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""
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
You are confusing patents and trademarks. You must defend your trademarks, or you will lose it. With a patent you can let infringment slide as long as you want, and so long as the patent hasn't expired still sue. Case in point: the gif patent
(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.
It is true that a trademark must be defended or lost, but that does not imply there are no "snooze and lose" aspects to patents. In fact, the original poster is somewhat correct. The doctrine of laches. Patentees against whom the laches defense has been successfully invoked are barred from collecting only those damages that accrued prior to filing suit.
The defense contains two elements:
1) The patent holder delayed bringing suit and that delay was unreasonable and inexcusable; and
2) The alleged infringer suffered materially prejudicial harm from the delay.
The doctrine is supported by caselaw: A.C. Auckerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke, 150 U.S. 193 (1893).
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!
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!!!
Both of the above statements are wrong. The Jury does not have the power to have a law re-examined or repealed by issuing a verdict. However, the Jury DOES have the power, and the right, to find a defendent "Not Guilty" for any reason. Judges and Attorneys don't really like this, and Judges will usually try to dismiss Jurors if they express disagreement with the law as written before the trial, but once the Jury issues a Not Guilty verdict, they're pretty much stuck with it.
This actually happens, too. The most famous case in which the Jury blatantly refused to apply the law was the trial of William Penn for sedition in London in 1670. The Magna Carta reserved the right of conviction to Juries only, and a few brave men withstood imprisonment and starvation in the face of an angry judge trying to force them to change their verdict. The jurors, however, would not relinquish their right under Common Law to decide the verdict, and would not find a man guilty for peacefully holding a religious assembly, Conventicle Act or not.
William Penn later came to America, and founded Pennsylvania. He advocated the idea that a panel of Juror-peers would be the final arbiter of the law, and this was encoded into the U.S. Constitution and Law in this country. The institution of the Jury as the final check/balance on the Government has been eroded over time in this country, but there are efforts to bring it back. The Fully-Informed Jury Association is one organization which seeks to educate Jurors of their rights, responsibilities, and powers, as well as restore their political function. Common Sense Justice is an organization in South Dakota with a FIJA amendment on the state election ballot this fall. Read up on Fully-Informed Juries, and if you are called to serve as a Juror, take your rights and responsibilities seriously.
listen here:
http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/hud00058rad/http://ww w.cnet.com/radio/playlist/live.asx