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
The jury said that eBay's "Buy It Now" option, which allows auction surfers to do the same thing, infringed on Woolston's patent.
From: Another patent of his (February 1999)...
Auctioning an uniquely identified item (e.g., used goods or collectibles) with a computerized electronic database of data records on the Internet includes creating a data record containing a description of an item, generating an identification code to uniquely identify the item, and scheduling an auction for the item at the computerized database of records. The item is presented for auction to an audience of participants through a worldwide web mapping module executing in conjunction with the computerized database. The data record connotes an ownership interest in the item to a seller participant on the computerized electronic database of data records. The worldwide web mapping module translates information from the data record on the computerized database of records to a hypertext markup language (HTML) format for presentation through the Internet. Bids are received on the item from participants on the Internet through an auction process that executes in conjunction with the computerized database of data records. Auctioning of the item is terminated when the auction process reaches predetermined criteria. The auction participant is notified of the high bid in the auction process. The unique identification code is provided to the auction participant with the high bid to uniquely identify the item.
Seems like this fool was trying to go after EBay by filing patents that were VERY similar to what EBay had already been doing. Nevermind "Buy it Now", he wanted it all.
The lawyers are going to make money, both parties are considering an appeal.
-EB
Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?
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.
E-Bay will now be charging a 15,000% "We Got Sued" tax on all completed bids over the price of $0.01
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
I hope that the other cases against eBay are not bolstered by this win.
a y&submit3.x=0&submit3.y=0
o &submit3.x=0&submit3.y=0 )
eBay has hundreds of lawsuits against them currently.
Their stock dropped like mad after this as well http://quote.money.cnn.com/quote/quote?symbols=eb
But.. on the good front, so did SCO's ( http://quote.money.cnn.com/quote/quote?symbols=sc
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
The patent system may be stupid, but he ain't if he made $29.5 million!
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
NSFW...until someone sues this old coot for infringing on their patented idea to sue companies for patent infringement of frivilous patents.
Wooo man will the judges have fun with that one.
Posting as directed.
i can just imagine what it would have been like in the past if the patent office was what it is like now...
horsenbuggy: your car uses four wheels!
ford: oops
$29.5M found in favor of horsenbuggy.
Why 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
Yeah, by all means, let's not look at the merits of the case or the precident it sets, as long as the little guy won against the big company with the deep pockets.
I can only hope you're being sarcastic with your comment, but I can't really tell.
They hear me through a receptor in my teeth.
"Patenting "Buy it Now" is almost as stupid as One Click Shopping." Patenting something that gets you 30 mil can't be too stupid!!! M.D. Inc.
Someone will undoubtedly reply to this saying they have patented posting on /. patent stories.
You agree to the terms of this post and
shall pay the patent holder a sum not less
than U.S. $1,000,000,000 as settlement for
violating my patent for WWW-mediated discussions.
Thank you,
W00t
he has a verified paypal account!
Intelligent Life on Earth
- You click it and it charges your credit card on a random date and sends you the merchandise whenever the seller feels like it!
Or maybe not. Sshhhhh... no stealing .... sshhhh
If you can guess any significant aspect of new buisnesses just patent it and wait.
How long before a few of these folks start pushing for patent extensions to match the copyright extentions?
----
Before there can be a proper information economy we're going to need a scarcity.
Look at his posting history. He's writing the ultimate Slashdot adjective haiku, one entry at a time.
I've decided to file a patent for "using a numeric error code to indicate a failed transaction in the HTTP protocol." That way, I can nail every web server in the world for a $10 licensing fee and get outrageously rich! Muahahahah!
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
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
I hear that you can avoid litigation yourself by leasing his IP for $699 for small auction sites, $1499 for sites utilizing 20 servers or more.
Back in my retail days we had management come give us lectures about 'suggestive selling' or 'upselling'.
"Would you like fries with that?" is obviously the most famous, but "do you want to buy any blank tapes?" is another classic at mall music stores. (Who actually goes there any more?). Or "would you like an extended warranty with that?"
Anyway, I'd thought 'forced' selling might be fun, unique model for ecommerce. Put product X in your cart, checkout, and you've instead purchased product Y. I thought this might be a good model to patent, then I realized the local Burger King has been practicing this for years already.
creation science book
...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.
Boy, this joke never gets unfunny, does it? What it is about you geeks and recursiveness?
Somebody please mod the parent "redundant," since the same fucking joke has been made in every patent story for the last year?
(Waiting patiently for the guy who posts "Oh yeah? I'm going to patent the idea of patenting the idea of suing companies." &c. &c. &c.)
