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.
If a large corporation like ebay can't win a case brought up against them for infringing an obviously frivolous patent then what chance do the rest of us have? Drastic reform in the uspto is necessary. Since the government started cutting federal funding they have started looking at the organization as a corporation in place to serve their "customers." This is a horrible model for a patent organization, their customers should be every citizen of the country, not just those who file patents. The patent clerks are overburdened and they are rewarded on the basis of how many patents they accept and file, which means any patents they find not suitable are not beneficial to their careers.
Also, how does the court system justify an award of $29.5 million? This seems like a huge amount for such a simple patent. Does the defendant own his own auction house? Is ebay's use of buy it now seriously impacting him financially? This is just absurd.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Jerome Friedman said he would not require eBay to abandon the disputed technology, saying Woolston's lawyers failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the court did not issue an injunction.
If they failed to show that there would be irreparable harm from future use than how did they show that there was harm from prior use? I guess they don't need to prove any harm, they just need to show they own the patent and they get a huge sum of money. Wired's article says that both sides plan to appeal, maybe ebay can get a better deal in this process.
Visualize the world of wine
He was able to defend a patent for how a normal sale works. I guess in the context of an auction it could be novel, but it still seems odd.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
If this type of thing is allowed to continue, it will certainly put a damper on real innovations. Vauge patents will keep many companies from implementing anything for fear of being sued.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWWhy is it that the patent office approves any obvious idea that has existed in the real world for a long time as something new if a computer is involved?
Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
How can you have a Jury on a patent trial?? Of course eBay lost...what person off the street would be able to realise how stupid a patent like this is.
This is like presenting a Jury with DNA evidence:
DNA Expert: "There is a 1/1,000,000,000 chance that this DNA comes from someone else."
Jury: "Holy crap! That guy wasn't 100% certain. Not guilty!"
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
...the judge:
;)
1.) Reduced the jury award from $35 million to $29.5 million. Not a LOT, but a few million here, and a few million there, you're soon talking REAL money.
2.) Did NOT make the case "special" even though the jury found that eBay was a "willful infringer." The judge COULD HAVE tripled the award AND added attorney fees.
3.) Ruled that eBay could STILL maintain their "infringing ways" even though patent law clearly provides that a patent holder has the right to excluded others from practicing their invention. Of course, the reports could have failed to notice that eBay was required to post a bond pending appeal and that that's the reason they can keep "infringing" the patent, at least until the Federal Circuit rules on this in a year or two.
These facts lead one to believe that the judge didn't agree with the jury in this case. While it most certainly will be appealed, I still wonder if the judge is concidering overturning the jury verdict, not withstanding the verdict.
So, while the posted comment seems to make it look like the judge is "going after eBay" and this now has some "finality" it actually appears to be quite the opposite.
And as to it being "stupid" to patent this? I can site 29.5 million reasons it wasn't for the inventor to patent it.
Stop undressing me with your eyes. I'm ugly naked.
"Ideas" are not property, to be bought and sold. And, if you and I invent the same thing at about the same time, but you patent it and I do not, you have essentially stopped me from profitting off my own work, which was most likely equal to the work you did.
Just because two people have the same idea does not mean one stole it from the other.
This is especially true when the patent is about a concept, instead of a method; and double-especially true when the concept is a simple or obvious one.
The rant isn't about patent infringement; it's about how silly patents have become (such as the "concept" patent of "buy it now"), thereby undermining the whole meaning of patents.
Legal 101 there's no in betweens in the law or else it wouldn't be fair.
Since when has the law been about being "fair?"
People shouldn't rant on about something which is not trivial,
Near as I can tell, this patent is trivial, as in, given frivolously to a trivial concept which is neither unique nor innovative.
Now some of you may not agree, but to follow the law to the letter eBay was wrong.
Not really. If the patent office followed the law to the letter, they would not have issued this patent due to its obviousness.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I work for a small company that has managed to survive the tech downturn so far. So, from a small company that currently employs about 25 people, let me just say really loud: this kind of landmine would kill us dead.
Whilst nothing in our systems is so exceptionally original or complicated that it should warrant a patent, this news now means that all the obvious problems we've solved in developing our product so far are potentially vulnerable to being extorted by paper-idea profiteering sleezebags-- and it's all legal and fair according to Uncle Sam.
The only good thing that might come out of this situation is it might wake up america's sleeping legislators and force them to face and solve this situation that is quickly escalating to an environment lethal to REAL innovation.
Why should anyone try to start a business on the internet in this climate? Every idea you come up with is susceptible to having a prior patent claim the way things seem to be currently working. It's already bloody hard enough to start a business without having to worry that the processes you want to implement are owned by USPTO licenced crook who is going to wait until it hurts-not-to-pay to come collect on you.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.