany.
One. Patents are not made to stifle business. They are made to protect the inventor.
However, the whole concept of inventing an "online auction" is so damnably ridiculous that there is no way that he should ever have been granted a patent for it. This whole argument is founded in the fact that the man said "uh, auction on a computer!" and got a patent. WTF ever. Auctions have been around for centuries. People can not apply the phrase on a computer on the back of every tried and true business model and expect to get royalties or the ability to sue the bejesus out of people.
Oh, and when you use the phrase unasailable uber-company, it makes us all think of you as a useless leftie that thinks that eBay is "evil" simply because it is big. The last thing I checked that eBay did to ruin or world and our freedoms was consume electricity. So go attack Dow Chemical, Halliburton, or McDonald's. All eBay has done for me is make sure that I am not getting price gouged. At the very least, if you are going to go after corporate America, go after the ones that are fucking up people's health, the government, and the planet.
Then everyone will have to pay me if they want to have a meeting. Then I will Patent black market meetings just cover that. This is my business model.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
But I patent anyway of using the internet to make money.
... I'm just waiting to see news like "Slashdot sued for infringing patent on web-forums/moderation points/news submition/Poll a la CowBoyNeal.
Really I'm just waiting for that very day when someone overcomes is inner rat fear, comes into light and makes the most sound claim over millions and millions of geeks, hackers, nerds and lamers that roam the Internet - "You owe me money".
Frankly, this looks less probable to happen as immediately he will be crushed by a wave of public opinion, EFF and the whole world together. But seeing the schizos that have been appearing recently, and the claims they make against huge world mastodons, who have a whole lawyer army behind... The will to become "rich, rich, very rich" destroys every reasoning of these people. These guys have been in this world since the conception of patents have came into force. However we have a problem that before was not so critical:
You pick up a foggy idea, convert it into some unscientific and poorly technical piece of paper and voila! Considering the very poor quality of the workers in the US Patent Office then they think they have all the chances to show the nose to BG on next Fortune edition...
What the Patent Office has been doing for the last years is a brilliant example of incompetence, absurdity and a demonstration that their people is not qualified at all. They simply are violating one of the reasons for the existence of such institution: To kick out idiots that claim for non-existing inventions, "inventions" that factually have prior art and schizos. However they seem to nearly accept every single thing that comes to them concerning software. From anyone or anywhere. So I will no be surprised, in a near future, to see Hemos publishing - "We have been sued for patent infrigement".
but I've patented the method for posting the same old "patent the method for patenting" and "patent sueing people over patents" jokes on Slashdot whenever a related story comes up.
Please send me ten dollars for this infraction and hand over the password for your account. Thank you.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Thats nothing. I was able to get a patent through
that says I came up with the incredible idea of putting
a hole in the front of buildings that allows for the
passage of people and goods. The trick was to come up
with the idea of putting a DOOR with a LOCK on it to
protect this HOLE. Otherwise its just a cave!!!!
Just think how much money I am going to make suing all
of you idiots.
I WIN.
Next month I will be patenting the technology of the
REVERSESPACE. It will revolutionize keyboards.
I am so SMART.
eBay has lots of money (well, at least a profit) and they have a staff of attorneys. Maybe this can be the case that finally gets 'computerization of a business process' thrown on to the trash heap labeled 'bad ideas that really sucked'. The patent office has apparently forgotten what the intent of the patent system is. Lets hope that some people in the judicial system haven't. And lets hope that eBay doesn't settle.
Even if Ebay knowledgeof the patents is a major issue.
Q: Why did the owner of the patents wait until now to sue them?
A: Hmm, put a company out of buisness, or wait a couple of years and get the proverbial 'mad ca$h'
Tough choice.
I read "Patent auctioned online, eBay sued", but the truth isn't less weird.
20 minutes into the future
Perhaps it wasn't just, but it worked.
It seems to me that in a gut busting effort to enhance and preserve corporate profits, lawmakers have screwed up the system to the point where it's now biting those selfsame corporate interests in the butt. Be funny if they can't pump millions in to re-elections to buy their way out of the hole their first contributions put them in...
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
in OS 10.2 that searches ebay among other neat and useful things, is in violation of patent #6,085,176? Or did apple cover their collective ass?
eBay's lawyers may be quite right in saying they have a reason to be hopeful. The patent numbered 5,845,265 has a relatively vague abstract that makes it sound like eBay's business model. But if you read further in the claims, you'll see that what this guy is claiming is something entirely different.
Claim #1 describes a basic system for an on-line auction house where the actual, physical good is escrowed by the auction house, bar-coded, photographed, and placed on a Web site to be bid on. This process is elaborated on in claim #3 with sufficient detail as to make clear that the intent of the patent is to mediate a traditional auction of physical goods by replacing bidders' paddles with on-line terminals.
The mechanisms described for inventorying auctioned goods comprise a major portion of the claims, in particular #15. Subsequent claims from 18-22 do sound more like what eBay does at the conclusion of an auction, but even so, it's up to the buyer and seller on eBay to consumate the transaction. This patent assumes the auction house is clearing the transaction before releasing the physical goods. Seems like another difference with eBay's model.
In my own, particular opinion, I think that it will be settled out of court because eBay will likely be able to demonstrate it can potentially prevail if it goes to trial. Prediction: $10M in one time, go-away money. No royalties, no court case.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
... because, afterall, good ol' Al did invent the internet!
~ now you know
I want to patent leather shoes. The girls will love them.
Hey, maybe it could become a televised event, sort of a geek brain olympics or something.
Well, as we see all of these patents flowing around that seem to be trivially easy to find prior art for, what about instituting a "Patent Duty" system, much like the "Jury Duty" system.
People, selected mostly at random, recieve a letter requesting their service in Patent duty. That person then selects the area(or areas) that they feel they are most competent in and is given a list of patent applications that are in those areas.
Each "Patent Duty" member is requested to only look at one or two patents.
This would be a pre-screening process. If the "Pantent Duty" person finds something that is prior art they get a bonus($).
All patents still go through a "normal" patent clerk afterwards... But they would have been pre-screened by someone semi-knowledgeable in the field.
Since patent applications are public anyway, it wouldn't get into any legal issues with having competitors viewing your applications... And it might encourage an increased technology race again.
-----------------
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
one of the all-time best Onion articles-- 'Microsoft Patents Ones and Zeroes'
Why stop at ebay, if this clown believes he is in the right, why not go for the alt.forsale type newsgroups.
Or any site that sells things.
No, jmu1 is not thinking of trademarks but rather of "laches". If you don't sue for a number of years, creating an unreasonable delay that harmed the alleged infringer, you may lose the right to collect damages for infringements that occurred before the suit was filed.
Will I retire or break 10K?
They're
NOT
FUNNY
ANYMORE.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please visit http://groups.google.com/groups?q=forsale&ie=ISO-
Thank You
There is a prior art from 10 years ago: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=39324&cid=4199 609
The only evil profits are the ones you say are evil.