I may be interpreting the original patent wrong (IANAIPL), but it seems like the intent of the patent was to establish a series of franchised nodes throughout the US through which consumers would put up items, buy items outright, or bid on auctioned items. Sort of like a little kiosk at a local store that you would go to visit (the patent used the example of a man visiting a card store and putting up one of his cards for sale, while the owner was using it as an online storefront), complete with a digital camera and a printer to put out a bar code that could be affixed to the product to track the order (I'm guessing for purposes of sales fraud). It doesn't even seem to be very similar to EBay's business model.
:)
Then again, I could be misinterpreting it
I don't understand how this affects "Buy it Now" since "Buy it Now" takes you out of the whole auction format, whats the difference then of me clicking on "But it Now", or "Add to Cart" on Amazon? Business Process Patents are just plain stupid, they are going to ruin innovation.
I'm going to register this buy it now idea with the European Patent office so when the wasters in Brussels decide to allow software patents I can have 29 million dollars as well.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I guess it's a good thing that nobody has patented the concept of going after deep pockets with frivolous IP patent lawsuits as a business plan! Everyone would be getting sued!
The CB App. What's your 20?
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.
former CIA engineer
Of course it's a dumb patent.
I believe I'm the only slashdotter to think so. Most others just want to reform or eliminate "software patents".
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Conversely, this case can be used by those trying to show how the patent laws give the little guy a chance to defend themselves from big companies. The fact that ebay loses a suit like this gives credence to the idea that we have rule by law...laws that apply to all.
If the patent wasn't frivolous, and really was the case of a fortune 500 company stealing an idea from a small firm, I would be cheering.
Those who can do. Those who can't claim they did and sue.
You made a blanket criticism of the US and then a second statement that indicated you did not understand the gist of the lawsuit (which had little to do with selling at a fixed price but rather the "buy it now device").
You concluded with a question about patent office employees ffs (which I assume means "for fuck's sake" but I can't be sure) which also conveyed little understanding of the matter, and was more of a weak punchline to your post than a point of argument or rhetoric.
In short, your post did no more to engender interesting discussion than your average goatse link, and you deserve the moderation you got, as I deserve the moderation I will get.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
MoFscker
At least, the holes were, as part of a method of allowing the patties to cook faster and absorb more juices, or something very much along those lines.
Google for it if ya need proof. I would for you, but I go on vacation in precisely 27 seconds.
And if so, could it be construed as a conflict of interest? Perhaps they could have settled out of court with the "buy it now" option?
All these years, the CIA was out gathering and grabbing information. Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot.
[CONSPIRACY]Hmm. Maybe Ebay is actually another "secret" government agency meant to compete with the CIA. Think about it. Ebay has the names, addresses of how many people?[/CONSPIRACY]
Maybe this will be a good time to see if Area-51 will be up for auction this year.
!@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin
My company recently applied for two patents for which I am named the "inventor". the patents are pretty obvious ideas. In my opinion, there is nothing there worthy of a patent, in other words, there is nothing that is not obvious about the ideas.
While speaking with the patent attorney and describing the details of the "invention" he said that his job is to make the patent as broad and general as possible (read vague) to make it easier to litigate an infringement. You could see his mind working as he worked out the patent application in his head.
While I agree we need patents to protect intellectual property, patenting obvious ideas, not even actual working inventions, is amazing. Customers have been able to "Buy it Now" at any retail store in the world since the dawn of time! Why is it that when we get a computer involved we need a patent and ~$30 million USD in compensation for this idea?
The attorney would constantly look at other things we were doing and ask about them. The only plus to this is that I'll have my name on a few patents soon, if you call that a good thing. I was also told that if in a few years the need to litigate the patents arose I would be deposed. I'm imagining myself at a different job in a different location getting a letter saying I need to be present at a law office some where!
The Drive thru window The HOV lane
Then I guess you don't justify RIM suing everyone and their brother for "violating" their similar patents? RIM is as bad as any company out there in attempting to enforce silly patents to keep competitors from developing similar products.
I invented "Read More...". You all owe me bigtime.
My blog can kick your blog's ass
The problem with Waterloo is all the nazi war criminals hiding there. And its a hotbed for the skinhead/neo-nazi movement.
Though it makes for a cool Oktoberfest.
And lots of ducks at the university. And a team mascot modelled after a condom logo.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I'm going to patent a method of breathing air and charge everyone in the world a one time setup fee of 1 cent.
How many people are there in the world?
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
The jury said that eBay's "Buy It Now" option, which allows auction surfers to do the same thing, infringed on Woolston's patent.
