Slashdot Mirror
eBay guilty Of Patent Infringement, Ordered To Pay
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."
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.
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.
Reading back the original discussion is amazing how many posts were far off the mark and how few were right on the button. For one, I didn't see any among the dozens and dozens I read who even mentioned the "buy it now" aspect of the patent...
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.
The article doesn't detail what the other two patents
One of the others is the "Buy Now" button. How can this be pattented is beyond me, tho (i guess some brick-a-brack behind the scenes (I always wanted to use the "brick-a-brack" expression)).
No sig
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.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
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.