Dawn of the Dead
Ok let's run down the facts :
1. He's a _PATENT ATTORNEY_.
2. He doesn't know shit about online auctions, can't even run his own webserver.
3. Did I mention he's a fucking _PATENT ATTORNEY_ ? Can you say "Conflict of Interest" three times fast ?
This is just a cornerstone that will solidify the state of legislative stupidity for decades to come. It's like me suing Sears because I think I might have invented the concept of putting products in a building with pricetags on them. I can just picture the judge laughing his toupee off right now. But since this is an "Internet-thing", everyone in power will just play stupid and let the sodomy continue.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
[don't reply to trolls ... do not reply to trolls]
The plural of auction is auctions. Was the original poster trying to fake a Latin connection? That word is "auctio", and if I'm not too rusty the plural would be "auctiones." But since we're speaking English, this sort of argument can go and get fucked.
And what on earth does the word "auction" have to do with "ox" and "box"? The slight 'x' sound? Please. Furthermore, anybody who uses the non-word "boxen" is a complete wanker and should be shot on sight.
"Auctionae" if anything would be the plural of "auctiona", which, as it isn't a word, doesn't have a plural.
Now, if that's all clear, I'd like to go back to reading about the patent-driven end to intellectual freedom in peace. Thanks.
Look at the patent, plenty of prior art patent references.
/. for repeatedly propogating this alarmist crap. What a $%^$^& waste of time.
Look at the claims, plenty of elements that could be interpreted to limit this patent to not cover general internet auctions.
Look at news.com, alarmist headline, general info on case, but no analysis of the patent file wrapper.
What a bunch of irresponsible journalists!
They are to stupid, lazy and cheap to fork out the $400.00 and get the file wrapper from the patent office and research it before spewing out the alarmist unbased patent crap.
The BT hyperlink patent was obviously weak because of contents in its file wrapper. No media bothered to look at it. This is probably the same situation.
The first thing any IP atty does in an infringement analysis is look at the file wrapper. Why can't the bozos at news.com do the same. They can't read?
Screw them and
This is just plain stupid. You can't patent "auctioning stuff on the internet" any more than you can patent "selling crafts in an outdoor market" or "buying used cars and restoring them".
Calling someone or a group of people moronic will in no way help them see any problems you present, but only cause them to get defensive and pissed off.
A quick search of deja.com:
deja posting
This patent is clearly baseless, there were other online auctioning systems in place before this patent was made. Furthermore, eBay had no way of knowing this patent was being processed when they first went into business.
A patent claim should be restricted to systems (ie: real physical items) and cannot be used to protect something as mundane as a business process innovation (ie: IP).
Imagine if there was a patent on a particular compression format, and in the process of implementing compression a developer accidentally "invents" the same format without knowing this format has already been covered by a patent. Now what? Are we expected to spend money researching all the algorithm patents out there and do our best to avoid implementing those models?
Where do you draw the line. It seems intuitive to me that instead of storing the color blue 15 times I should store "15xblue", but am I now infringing on the GIF patent? Somebody needs to put an end to this madness. Imagine if there was a patent on the mystery novel genra, this is what is happening with these kinds of software protections.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
And my favorite...
loo vs. toilet
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
I think I'm gonna see about getting a patent on a transportation medium featuring four round objects and a gas engine... :P
Kvetching on /. is therapeutic, but accomplishes little. If the sorry state of IP & patent law bothers you, support a lobbying group that will fight to change it. How about the League of Programming Freedom?
In the Star Trek evil Mirror Universe, virtuoso cellist Yo-Yo Ma is gangsta hiphop star DJ Yo Ma-Ma.
Do anyone has a patent to click on a plastic keyboard attached to a screen to transmitt eletrical signal to a main unit? Please answer to HP/DELL/IBM/.
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
Let's just hope that one of the guys at eBay sold an old car for "$5000 OBO" and posted a pic online.
----------
I am an expert in electricity. My father held the chair of applied electricity at the state prision.
Patents are yours regardless of whether you enforce them or not.
I went very briefly through these patents and all I found was a way of using computer tools that already exist.
- Digital image
- Bar code
- Database
- Internet
- etc.
- etc.
Am I missing something or the guy did not invent something but only used tools put at his disposition to reproduce things that have been around for thousands of years: Retail and auction?
What about a patent on writing a story on a computer using a word processor? Could this be patented??? Like with the ebay case, you are assembling tools that exist (the computer and the word processor) to reproduce an activity (writing) that has been done through other means (paper and pen) for ages (thousands of years).
Really, I don't get it...
I must be dumb.
Has anyone read these patent's?
I had a quick scan through #5,845,265 and it's clearly a computerised implementation of a live auction.
It begins with people taking items for sale to a local authorised "dealer" and having photo's taken and barcodes added for identification. This ensures items exist and adds the trust element missing from from truly online transactions. All the information is added to a data base that people can browse
Then a time is scheduled for the auction of the item. At the published time people connect to the system (he describes in some detail the choice of phsyical link and the software to participate - how it gets downloaded etc etc)
Then people submit bids electronically to a live auction - there is even mention of having a sound card to hear the auction.
IANAL and I only read this very briefly but it appears to me to be an internet version of telephone bidding, already standard in normal auctions.
Any one else had a glance through these patents?
Rob
I read these absurd software patent stories here on /. over and over again... What's the matter with you people!? Isn't the US a democracy? Stop this insanity!
I mean, why don't someone just patent "to make money in any way at all", and then require everyone that does something profitable to pay them license fees?
The REALLY bad thing is that this perverted pantent system of yours is spreading! In Europe, politicians consider to go your way.
I mean... for crying out loud... do something!
The patents were filed around 1998, and ebay has been around since at least 1995 AFAICT.
So he took out this patent a long, long time ago. Did he do anything with his patent or is he just trying to make a buck by stifling other companies' innovation? I have sympathy for a patent-holder if they develop the business, and then are pushed out by someone who is using their patented technology. But if this guy is just pulling ideas out of the sky and hoping someone uses them, I have no sympathy for him. He deserves to get counter-sued, and the patent system should be changed based on the craziness of cases like this.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
2. Using wrong plurals like boxen and virii; always funny.
3. You're both wrong. "Auction" is obviously the plural form of Auct. Duh.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'd still have to vote according to what the law says, not what it means
Well, the law should just be common sense written down.
No matter what the judge says, you only have to vote your conscience.
If you think the law is badly written or not suitable to society any more your responsibility as a juror (and peer to the defendant) is to not even let it get to the penalty phase.
Rob Carlson
"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."
I'm sure someone else (Lotus, IBM, etc) has a patent on that prior to 1995
Erm, not really, but a lot of other folks do this. Your flower idea is probably already patented.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
This is clearly a lucrative business opportunity, so I am also looking for investors.
