Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

eBay guilty Of Patent Infringement, Ordered To Pay

Posted by timothy on from the cure-worse-than-disease dept.

theodp writes "Remember that patent infringement lawsuit brought against eBay? A U.S. District Court jury just ordered the online auction house to pay $35 million for infringing on patents for programs and procedures to operate an Internet-based auction."

7 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Jury Nullification by seann · · Score: 4, Informative

    Maybe this looks like a job for:
    Jury Nullification

    --
    I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
  2. Federal PR by fm6 · · Score: 4, Informative

    PR clout? Federal appeals court judges serve for life. Once appointed by the Prez and confirmed by the Senate, they can't be removed short of impeachment, which is pretty rare. Makes it hard to apply political pressure to them.

  3. From the Article by aridhol · · Score: 2, Informative
    Last year a judge ruled that the third patent, covering online auction technology, is invalid and unenforceable.
    The article doesn't detail what the other two patents are, but this one wasn't one of them.
    --
    I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  4. Check your facts by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1, Informative

    Corporate American and its minions have been harping on this case for years as an example of lawsuits run amok. Poor Stella has been mercilessly vilified in this campaign to make it impossible for us to protect ourselves against the negligence and outright crimes of large corporations.

    This was no frivolous lawsuit. For the facts, see this.

    --
    No sig? Sigh...
  5. The gory details by AB3A · · Score: 4, Informative
    For those who are curious, the actual verdict is here, and the patent in question is 5,845,265

    --
    Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
  6. Complete and utter bull crap by spumoni_fettuccini · · Score: 2, Informative

    That decision is ludicrous. How about if I go and patent a machine with four wheels and an engine, never bother to test or use it and sue everybody for royalties. Why, oh why are we judged by a jury of our peers not smart enough to get out of jury duty? BTW I do answer the call when it comes [$15 a day woot!].

    --
    -- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
  7. Buy a judge! by fm6 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Buying a federal judge is hard. Not impossible. But be very careful when you hand that envelope over. Always some silly FBI guy trying to make a name for himself.

    Buying a President is easier, I admit. Just give him a "campaign contribution". But so you get your favorite judge on the bench. So what? One they have that lifetime tenure, federal judges tend to quickly develop a nasty sense of independence.

    Consider Richard Nixon. He managed to appoint no less than 4 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not one of those justices voted in his favor when his most important case came in front of them.

    If you have any actual evidence that Microsoft fixed any of its cases, let's see it. Otherwise, spare us your glib ignorance.