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""
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?
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?
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 cleverScrew it, patent breathing...
quicker return, everyone can be sued immediately...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
patent 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.
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
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
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
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.
That's false. It is trademarks you must defend. Patents one can sit on until someone else builds a market on your patent and then sue them. Not nice, but valid.
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."
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.
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); }
I suggest you read the article:
Woolston took steps to protect his patents almost immediately after he got his first one in 1998--No. 5,845,265, covering a method of creating a marketplace for used or collectible goods over the Internet.
I.e. he was aware of patent infringments, and he has acting on them for several years now.
(Not that it really matters -- as others pointed out, your argument was related to trademarks, not patents)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Erhmm, heard of "prior art" ;)
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.
The trust issue is the key to the online patent, not the auction.
Online auctions are obvious, a trustworthy auction is the innovation.
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...
(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.
Read the article.
He was in discussions with Ebay, they were aware.
He's also been in contact with other online auction sites.
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).
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 ?
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.
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.
BUSTED! Im QUITE sure Ebay doesnt have items 3&4, they dont deal in bar codes because they dont deal with the items directly.
1. A system for presenting a data record of a good for sale to a market for goods, said market for goods having an interface to a wide area communication network for presenting and offering goods for sale to a purchaser, a payment clearing means for processing a purchase request from said purchaser, a database means for storing and tracking said data record of said good for sale, a communications means for communicating with said system to accept said data record of said good and a payment means for transferring funds to a user of said system, said system comprising:
a digital image means for creating a digital image of a good for sale;
a user interface for receiving textual information from a user;
a bar code scanner;
a bar code printer;
a storage device;
a communications means for communicating with the market; and
a computer locally connected to said digital image means, said user interface, said bar code scanner, said bar code printer, said storage device and said communications means, said computer adapted to receive said digital image of said good for sale from said digital image means, generate a data record of said good for sale, incorporate said digital image of said good for sale into said data record, receive a textual description of said good for sale from said user interface, store said data record on said storage device, transfer said data record to the market for goods via said communications means and receive a tracking number for said good for sale from the market for goods via said communications means, store said tracking number from the market for goods in said data record on said storage device and printing a bar code from said tracking number on said bar code printer.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
if eBay had bought the patent, and then filed lawsuits?
Best Slashdot Co
I hold 26 patents, and you are all infringing on them. The following are my intellectual property, so stop using them without paying licencing: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y, and Z. My patent for the comma is pending, so be ready to pay for that, too.
That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
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?
Different dates.
He applied before those others existed, it took them 3 years to approve/grant his patent.
He can't do anything to infringers until the patent has been granted.
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?
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
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.
- 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
Longer answer: He did. eBay was negotiating to buy his patents when they first started up, but instead just went right ahead with their site. This guy is a patent attorney (i.e. he IS a lawyer) so I am sure he is aware of the law surrounding this issue. And just because it made the news now doesn't mean it just happened.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.
... 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
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.
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!!!
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.
You (and almost everyone else commenting on this topic) should read a primer on what constitutes a patentable invention.
Here is one:
http://arti.indiana.edu/ott/inventors/034a.html
... because, afterall, good ol' Al did invent the internet!
~ now you know
This is how I read it as well. Most of the independent claims are pretty explicit in that they define the system as having to include client peripherals such as bar code scanners and/or digital cameras and/or printers etc.
Also, I think the guy tried too hard to use "patentese" to obfuscate the obviousness of his concept. I think he lost some of the meaning his the translation to "apparatus [of wordy double speak description]" when he was just describing an ordinary computer. Either that or maybe he was really trying to describe a system of proprietary terminals (like Bloomberg machines) in which case this probably shouldn't have such broad applicability.
Even if the patent covers the entire concept of online auctions as we know them, I wonder how practical it really is? eBay may provide the auction infrastructure but sellers and buyers are responsible for whether and how they scan pictures, enter text, and print copies. How is eBay expected to know and be responsible for whether a particular customer owns a printer or scanner?
On the other hand, eBay did want to buy this patent. Was this a precautionary action against frivolous lawsuits or did they intend to use it against competitors? They'll have a tough time convincing a court that it should be declared invalid if it can be convincingly argued that they were hoping to buy it to launch lawsuits of their own.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
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.
says the owner of patent #1282211112: Method for online trolling.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
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.
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
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
Thus, an infringer may claim that plaintiff's delay in bringing suit caused the infringer to believe that plaintiff would not object to defendant's infringing conduct. Based on this belief, defendant continued the infringing activity, thereby substantially increasing potentially recoverable damages. This would constitute material prejudice in the form of economic harm.