Watch for it at suej00pantsoff.com.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but who gives a damn?! I want a piece of the action here!
This sig no verb.
--- What
"purchaser to change the price of the good once the purchaser has purchased the good"
Maybe it's just the attempted "legal english" used.. but to me it sounds as if he patented an eletronic version of a regular auction (not via internet) but that the person winning the bid can then change the price? You don't "purchased the good" until you pay for it, but here it's saying you can change the price after you have baught it... ? someone help me out here!
I think they deserve this for their attempted patent on thumbnail galleries...
Let's face it. The economy is sluggish, and nobody has a really good plan to fix it.
What is a good way of fixing this problem? Cutting costs, and making sure that average Joe gets more money in his pocket. Yours is a largely customer-driven economy. We also need to understand well the current situation. How similar is it to past situations? How is it different from those? What happened then?
Frankly, I think we should sacrifice quite a few lawyers. Frivolous patents, competition by courtroom and software patents are all expensive practices. Since lawyers are resourceful, wealthy people, it is better to sacrifice some lawyers than a bunch of people down the chain who don't retrain as easily.
Remember that long-term high unemployment leads to a collapse in the housing market. If I was you, I would be working really hard to control the way in which it will occur. It is vital that we return to the basics now. We should study history and statistics intensly, figuring out what is likely to occur and how to control it in the best possible way. There really is no need to keep repeating the mistakes of the past, is there?
Stop the brainwash
I think this patent buissness sounds somewhat strange. Patenting software is patenting a problem, and it's solution. ... then it should be possible to patent opening doors?
I mean:
Problem! The door is closed.
Solution! Open it!
Then if someone were to patent the actually door-knob turning process, technically everybody would be sued. o.O
Another sick thing is the patenting of genes,
I mean, everybody got genes, and only one company is allowed to research in several of them.
So they can sue me if i start to study my own frickin GENES? i mean OMG!
That can't be possible!
What's next?
Someone gets a patent on seeing?
Or hearing?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Go Osama
If this is the case, they may have stopped negotiations once it became apparent that buying or licensing the patent would cost more than their best guestimates on defending against a possible lawsuit.
Not only do I feel that the guy has a case, I think it is poetic that EBay has to deal with this after the "One Click" patent.
It has come 2 my attention that "/.", subsidiary of VA Software, is a refuge 4 people with a terrible sense 4 grammer and spallin. As a remediation, please accept the following recommendations about the use of some frequent linguistic expressions :
...many more 2 come. Reply 2 this comment 2 suggest some.
:
* "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. N fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
* Just because moronic Americans pronounce Berstein, neither, Einstein and other as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have 2 write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention 2 "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
* "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that N some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason 2 be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
* Your vs. u're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", N other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut 4 "u are". Similar point 4 There vs Their vs They're.
* Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
* Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid u 2 open a book from time 2 time 2 actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
* Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illitteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut 4 "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
A definition of irony : a bunch of computer nerds without a sense 4 spallin and grammer mocking japanese game translators 4 their lack of skills N english spallin and grammer.
Contribution by Erpo
Eye'm not any kind of grammer nazi, but decent spallin and grammer are important 2 me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard 4 me 2 read. Partially, Eye think this is because Eye sight read and Eye don't subvocalize. N other words, when Eye see, "It's over their," N print the first thing Eye think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying 2 say?" Of course, Eye don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second 2 see there was a grammer error N the sentence), but Eye can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back 2 an earlier word.
Maybe Eye'm just hypersensitive. Eye don't know. If u don't know what Eye'm talking about though, check out this piece [npgmusicclub.com] by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammer problems, but the "creative" spallin is really distracting.
My family has been in the auction business since 1908. In our auctions, we do both the standard Dutch auction AND reverse auction, with most items. We start at the expected price, work down until somebody jumps in, and go back up until there's only one left. Ocassionally, someone will respond at the first offer, thus avoiding the reverse auction. Often, the first person to respond in the reverse part is not answered, thus avoiding the Dutch auction. At the end of every auction, Dad gives a brief preview of upcoming auctions, if any are booked, thus a search of multiple auctions.
Of Woolston's three patents, the only one that's anything more than "standard task, but now done with a computer" is the one fully automating the auction, and that's pretty obvious.
I'll bet the reason he couldn't get funding and start his own internet auction site is that the moron couldn't actually DO the stuff he was talking about.
Maybe I should patent "A method of transportation using a device to dissemble an object, convert the matter to energy, transmit that energy, and convert it back to matter in its original form", then hope somebody invents the Star Trek Transporter, which I can then claim.
Also, what's with the cross promotion. Are ebay.ca and Rogers in bed together?
Electronic auctions? Can't the guys who wrote M.U.L.E. claim prior art?
and, to my knowledge, never attempted to patent "A method of selling recorded music" or "A method of selling goods by electric light".
"We expect to be vindicated at trial....they are rank infringers," said the rank opportunist.
-- dR.fuZZo
Kinda stupid to reply, but do you think someone actively went around correcting the spellings of words? Or do you think the words' spellings changed because people repeatedly spelled them the easy/wrong way?
Also, who's language is it anyway? What proportion of the world's population speak it? Can't really be that bad.
Im so tired of grammer not-sees complaining alot about speling and grammer. Its not a big deal. There just snobs who dont have a sence of humour. I could care less. They just think there better then anyone else, but there not. Your just jealous.
Huked on fonix wurked fer mee!
If he filed his patents in '95, why the hell has it taken so long to bring this to court? Ebay has been around, and very popular for many years now.
Woolston in fact filed what I think is called an "interference" with the USPTO to try and establish that the Priceline patent is invalid, on the grounds that Woolston actually invented (was the first to invent) something that Priceline has claimed.
I assume that Woolston still has the option to sue Priceline for infringement of his patent, but has not yet done so.
apply for a patent on a business model of being a patent granting organization that grants patent that are not unique, novel, useful etc so that the recipients of such patents can sue all infringers.
There is no prior art right?
"Patent pending" refers to the time after it's filed but before it's granted, during which the intellectual property is public knowledge. Before it's filed, the patent is not public knowledge. If eBay somehow took the idea from him before it was made public by the process of filing for a patent, the guy may still have a case that they stole a trade secret, but he'd have to prove that, and it wouldn't be patent law any more.
The only thing that's unclear is why eBay would ever have wanted to buy his patents from him, except possibly to save the expense of court proceedings. eBay itself surely knew the patent was invalid.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The patent 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.
On this subject, can someone please tell me what the current cost of getting a patent is. Not the search of prior art, or the lawyer fees, but just what the patent office takes form the inventor in fees. I've been told that it has grown extremely high, but this and other patents that would seem extremely trivial (in this case I believe there was already prior art that should negate it) keep popping up, and I'm having trouble understanding how an individual can afford to get an apparently worthless patent if it is priced as high a I'm told.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
and
"He filed his idea with the patent office in April 1995 and founded MercExchange to try to turn the idea into a business. But he couldn't raise the funding and eventually turned to the business of licensing his patents to other companies."