No worries. Since there is no single instance in time, how can one claim to have a patent to buy something "now"?
ebay plays the exact same game here. They are banning people from using vauge e-commerce buzz phrases from advertisements regarding to ebay, claiming a patent. They have even started a business group to sell the rights to use these words. They get what they deserve./ m08/i07/s0 2 (the banning)2 4/rtr10094 38.html (about the selling of words)
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y03
http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/06/
I clicked on the article and all it really says is that the jury found that eBay willingly infringed on his patent. If we take this to actually be true then this settlement sounds about right. The Buy Now feature is something that eBay uses to attract people. By attracting people eBay makes money, tons of money. If they did see this first somewhere else then they should pay that person for his work.
The $30m is stated as punitive, a pretty good slap on the wrist. Maybe next time eBay will actually license a patent from the little guy and save some money in the long run rather than have a free lunch
Have you only been here for a year? ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
i'm serious. the way patents are going is out of hand. a new, more stringent patent system is probably needed, and it seems the best way to achieve that is to simply scrap the USPTO and start over with it.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
The coffee lawsuit versus mcdonald's was not exactly frivolous. If you look up the details you'd probably see that.
I also think the fat kids lawsuit was more about health nuts wanting to admit that their food was unhealthy and made you fat (through warning labels) than about the money.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Customer goes into CVS
Oh good, Pepto Bismo, just what I need.
"We're sorry sir, but due to US business patent laws, you're not allows to buy that Now."
Uh what?
"Sir, you'll have to put it back on the shelf and come back Later."
When is Later?
"Later would be not Now, say tommorrow."
But, but, my stomache...
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Having a set price for an item has ALWAYS been obvious. From the begining of sales to now, INCLUDING 1995!!!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
It seems like a lot of people are filing patents that simply combine 2 or more already existing technologies. This case is basically a patent combining online auction with online purchase, two separate things that the patent owner didn't invent, but simply called the combination his invention. Then there's the RIM case where NTP patented sending email over a wireless device. NTP invented neither email or wireless devices. There's also a guy trying to sue people for compression in streaming video, who didn't invent either streaming video or compression. It seems to me a patent that talks about combining 2 technologies in a vaugue way is not fair. All you're doing is patenting an application of an existing technology. It seems unfair to be able to restrict the use of a technology for which you don't own the patent by coming up with a specific application of the technology and patenting it. For instance, if I owned the patent for a streaming video system, and someone came along and sued me because I decided to use compression technology to stream the video, they're limiting what I can do with my own invention.
Vote for Pedro
"How exactly did they steal them?"
"They implanted radio transceivers in my skull while I was sleeping, and listened to my thoughts, your honor."
"How do you know this?"
"I used to work for the CIA."
I'll bet he was serving as his own council, too.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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."
Patent for:
A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.
First, I'll sue the government for issuing / infringing it. Then i'll go after all those minor offenders who've been using it to buy / exchange goods and services.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Haven't I read all these comments before? Oh, that's right, it was on every other Slashdot story about patents.
It amazes me that John Q. Slashdot believes he knows more about whether a patent is legitimate, non-obvious, applicable, etc. than professional Patent Examiners. How many of you have actually ever read the relevant U.S. Codes?
Sears has been doing this for YEARS! I'd think they own the prior art on this one ;)
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.
This situation is getting out of control with all these lawsuits. It's going to turn into a mountain of litigation and tie up the court systems.
Browse the Information Directory
Surely there must be some prior art here. I vaguely remember some /.ers bringing up some in the original story.
Anybody got anything?
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
to slashdot mods everywhere: We don't mind if you inject your opinions in your articles, so long as we agree!
:P
Meh, whatever.
I know you were joking, but I want my Karma, so I'm going to reiterate your post in a serious tone.
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:
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?
"obviously frivilous" how? Why would you possibly imagine a patent is obviously frivilous after surviving a jury trial? Certainly, the patent may, in fact, be invalid, but where do you come off suggesting that the patent is invalid at all, let alone obviously frivilous?
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?
You are confusing apples with oranges. "Harm" comes in many flavors, and the law remedies the harm of patent infringement in various ways.
One way, that is at law, is an award of money damages to the plaintiff for the infringement, in no case less than a resaonable royalty as determined by the Court. However, sometimes a plaintiff cannot be made whole by money damages alone, in which case such irreparable harm is remediable by an injunction -- a court order to stop practicing the patent.
This result is unusual, because irreparable harm is usually presumed, not irrebuttably, in a patent case. Ebay must have satisfied the Court that it reasonably relied upon an effective license due to the conduct of the other side.
