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.
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?
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
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."
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.
The trust issue is the key to the online patent, not the auction.
Online auctions are obvious, a trustworthy auction is the innovation.
(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).
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...
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!
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.
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!!!
says the owner of patent #1282211112: Method for online trolling.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
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....
listen here:
http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/hud00058rad/http://ww w.cnet.com/radio/playlist/live.asx