He filed in 1995 and the patents were awarded in 1998.
IANAL, but it still sounds like he has a case.
I'd still have to vote according to what the law says, not what it means
Do a Google search on jury nullification (there, I did it for you). The theory is that you are allowed to decline to convict because the law is unjust.
As usual, IANAL.
--
E_NOSIG
It's like blaming the IRS for auditing.
When someone is operating within the constrains we all are bound by don't get pissed, change the rules. Unfortunately as we all know $ talks in Washington and the patent holders should have loads to play with.
Welcome to for the corporations by the corporations.
Too stupid or lazy to turn a vague idea into a money-making business? Just patent the idea so you can rip off the people who can!
Get your money for nothin'...
As far as I understand it, when one party takes another to court over patent infringement, the validity of the patent in question is not ever an issue. It's only about whether or not that patent has been infringed. The party being sued would have to have the patent invalidated in a seperate case, and presumambly have that done before the conclusion of the original infringement case.
Presumably this is to prevent every patent infringement hearing turning into a patent validity hearing.
Granted, IANAL, but I suspect that the loss of a high-profile, and high-profit ecommerce site like eBay could be used to send a message to the world that software/process patents are lame. Here's what you do...
First, stop accepting new auctions. Everything. Finish off whatever auctions are currently running, and then close shop. Next, liquidate all assets. All your routers, switches, servers, desk lamps, everything. Finally (and the whole reason this works), because eBay is publicly traded, announce one *MASSIVE* dividend. Pay out every last penny to your shareholders. They've been burned by dot-bomb, might as well make them feel a little better. Now, when the next bill comes in, declare bankruptcy. You've already protected your shareholders, given them every bit of money the company had (including the desk chairs), so when this guy comes around demanding millions in damages, you show him a balance sheet with nothing but red, and say "Take a number." Congratulations. You have successfully put a very large company out of business, honked off the free world, and (hopefully) taught the USPTO that first with the idea doesn't mean jack if you're not first to market.
Why do we call facial tissue "Kleenex"? Because the Kleenex company didn't defend their trademark, and their infringement case was thrown out because of that. The same should happen here. This guy didn't defend his patent. Too bad, it's now public domain.
I suspect that one of these choices is incorrect. Correct.
So if we can patent business practices, then what is to stop me from patenting, say, the idea of exchanging (Dr. Evil finger quotes) "money" for (Dr. Evil finger quotes) "goods and services." Then I could demand that for each such (yet again!) "exchange" that takes place I get a royalty fee. Every time someone makes a pay phone call or buys a yacht I would get a cut... Hmmmmm.
What a diabolical idea. This would spell the end of useful commerce as we know it. The entire economic structure of the world would collapse! Chaos would reign supreme in the marketplace and all would suffer the most horrible fate of total insolvency!!! With an idea like this I could bring the world's economy to it's knees!!!! Total domination!!!!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
(Frantically dials the patent office)
Oops! I have just been informed that the government already holds that patent:
--TAXES--
Vincit que se vincit.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Alas, there's too much prior art now to file it -- unless, of course, the patent office were to start approving patents with no regard whatsoever for their validity....
Patents were originally devised to offer some reasonable legal protection for inventors to make a reasonable profit from their ideas. The overarching goal was to encourage people to invent and create things that contributed to the public good.
In many instances, this has gone completely overboard, with ridiculously long patents and an outrageous concept of "reasonable profit."
With online auctions, it's hard to say. If the guy with the patent arguably contributed to the public good (which I'd say eBay does, it's a great service), he deserves some reasonable recompense. But I hardly think that the millions he's asking for are necessarily his. After all, he did basically take the idea of an auction and say, "we can use a computer to do this."
That's a whole different point, of course. Does simply improving on an old practice with newer technology deserve a patent? Wouldn't people logically "upgrade" their products and processes to include the newest technology? I'm not sure that this kind of change is really patentable.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I don't like SWpat, but eBay also has some lovely patents like that one for loading thumbnails from 2 different servers and put them onto the same page. I hope that everybody loses this battle.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
The history behind it has something to do with a jury not convicting someone in England for not being part of the STATE religion or something like that. The gov't starved them for many days and tossed them in jail, but they never convicted...and that right (to not convict based on merits of the law) has been long established.
It was used many times in the days of prohibition...an many claim it had a huge role in reversing prohibition.
Here is some more info...Or do a Google search for a whole crap-load more...
http://civilliberty.tqn.com/msubjury.htm
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/FIJA.History
http://www.fija.org/
Kinda stupid to reply, but do you think someone actively went around correcting the spellings of words?
I am glad that you asked. Benjamin Franklin "actively went around correcting the spellings of words." As you can see from this page, Benjamin Franklin was a proponent, early on, of reforming spelling in the English language. His work inspired Noah Webster, leading to many of the spelling reforms we enjoy today.
(* "The judge has not translated MercExchange's patent claims into plain English, an important part of a patent dispute. Until he completes this step, known as the Markman ruling, it's hard to tell how big the threat is to eBay" *)
Here, judge, I will do it for you:
"This patent covers anything that people would normally do by hand or by phone in normal business settings, but is simulated or emulated digitally instead."
I wish I patented all emulation of physical processes when "business processes" were first allowed to be patented, then All Your Software Are Belong To Me.
Table-ized A.I.
"It was terribly frustrating," he said. "I followed the rules. I was convinced that was the right way to go. Now I'm convinced we're going to have our day in court and win."
Wow! You know what's even more frustrating? Actually going ahead with an idea, succeeding, then having a parasite attach himself to you. This guy should be shot. And pissed on.
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
Computer systems like this are already implemented in Stock Markets across the world. And anyway, what is it exactly that this man claims to have invented?
...the phrase "patently ridiculous".
I've always wondered where that came from.
Ciao,
Klaus
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
IF the patents were filed in 1995, but ebay had a working business model that same year, and the patent wasn't granted till 1998 (and the "inventor" still did not have a working business model) shouldn't that invalidate the patent
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I know that when I ran a dialup BBS back in the mid 90's, I had a message forum where my users could offer items to buy and sell. When more than one person wanted to buy something, they would typically move into private bidding with the seller through the system's email.
If someone else on some BBS somewhere had a similar service, and their message forum was carried on any network, such as the WWIVNet BBS messaging network or one of its smaller derivatives--then bingo, we have prior art. A message forum, after all, can be considered a database
A long long time ago, Compuserve was just a BBS. On that BBS people would post "for sale" and others would start bidding by replying to the message.
:-)
The only thing eBay et alia changed is that now there's a middle man. How's that original? And a follow-up question: could I also create a patent adding yet another middle man?
