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."

6 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. There's No Way... by avalys · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's no way this won't be turned over on appeal. Ebay has enough PR clout that they can easily raise a real stink about this in the mainstream press.

    Maybe this will prove to be the best thing that happened for patent law in recent history. It could lead to some actual productive reforms...

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  2. Jurors. by saden1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing worse than incompetent jurors. The idea of someone being able to patent the processes of auctioning is just appalling. What these jurors need to get through their head is that if something exist in some other form it shouldn't be patentable. I care not for eBay but this is ridiculous.

    --

    -----
    One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
  3. New Business Model . . . by Dausha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the Article:

    "Woolston said he is 'walking on sunshine' over of the favorable verdict. The former technology expert for the CIA has prevailed in patent violation cases with other Internet companies before, including GoTo.com, now Overture Services. He enforced his patents with online car seller AutoTrader.com, which offers auctions as part of its service. He's also in the midst of a patent dispute with Priceline.com." [Emphasis mine]

    When companies sue, lawyers profit. Looks like a profitable e-commerce business model now exists where the e-commerce business is sued for violating questionable patents. What we really need is for the US Supreme Court to overrule the previous ruling that business practices are patentable. This would ease the burden on the USPTO and quash these law suits.

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    1. Re:New Business Model . . . by micq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      though the bash against lawyers seems to have nothing to do with the issue or the rest of your post.

      A common theme on slashdot. It's bad for lawyers to get paid for what they do.

      Here's some others I'm sure we'll see someday:

      "When cars break down, mechanics profit."
      "When bodies break down, doctors profit."
      "When people want homes, realtors profit."
      "When people want cars, dealers profit."
      "When nerds want to be entertained, CmdrTaco profits."

      --
      Snooze and you lose your sushi.
  4. Re:Check your facts by AB3A · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If I had any points I'd mod you down. Your reference's case is irrelevant to this issue.

    The facts are very simple. Allowing patents on business processes was a stupid idea. The only beneficiaries are the folks who can file a submarine patent, watch someone else think of it too, and then after they've made the effort to develop the idea, sue them.

    The $35M verdict is probably peanuts for EBay, but that doesn't lessen the wrongfulness. This is how you kill inventiveness and creativity: By allowing leeches such as this to win.

    --
    Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
  5. Beating to the punch... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Turns out this guy has a lawsuit against priceline as well.

    Odds are none of these companies getting these ridiculous patents thought that someone might beat them to the punch!

    If someone is gonna benefit and make mucho $$$ might as well be that little guy.

    I'm suprised that the big ass companies haven't flip-flopped, "Software patents are a bad idea".

    Oh yeah now they are, sure.