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""
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
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.
In all seriousness, this is akin to domain prospecting, at least if you stretch logic a little. We have a little nobody taking advantage of a loophole in an attempt to gouge an organization with deep pockets. The /. crowd may instinctively side with the little guy on things like this, but the businesses that employ us need to be protected from this kind of thing.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
and defended those patents ferociously. AT&T even more so. This is nothing new.
Best Slashdot Co
The trust issue is the key to the online patent, not the auction.
Online auctions are obvious, a trustworthy auction is the innovation.
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...
Man, you just scared the hell out of me, this is madness...
> Here's [google.com] an online auction for a bunch
...
> of legos in 1994. It's just the first thing I
> spotted on google groups.
Online auctions via USENET were going on all the time pre-1995. rec.games.video.classic was a common group (which I frequented) that had online auctions. I ran a few myself before Ebay started and took a little of the "database" work (which I had some custom programs I wrote on my Amiga 500 handling) off my hands. Google had a few of my r.g.v.c auctions from 1994 / 1995, and using advanced search, you can find a few even older. For example (not my auction), message ID 23APR199308590840@watson.bms.com
Sometimes, making something everybody and his pet cat does already a little easier is worth patenting. But "a method of holding automated auctions using computers, databases and the Internet to register and link buyers and sellers, and facilitate transactions" sounds a little obvious to anyone who's run a USENET auction before. Hell, most of the USENET auctioneers were using some sort of database system at the time.
-- Rick
Actually, I have to disagree here. Quoting from the article:
So he made a good faith attempt to raise the funding to produce the item listed in the patent, but couldn't get the money for it. Just because he may have made the attempt when there wasn't billions of dollars of capital available for anyone that mentioned the word "Internet" doesn't mean that he should be punished for that fact. My gripe is the folks that file for patents without any intention of ever attempting to implement it.
if( read(this) ) { you = programmer; }