Software patents all seem to be simliar: means of doing X with a computer. It's like the better mousetrap scenario, if I invented one, I wouldn't be prevented from patenting one just beacuse the mousetrap in general already exists. But with software patents anyting that does this certian thing X on a computer, regardless of wether it's a new and improved way of doing it, is right out. This will kill advancement in the software field, as noone can afford to do anything that's already been done before (even if they can do it better). Welcome to the dark ages, here's your torch.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
but do you think someone actively went around correcting the spellings of words? Or do you think the words' spellings changed because people repeatedly spelled them the easy/wrong way?
From the propaganda I was presented in American schooling, I understood it to be that certain individuals after the conclusion of the Rev war decided to make some distinction in the language and further separate the new nation. They were only able to change minor aspects for practical reasons (you can't get an entire population to agree to change their language).
This is not my sig.
WHy doesn't some /.er get a patent for surfing the internet "with computers" and sue people like this? :-)
Typo. Should be:
if (random(0.0,1.0) > 0.96) {
Table-ized A.I.
> "method of extending cellular communications" - a cell phone not in range of a cell tower instead merely connects to the nearest other cell phone which is in range and uses it as a relay for the call. I'm sure this idea has been thought of, but has it been patented yet?
This is, of course the basic design of the ChaosNet that was in use at MIT during the 80's (and is still in use by some MIT hackers).
Of course, the way the US Patent Office works these days, this doesn't prevent you from registering the idea as a patent and suing MIT for using it.
(One could argue that the RIP protocol also did this back in the 80's, but I suppose that's far too sophisticated for the USPTO to understand, so you're still safe applying for your patent.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Those are not different spellings of the same word. They are different words that have the same meaning.
Next time someone says "I need a lift", I'll point them to an elevator.
Has anyone tried patenting the patent process maybe we can stop all this.
Do you get the feeling that stupid laws do not get revised until somebody gets killed over it?
I imagine a time where someone patents "Typing on a computer keyboard makes letters appear on the computer screen", and then tries to sue all computer users in the US.
It won't be until someone shuts him up by putting a bullet in his head that the government will wake up and say "You know, this 'patent the obvious' thing really doesn't work."
The only other way would be to patent "Winning a presidential election by changing the voter cards in Florida", and then trying to sue Dubya.
Until there's enough clamor to change the laws in this country, stupid laws stay on the books.
Maybe someone should write their congressman, and propose that "Frivilous LAwsuits" be defined as "A terrorist act", and them we can send all the lawyers to jail. Or a firing squad.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This company has been in patent trouble before. Story here
These guys are cyber-squatting ideas. It really bothers me.
"Failure of Windows operating systems is extremely rare. If it happens, it is usually due to operating system file c
Ebay has enough money to buy a judge if they so desired.
And the main function of the civil court system is to make sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
...it was awfuly funny to see "I'll admit, I'm stupid." (+5, Insightful) on the front page of
Good point, thought.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Last time I served on a jury here in the US, the judge actually came in to the jury pool room to give a big lecture on jury nullification. It is a serious no-no, and could definitely lead to a mistrial or even contempt of court charges against the jury members.
Patent Attorneys should be barred from getting patents themselves, because they obviously know how to abuse the (very abuseable) patent system. The U.S. Patent Office needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch. This antiquated office now stifles innovation instead of encouraging it.
Auction off the patents on eBay. That way, the guy who made the patents could score, and he could use the people he's suing to do it! Doesn't that just sound great!!! Also, when someone else has the patents, then they can sue eBay, and they can sell the patents, and keep a whole Law Suit chain going on.
A little off the subject of ebay being sued...but oh well, you know ;) But really...grammar and spelling are very important. It's kind of a way to show you're educated, and when you show that, people will respect your opinions more. You may not care what people think (this is what most people say) but it does leave a little bit of a memory with you. People will read your stuff and remember "Oh yea, that's the guy who can't spell...moron..."
no wait. a better EXAMPLE of ironic would be that you dont know the difference between an example and a definition. you seem to be a pretty lame troll.
Are you asking a question, or just trying to look like a dumbfuck?
patented the process to get a patent, and you can't use that process unless you pay me first.
Is that kind of like how people read your posts and think, "Oh, that's the guy who responds to obviously ironic trolls"?
--
What we need is a 12 step program for those poor souls who are truly hooked on phonics.
People can not apply the phrase on a computer on the back of every tried and true business model and expect to get royalties or the ability to sue the bejesus out of people.
... "on weed." ? I could patent the acts of "watching a movie, or summer sky, or one's own hand on weed." Now if only the people who do that had any money for me to take...
But what about the phrase
$8.95/mo web hosting
or as he calls it a: "circular transportation facilitation device"X 0ADFPLOC.html
here's the full story: http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/07/02/FF
The other is the capitalist system we are in - which has been proven to work great. Individuals assert their own rights and work to benefit themselves and in doing so, benefit society at large.
No. The robber barons of the early steel and oil industries did not work to the good of society. They amassed massive personal wealth in order to create personal dynasties that still last to this day (Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.). This was done to the detriment of the mass of society (low wages, child labor, massive numbers of industrial accidents, union busters, etc.). It is an inverse proportion: the smaller the concentration of wealth, the greater the rest of society is screwed. Look at every accumulation of massive person wealth through history and you will see the exploitation of societies for the gain of a few.
The first is the communist system. It's a great idea in principle, but as anyone older than 15 will tell you, it just doesn't work.
And that same person will tell you the same about capitalism. We live in a complex world and any simple model will eventually break down. Sure, capitalism works great at first (as does communism). There is a level playing field, lots of entities competing, fast innovation in the industry. But then one or two players emerge as the strongest and the competition dies away. The industry consolidates, barriers to entry are raised, and there is a hardening of the arteries. At this point, capitalism fails because the barriers to competition are prohibitvely high and competition dies. And this is the best case; if some players start with an unequal advantage, the hardening and consolidation can occur before the industry even begins. E.g., Microsoft entering a new industry and using its billions to bar others from competing by giving away the product or the broadband providers using legislation to make it harder for competitors to compete.
The same thing happens at a societal level. Face it, if a person is born rich, they have a large head start on everybody else. If the gap between rich and poor becomes too great, it doesn't matter how in-bred, weak, and dumb a blue-blood gets, no one can catch up. Government (societal) regulation is needed to help narrow the gap between rich and poor, to ensure that we all start on a somewhat even playing field no matter who we are born to. No society will be perfect (imperfect world again), but the society that gets closest has the best chance of success because it is less likely that their next Einstein will be shot dead in a ghetto at 15. Competition is great and the best competition occurs when everyone starts from the same place.
If...it would be impossible for eBay to succeed without infringing the patent, I see nothing wrong with eBay sharing some of their profits with the inventor who they owe their success to.