This would seem to apply to most "submarine" type patents, such as hyperlinks, DDR etc., maybe even GIF if you get a sympathetic judge (although probably not). So how come I've never heard this mentioned before?
(perhaps I should stop hiding under that rock...)
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...
--- What
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
no case for two reasons:
Prior art = fidonet auctions, all done before the explosion of what we call the internet.
his patent consists of barcodes, in otherwords his idea requires that eBay actually possess the items being auctioned. they obviously dont.
no case.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
"We expect to be vindicated at trial....they are rank infringers," said the rank opportunist.
-- dR.fuZZo
But please note that this defense only limits the possible judgement. The patent itself is still valid and enforceable, thus this defense has to be applied on a case by case basis, unlike trademark where once it's gone, it's gone.
Basically it says that if you let the neighbors kids run all over your flower beds for years and then one day finally get sick of it and sue them you can't go back to the begining of time to collect for every flower they ever trampled. Since you had allowed them to do it for years without complaint you willfully gave up the right to collect for earlier incidents and any attempt to do so would be out of malice.
That does NOT mean you gave up any rights of ownership to your flowerbed and can't keep the kids off it in the future.
KFG
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.
My guess is that it means that the buyer can put it up for auction again immediately.
"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.
Better phrased: not valid but legal.
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.
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
whew - at least i can get by with lower-case letters and some punctuation.
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
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....
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!
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.
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 think what bothers me is that in the fast-paced world of the dot com boom it took three years for the patent application to be granted. In those years, while the patent application was secret, Omidyar turned his idea into a huge business that is one of the few internet success stories of the time. I am sure that Woolston feels justified in defending his patent. I am sure that EBay feels justified that the patent doesn't apply. In the end, they both may be right; the patent system is broken when it ignores any attempt at identifying "obviousness", allows any real-word process to be transported to the internet and considered an "innovation", takes years for patents to be granted, allows monopolies to exist for over a decade, and allows business process patents to exist in the first place.
Off topic, but if I read another "i'm going to patent 'breathing'" posts I think my head might explode.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
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
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.
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?
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.
Actually, that's not quite true either. In most states, if you allow the public access to your property without restriction for some arbitrary period (usually 7 years), you lose the right to keep them off; I forget the legal term but it amounts to losing the access to the public domain.
That's why -- I think it's Rockafeller Square in NYC -- is cordoned off one day a year, to prevent it from falling into public access.
I used to live near a road that this had happened to -- the county owned the property that for decades everyone had cut thru (to avoid a long hairpin in the main road) and one day the county decided to chain it off. That lasted about a week, ie. until someone filed a complaint with the state. The county had to take the chain down and let people continue driving across the property, because legally they'd already lost it to public access.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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
Hey, wasn't me who used trampling a flower bed as the analogy.. :)
General point being, tho, that there are lots of ways to lose rights to something. Personally I think any patent not enforced in its first year should be lost. Computer-related stuff is the least of it. Check out drug patents someday!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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
Well, seeing as ebay was negotiating with him to buy the patents as early as 2000 (before the law suit) I don't really think that the doctrine laches applies here either. Although there is no time limit for laches to kick in either, one of the tests that the court uses to determine if it applies is if the patent holder delayed six years- which this guy clearly didn't.
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.
People who can't, sue.
Don't read this!
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.
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.
listen here:
http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/hud00058rad/http://ww w.cnet.com/radio/playlist/live.asx
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.
For using a technology he doesn't have a patent on to create a patent.
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.
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.
Time limits: I started to say "one year on software" but got sidetracked :) ... at the rate software changes these days, I think that's plenty.
Tho actually I agree with you that patenting business models and mathematical algorisms is somewhere downstream from absurd. Like math or sales methods change just because someone applies it in some particular way?? Occurs to me that this patent, if applied literally, also affects every meatspace retailer who uses any sort of POS/inventory setup that includes images of goods in stock (where's the line between an electronic catalog, and the same catalog printed out?), and a barcode for each item. You can see how ridiculous THAT could get!
Back to time limits -- maybe there should be a limit on how long the patent holder has to start doing something *useful* with the patent. Point being that a patent one has done nothing but sit on should become void after a certain timespan, whether one was hoping for an infringer to sue or not.
Ack, there are just too many corner cases, especially wrt computer-anything. Argh!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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
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 ,