Slashdot Mirror
EBay Fined $29.5M in Patent Case
pigreco314 writes "As reported by Washington Post and many others a federal judge Wednesday ordered online auction house eBay to pay $29.5 million to a Virginia inventor (former CIA engineer) who accused the company of stealing his ideas." This case has been going going on for awhile, but this looks to have some finality. Patenting "Buy it Now" is almost as stupid as One Click Shopping.
Actually, if a company doesn't find that their aspect is "patentable" they can file a statutory invention registration under 35 USC 157.
Also, if a company can show that their "aspect" has been made public for more than a year before the filing of the putative patent application, then the patent will be invalidated.
Finally, considering all of eBay's financial wherewithall, it's pretty clear that their isn't any evidence that this process was out their prior to the patenting of the invention.
Remember, in the US, the patent right goes first to those who invent the process/apparatus, not to those who file first, as in most other countries. So, if anything, this protects the "small man" that didn't have the money to hire a patent attorney immediately, or pay the fee to expedite it.
Finally, as you seem to have a dislike for big business, doesn't this case show that the little guy can still win?
Stop undressing me with your eyes. I'm ugly naked.
SCO's letters are SCOX, not SCO
I just had a look at Patent 5,845,265. The bit covering online auctions says:
At the auction date, perspective participants log onto the consignment node auction mode locally or through the consignment node network and await the first good to be auctioned. It is understood that in the best mode of the invention the participant will have a data terminal with a digital to analog converter such as a "sound blaster" and speaker, the digital to analog capability may be used in the auction mode to bring the aural excitement of an auction, e.g., the call of the heckler, the caller and bidders, home to the auction participant. This is discussed in more detail below.
The consignment node takes the first item to be auctioned and posts the image of the good and the good's text record to the participants. The consignment node then posts the opening bid. It is understood that the bid postings may be in a protocol that invokes the generation of an auctioneer's voice at the participant terminals. The participants may then respond with a higher bid. The consignment node mode scans electronically the participants for bids and accepts the highest bid. If bids are tied the consignment node may take the first highest bid by the participants log on order. A particular bidding participant receives a special acknowledgment from the consignment node that her bid was accepted. The consignment node then posts the higher bid to all the electronic auction participants. The consignment node repeats this process until no higher bid is received for a predetermined amount of time and closes the auctioning of that particular good.
Doesn't sound anything like Ebay to me. If the patent is meant to cover every single conveivable form of "competerized auction house" why don't they just say so? If they were really honest they could say "Joe bloggs has thought of something to do with auctions and computers. He isn't going to do anything with it, but has provided enough techno-babble to convince non-technical people that he could do something with it. Therefore, if anyone else tries to do something remotely similar they must give him money."
In fact, the decision of the timing and feasability of any law suit is generally in the hands of an attorney, whether that attorney serves and individual or a company.
Lawyers do not lose $29M when they lose a case. Companies do
You are correct. In general, the lawyers (unless working on contigency) get paid either way, and the IP industry continues to prosper irregardless of outcome. See the clear winner here?
Lawyers do not make or change laws.
Strictly speaking (although not really germane here but interesting nonetheless), this is not entirely true. The Senate is comprised of around 50% lawyers, the House around 30% -- given that they're supposed to be passing lehgislation, this really shouldn't be surprising, of course. Those same corporate lobbyists you decry tend to also be lawyers, as are many of the aides to those same congresspeople.
While I laud your optimism, a bad court decision is a bad court decision, even when it constitutes well-deserved comeuppance for Amazon -- this case is not likely to change ANYTHING. Would a procession of similar legal disasters presage change? Perhaps -- but at what would likely be a terrible cost.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
Why do people always use the wrong words? You can not steal an idea, except perhaps in some far-out science fiction where neuron transplants occur (Spock's brain?).
Now you can copy my idea, you can be inspired by my ideas, you can derive the same idea I had by examining some tangible expression of the idea (e.g., product reverse engineering), or you can have the same idea as me all on your own. The later is actualy the most likely reason why two individuals have the same idea, they just had the same thoughts. Thoughts are not mutually exclusive.
Now, you can steal blueprints, computer printouts, prototypes, webservers, money, or even customers; practically anything that's tangible and where ownership is by nature mutually exclusive. But you can not steal ideas.
If I actually could steal your idea, then three things must be true:
Short of that, it's simply not stealing. So the headline should have more correctly read:
True, the /. crowd likes to complain about patents. And it's likely most of us don't know a lot about the patent process, or the legalities involved. Unfortunately in this case the jury was not made up of Professional Patent Examiners either. It was made up of people who probably have no clue about either the technology being used or the patent process. More than likely they did not raed the relevant U.S. codes, but got each lawyer's interpretation. I don't put a lot of faith in their decision, and I am waiting to see how the appeals play out.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Oregon Health Sciences University has been using the exact same system to sell surplus equipment since at least 1991. When you go to one of their auctions, on some items you have the opportunity to purchase the item before the auction for a set price, or else bid on it once the auction begins. Maybe this bozo went to an OHSU auction before he "invented" this idea.