Ah, but there is an incongruency in that statement. eBay infringing the patent and owing their success to it are two entirely different things. Yes, your disclaimer says you are using a fictional patent (not very sporting, changing the subject of debate halfway through). But you don't say that it is any more meritorious than this one, only different. I do agree that the original poster's argument is flawed, but your's is equally so.
It used to be that patents were for inventions; patent applications required a working model or plans for the invention being patented. Some good examples of this (and the patent system at its best, although there were also abuses) are provided by the American gun industry in the 19th and early 20th centuries, such as the lever-action repeating rifle (the Winchester). Anyone could invent a repeating rifle, but they couldn't use the same lever mechanism to eject the spent shell and load a new one (which was an ingenious solution, both reliable and elegant) unless they licensed it (for a period of time).
Now, however, an applicant can be so abstract as to patent a general idea and not an invention. There is a level of specificity missing. You should have to provide source code, a UML design, something that goes quite a bit beyond what "software" and "business plan" patents require.
How many ideas are truly original? We are all standing on the shoulders of giants, afterall. What is important is the application of an idea, the creation of something unique.
So, eBay can not avoid infringing the patent and yet does not owe any of their success to the "inventor" (a misuse of the word) of the patent. That is a telling sign that our patent system needs some revision. Besides which, the patent was filed a couple months after the first post on eBay. Another problem with our patent system.
Yours,
Nathan
Second, it doesn't matter whether the patents were granted or not...the point is that the "inventor" applied for a patent in 1995 before eBay went online. It is the filing that matters. I believe this is a contributing reason to why scientists (particularly in the private sector) working on the same research are often "racing" each other. The person who files for the patent first "wins" -- they "own" the intellectual property.
As an analogy, if you and I both want the same domain name but I file for it first, I get it. It doesn't matter what you were doing or whether I've put the domain name into use yet. It belongs to me.
As a side note, I believe it was these types of issues that persuaded the USPTO to stop hiding the details of patent applications. It was difficult, if not impossible, for an up-and-coming business to keep track of what intellectual property was out there if they couldn't even see a description of the property.
I can't wait, in 5 more years when my patent on submarine patents runs out, I'm going to fucking sue all of these bastards!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
How is this any different? It's still an auction (a pencil) and you're just slapping on a computer (an eraser).
Fuck the greedy bastard.
People who can't, sue.
Don't read this!
There is a long held principle called "official notice" that the PTO and courts have at their disposal in deciding patent validity.
.....the chances are low that there will be any bright lines of easy patentability in the area of obviousness for business methods. The Patent Office has made it clear with these examples that there are various weapons at their disposal for rejecting business method patent applications.
It basically holds that obviousness can be present based upon a technical line of reasoning, such as established business principles, art-recognized equivalents, legal precedent, common knowledge or official notice.
The PTO has posted example arguments deciding for obviousness as applied to business method patents
These arguments are applicable in cases involving automation of a known manual process, including automation on the Internet
This kind of amazes me to some extent. Since I can't get into the minds of legislators and patent clerks, and for that matter, lawyers, I can't determine the answer to this question:
Do what degree do these people in charge grasp the technology?
The article says that 'business methods' were ruled to be patentable in 1995, a critical time because business methods were rapidly being transferred to the internet. It also says that the number of patents swelled after that ruling.
Thus, the holder of such obvious patents gets rich off the hard work of companies like eBay, because the patent was obscure and possibly unknown to the eBay founder when he launched his venture. I know, I read that they had correspondence, but it strikes me as insane that putting anything on the internet can be patentable.
The internet, which was supposed to break down the barriers to progress is instead chilling entrepreneurship!
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Correct. And to take it a step further, these commodities would also qualify as 'used goods' (to follow the wording of the patent).
I guess it was inevitable. Sooner or later someone would notice that you can do the patent law equivilent of cyber-squatting (patent something already invented but not patented by someone else) with patent law and rake in the big bucks. It will be interesting to see what the courts do with this now.
I would like to thank you for the above links. I don't think people realize how messed up our system really is. Soon it may be easier to move to another country, and let the remaining system crash down around people's ears. To borrow a phrase "No pain, no gain". Ah well nothing last forever.
While I've not read the patents, mainly because I've not seen a link to them, I did notice this person filed for the first one in 1995. It strikes me that there is a slight problem of prior art. I first participated in Online Auctions in 1992, and I'm sure there are many people here that were participating in them long before that.
Z.
God bless patents
Offer to make the guy an immediate partner, with 5% take off profits, and I think he'll at least give it some serious consideration.
.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
There were several BBS doors that provided for online auctions way back when. BBS Auction Mart,
Auction It!, Auction Online to name a few. This is prior art by any definition. This guy is a loser, and a lawyer. Who would have thunk it?
It seems like all that patent holders do is sue. Patent law was means to stimulate innovation, not stimulate lawsuits.
Maybe they should be productive for a change and actually apply the technology they patented.
Part of the patent law should be that if you don't apply your patent in public products (actual products for sale and directly undiscriminatorily available to the public, in which the invention is applied and for which applicaton of the patent is publicly documented and proven), you can't sue either. Plus if somebody is publicly doing what you think you patented (like ebay), you must sue withing 6 months or you loose your patent for that public activity. Otherwise, it's abuse of somebody else's productive efforts.
That's what I think, personally.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Ya know, I seem to remember a few BBS doors that could do almost the exact same thing that eBay does back in the 80's and early 90's. Maybe they should pull those rabbits and see what the results are. Online auctions have been around a lot longer than eBay and longer than this patent.
For using a technology he doesn't have a patent on to create a patent.
Im gonna patent selling stuff from junkyards, Then I can sue ebay too.
Ebay, Creating a 5 billion dollar industry out of landfill.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
"Oh yea, that's the guy who can't spell...moron..."
You're going to write off some non-morons who can't spell too. Why not just run everything you see through a spell checker before you read it.
It's kind of a way to show you're educated, and when you show that, people will respect your opinions more
This ignores the person who is educated and either chooses to misspell (to prove that judging people's education by their spelling is not always accurate) or makes a typo.
What bothers me about you and your kind is that you seem to know spelling is ultimately arbitrary and irrelevant to the content, yet you spread the idea that spelling is important, thereby prolonging an injustice.
Even though the judge and every lawyer in sight will disagree with this... Your purpose on the jury is to judge the law in the context of the accused. The jury is the last check and balance in the system. Use it when you get the chance.
This is, of course the basic design of the ChaosNet that was in use at MIT during the 80's (and is still in use by some MIT hackers).
Yeah, that's clearly a case of Prior Art, but the way the patent office works, one need only specify that one's scheme is specifically for "cell phones" to get a narrow patent, even though that isn't really significantly different from any other radio-based system. Plus, by saying "cell phones" one paints a big red bullseye on the ass of any of the big wireless providers who implement your patented method. WooHoo! Deep Pockets!
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I suggest the patent holder try to sell his Patent on eBay, this could be a great way to earn money. ;-)
if you put a credit in your .sig, people might be led to watch the show, and that would be good for everyone.
mike
Liberty uber alles.
Also used by juries in the North to let slaves go ahead and run away even though that act was clearly illegal.
Or, so I heard.
(Repeating rumors _is_ what the internet is for, issn't it?)
Liberty uber alles.
An open-fronted refrigerated display case permitting shoppers direct access to goods displayed therein which also allows loading thereof by the movement of a loaded cart into a stationary location within the display case from the front direction or the rear direction, the case including a stationary housing which defines a refrigerated enclosure which further defines a front opening and a rear wall area and a case floor, the front opening having an air curtain extending thereover created by the passage of refrigerated air from air outlets along the upper edge of the front opening to air inlets along the lower edge of the front opening, also including an air circuit means to communicate the air from the inlet to the outlet and through the refrigeration device to form the air curtain from refrigerated air, also including a door means extending over at least a portion of the rear wall area with the remainder of the rear wall area covered by a curtain means, the door means being mounted within at least one track and the insulating curtain being mounted immediately adjacent the single track such that the door is slidably mounted within the track and when moved to an open position the curtain collapses allowing entry of the movable cart from the rear direction, and when the slidably mounted door is closed the curtain will expand to isolate the environment within the refrigerated case from the external environment, the case also including vertical air conduits within the hollow rear doors to aid in the communication of air from the air inlets at the bottom of the open front to the air outlets at the top of the open front, the movable carts adapted to be moved into the refrigerated enclosure from the rear direction through the door means or from the front direction through the open front area.
Don't patent lawyers know about sentences?
Maybe I should patent them then...
I can still see the benefits of software patents for truly innovative creations, but perhaps the terms should be shorter for 20 years due to the nature of the software industry; perhaps something more like 5-7 years would be more reasonable.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The RSA patent is actually my favorite example of a patent which hurt the computer industry for a number of years before it finally expired. We really needed RSA to be unencumbered in the early 90s when the internet was just taking off. If we hadn't had crypto patents back then maybe we'd actually have something like DNSSEC now.
I have mixed feelings about the RSA patent. Like you, I wish the algorithm was unencumbered 10 years ago; it would have been a boon to the Internet. On the other hand, there was actual innovation in the algorithm, and it took skill to devise it. I'm forced to admit we might not have RSA in the public domain today if R, S & A hadn't invented it. There was nothing inevitable about this innovation.
Yes, British Intelligence had already invented the RSA system a decade earlier, but it was classified. It might still be classified and unknown to the public, but for R, S & A inventing the same algorithm independently. Nevertheless, as soon as the British invention was declassified, perhaps the fact of its prior invention should have invalidated the RSA patent. However, I'm not sure it "counts" if it was an unpublished invention.
The point is that innovations like RSA do advance the state of the art, even if they restrain us from taking full advantage of it for a while. Of course, that's how the patent system was intended to work -- give the inventor a monopoly in order to eventually gain the benefit for the public. The RSA algorithm wouldn't be very useful to us if it were still classified in Britain and otherwise unknown...
Personally I think there needs to be a moritorium on software patents in order to allow software to rapidly develop. Patents do not really encourage development. I have every expectation that R, S and A would have developed their crypto system even if they couldn't have patented it. Similarly, I'm sure that Amazon would have produced one-click even if it wasn't patentable.
Yes, R, S & A probably would have invented their crypto system either way, but that's because they are academics. Suppose they were corporate researchers? Then it wouldn't be a foregone conclusion that they'd have invented it anyway.
The one-click patent is fundamentally invalid because its invention was inevitable. Faced with the problem of reducing the consumer's effort required to order a product, any halfway competent engineer could have setup a database of customer information and programmed a system to order the product with a single click and use the stored information for all payment and shipping information. This solution is obvious, which is exactly why the patent never should have been granted in the first place. Nevertheless, under our current system, this invalid patent is probably enforceable.
Patents were intended to encourage inventors to divulge their inventions which might otherwise be kept secret or never invented in the first place. The "nonobvious" requirement exists to ensure that the public doesn't make a costly concession (the statutory monopoly of a patent) for any invention which was inevitable. Patents were intended to serve a public interest, and granting obvious patents makes a mockery of the process.
Patents should not be a race to see who can develop and patent each obvious idea first, yet that's exactly what's been happening -- especially in the area of software patents. The USPTO has a miserable track record of evaluating software patents for obviousness, or even finding prior art, since most prior software art usually isn't found in their patent archives.
The patent system is failing to serve the public interest it was designed for, because the USPTO has been derelict in its duty to grant patents fairly. Society bears an enormous burden of costs associated with these invalid patents, from the direct and indirect costs associated with the monopoly itself, to the enormous costs involved in overturning an invalid patent in court -- in the few instances where a patent can be successfully challenged. No matter how questionable a patent is, it enjoys a legal presumption of validity which is difficult (and expensive) to overturn. Each bad patent represents an enormous burden on society, and we've seen a veritable flood of bad patents in recent years.
Worse yet, the system encourages abuse of the patent system. Upstanding companies who choose not to file for a patent on an obvious invention can be blackmailed later by an unscrupulous competitor who was willing and able to abuse the system and obtain a bad patent. There are no consequences for abusing the system, and plenty of potential rewards -- corporations are usually amoral and greedy; is it any wonder they are drawn to this corrupt patent system like moths to a flame?
Also, the USPTO itself is fundamentally flawed, as it derives its sole revenues from patent fees (so it's important to keep those fees coming in by granting as many patents as possible, good or not) and it bears NONE of the cost that it imposes on society for bad patents it grants. There are no checks and balances in the system to ensure that the patent office only grants good patents, so we have a proliferation of bad patents.
The USPTO is desperately in need of reform and a fundamental restructuring to incorporate checks and balances to ensure that the patent system return to its original purpose of serving a public interest instead of enriching private interests with undeserved monopolies. All existing patents which haven't expired should be audited, and the invalid ones should be revoked. (Of course, that probably won't happen.)
The only way that the USPTO can be reformed is through Congressional action. Unfortunately, the corporations who benefit from the current corrupt system are well-represented in Congress, while the plight of the public at large is largely unrecognized, as with the perpetual copyright extensions of recent decades.
The fundamental problem with "Intellectual Property" is not that it's a flawed concept, but that it's been abused and twisted into a corrupt institution which is damaging our society as much as the favoritism of the British crown granting royal monopolies at a whim in centuries past.
That's why the Constitution does not allow for perpetual monopolies, and nearly didn't allow for any intellectual-property protections at all. The only reason the "intellectual property clause" was allowed into the Constitution at all was because the framers believed that our country would be immune to exactly this corruption due to the power of the people to vote corrupt politicians out of office. Make no mistake, if they could have seen the future, they would have banned copyrights and patents entirely.
I don't see where elminating software patents will do any harm. It will, however, mean that you can't just invent one critical piece of software or algorithm and have a consistant gravy train for 20 years. It means that to get a consistant source of cash you have to innovate year over year, which apparently scares the crap out of a lot of powerful people.
If software patents were rare and reasonable (like the RSA patent) instead of frequent and ridiculous (like the one-click patent), the cost imposed on society would be a miniscule fraction of what we're paying now. Given the speed of innovation in the software field, maybe 5-10 years would be sufficient incentive, but is it good to offer different levels of protections in different industries? That might be a bad precedent.
Software patents should only be granted in those rare instances where nearly any programmer would look at the algorithm and think: "My god! How did they ever think of that? That's fucking brilliant!" Any algorithm where that is the typical reaction may well be deserving of a patent, and one isn't likely to accidently reinvent it, unknowingly infringing on a patent.
Instead, we've seen a slew of software patents where most programmers think: "That's obvious, why the hell did they grant that patent?" Many of these bad patents are obvious, given the problem to be solved. Just because someone was the first to think of the solution, often it's only because that was the first person presented with that particular problem to solve. Copyright protection is appropriate here, but patents are overkill, and impose a tremendous cost on society for no benefit whatsoever.
Unfortunately, in the mind of a patent attorney, "obvious" doesn't mean what you think it means. Any minute detail that hasn't been conceived in a particular way before is viewed as "nonobvious", which conveniently allows many more patents to be filed. The USPTO plays along with this charade, which ensures a steady revenue of patent fees to fund the USPTO. The courts are loathe to second-guess the USPTO, since it's suppose to be their job to determine what's patentable or not.
The situation is especially bad with software patents precisely because computers and software is "Greek" to judges, patent attorneys and even the patent examiners who ought to know the field they're granting patents in. This would be the best reason for a moratoriam on software patents: the system isn't competent to determine validity.
Patent litigation is notoriously expensive and dangerous, and the stakes are high -- invalid patents are licensed every day, to avoid the risk of losing in court. The more licenses a bad patent has, the greater the appearance of legitimacy -- why would anyone license an invalid patent? Bad patents should be revoked routinely through an administrative review/audit process, not an adversarial legal process.
The current system is badly broken and amounts to legalized extortion in many cases. Only Congress can fix it, and they're not likely to as long as the corporate interests have their attention. Patents are meaningless to the average voter, so it's not clear how meaningful reform can ever be expected from Congress. Campaign finance reform may help mitigate the undue corporate influence, but Congress won't do anything until they realize the damage to society and believe voters know and care about it.
Having geeks talk to congresscritters is a good start, but it's probably not enough. We also need to find a way to get Joe Sixpack to care about this issue, which is easier said than done...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Re-read the parent post - and then re-read mine. I am not debating the virtues of intellectual property rights.
The parent poster said the patent holder should relinquish his rights because eBay was one of the only companies doing well in a faltering economy and his actions would cause people to lose jobs, etc.
My point was simply that it was ridiculous to expect him to give up his rights "for the greater good" and that he was perfectly entitled to a share of eBays profits if they did have an infringing patent that they couldn't move away from.
Mmmm.. Donuts
While not a lawyer, I done a fair amount of thinking on this subject. I've written the former president and my congressmen about how detrimental and unfair junk patents are, and have parted w/far more o' the green stuff for legal consultation re: related matters than i should have. One of my late-breaking conclusions is that, while business method and software patents are, in fact, bad on the whole, the situation is not as bad as it first appears.
The US PTO does not prosecute infringement claims for you. The patent holder must do that for himself, and the junk patent jokers, holding only junk as they do, would usually lose. That's a good thing, for when the stakes are high enough you have this escape valve (optimistically speaking).
Unfortunate cases like the eBay suit happen because it is cheap for said joker to ask for a licensing fee and, if spurned, to file a pursuant lawsuit. And it will frequently happen that the defendent will determine that it makes sense, financially, to pay up rather than fight, as attorneys work rarely for free.
I would hope the courts would smile alot more kindly, though, at the plaintiff that starts from scratch something new and different (even if its just a business model) and who then patents it and makes the business go (not nec'ly in that order). Along comes a corporate behemoth inclined to consider him, returning as he has from the frontier w/o an arrow in the back, a market research firm publishing free results. If i'm right about the court's sympathies, the patent then creates considerable incentive for the newcomer to deal with the entrepreneur meaningfully (eg, offering to buy his co. or asks to license his IP) instead of obliterating him via incomparable resources, experience, contacts, payola, etc. And thus shores up the incentive as well for the entrepreneur to have risked his financial well being in the first place and prove the concept.
In short, the courts, while expensive and inefficient, provide a check on PTO excesses; To successfully enforce a patent you must convince a court that the infringement is real and that the patent is valid beyond simply its PTO signet.
"Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design
Yes, I understood that from your post. (I assume Nathan did too.) I don't agree with you, though. First of all, remember that the rights in question are _not_ basic or fundamental rights. They are the result of the way the patent system was designed. Usually, (esp. these days) the phrase "give up your rights" refers to rights to free speech, privacy and/or anonymity, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and things like that. Those are obviously deserving of protection, and should be though of as intrinsic for sentient life. The right we are talking about here is the right to collect money from people who independently came up with your idea.
/.ers claim that this patent was actually filed after Ebay started running. This would be proof that Ebay came up with their ideas without input from this guy. The case where the independent invention was before the patent is one case where the patent system is fair to the independent inventor, as the patent is disallowed because of prior art. If this happens, it will be exactly what the weasel deserves.
It isn't possible to prove a negative, so someone can't prove they didn't see a patent (or the actual invention, before or after the patent filing). Since there is no way (that I've thought of) to distinguish someone who copied the invention from someone who came up with it independently, the only way to stop an invention from being copied is to treat independent inventors as infringers. The western-capitalist patent system works that way, and so grants the right to collect money from independent inventors. I see that right as a bad side-effect of the system. The system was designed to benefit inventors, but I don't they that is a fair benefit.
What I object to here is someone who didn't contribute anything to Ebay, ever, trying to get money from them. He is legally allowed to do this, but I see it as extortion. No legal system is perfect, and unfortunately the patent system allows this kind of extortion. To take advantage of this characteristic (dare I say flaw or loophole) in the system when it could seriously damage things, is nasty, IMHO. It may be possible to design a system where maximally greedy behaviour by some or all participants leads to optimum levels of happiness (or other form of goodness) for everyone, but the current situation of countries and their laws around the globe is not it. (I think being happy and enjoying life is the most important thing. Further, one of the things that makes me happy is when other people have a fair chance to be happy, which isn't happening in a lot of the third world.)
Additionally, some
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,