But at least Bezos had the balls to call for reform afterward. Straight from the horses mouth. But does anybody honestly think eBay would do anything that would harm their precious portfolio? Somehow I can't see Meg coming out against the whole patent system.
Robert Heinlein made a comment about the patent process in one of his books, perhaps The Door Into Summer.
He said: "You try to claim the whole wide world in your patent and the examiners try to chisel you down."
Very apt about the claiming the whole wide world, but obviously patent examiners today don't chisel anything down. Maybe it used to be different before all these software and business method patents. The system is swamped and has started handing out patents like toilet paper. The patent office should be scrutinizing patent applications. If it is stupid, reject it. If it's valid but too broad, nail them down to a very specific non-obvious innovation and let the patent apply to that. So many patents these days are nonsense.
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
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.
I am not saying there is prior art, simply that the idea is trivial. It is specific, for the most part, to our company and industry. When I sat down that fateful day of invention and spent all of about 30 minutes hashing the idea out and a couple of weeks actually executing it I never thought a patent would come about. I guess I always think of inventions as something that is new and unique. An inventor needs a way of protecting the idea from others so she applies for a patent.
The ideas, like many others, are very patentable. It is my view however, that trivial ideas, such as "Buy it Now", and "one-click checkout" are silly ideas to patent. Patents should be reserved for real innovations like light bulb. I have no problem with my company pursuing these patents, I simply feel they ideas are trivial and not worthy of a patent. My company is simply attempting to protect their intellectual property like any other major corporation regardless of how trivial I feel those ideas are.
You'd have 60 million dollars.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Here's a legitimate question. How many of these frivilous patents are sitting out there like landmines that people just don't know about?
How can you willfully infringe a patent you wouldn't reasonably expect to exist?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Hey dumbass, it's only a crime in America! If you don't live in America, it's not a crime.
Honestly, there should be an IQ test before you can post here.
I'd worry more about the intelligence community sniffing around. It's hard to get off a list like that.
...with a Beowulf cluster of patent lawyers!
Sorry - wrong joke.
- Rick
No, I admit the post was flamebait by a troll. The ideal of the rule of law being evenly applied has never been part of new think. The whole point of new think is that justice can always be bought. Justice is a simple matter of the forceful application of the power of one's group. Might is right.
/. for that matter is that foundations of the rule of law is no longer applicable. Once new think completely takes hold, then we can get down to the game of accumulating power and rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
One of the big points behind the current mass movement of KaZaA, Napster and
Only practicianers of old think could be happy seeing a bad laws enforced evenly. eBay is both powerful and extremely popular. The fact that they got sniped is a good sign that the rule of law is being applied.
That does not mean that spiderweb of IP laws as they stand now is good. This was a joke patent. Hopefully, this and other publicized IP cases will work their way through to a general change in the law. The worst thing I can see happening is for the bad set of laws to lead to selective application of the law.
The parent and this post are both flamebait because they say that the ideals of the rule of law and property rights are worth defending. Public admission of such archaic beliefs has no place in the new revolution. The new revolution is about the power of mass think. That is the power of P2P. Nikki says "Might makes Right!"
The point of courts is to decide between right and wrong regardless of laws, not to decide whether or not a law was broken.
That's why laws are meaningless until they are proven in court.
Courts overrule politicians. Politicians can pass laws, but courts uphold them or not.
Patent laws are upheld because a court upheld them, not because a politician granted them. If all the court did was "did you break the law? yes? ok - GUILTY" then it wasn't doing its job properly.
Therefore the court/jury *is* who is to blame for this judgement.
Patents can EASILY be overturned by a court.
Infact Australia is pretty much allowing anything by inventors without an attorney, trusting the inventor to be honest. This has been covered by slashdot I believe.
But at the end of the day, the courts should seperate the wheat from the chaff!
So stop blaming the USPTO for everything. Approval is only the FIRST step, NOT the last!
If something has been displayed, even by the inventor himself, publicly anywhere in the world, it is called PRIOR ART.
Any Prior Art even 1 second before the patent was filed (or claimed in the US) invalidates a patent.
It's the law.
--Drug prohibition laws help support terrorism.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Using your theory, the person who spent hours laboring trying to develop the universal joint wouldn't be able to apply for a patent. After all, he just took a bunch of gears and stuff (which he didn't invent) and threw in some joint parts and an axle (which he didn't invent) and called it new.
Granted, buy it now + auction is extremely trivial, but how do you define the level of complexity required before it's no longer an obvious invention?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
This is probably the same guy that sued McDonald's for spilling hot coffee in his own damn lap
t m ) about the incident:
Her.
It wasn't frivolous... she had to get skin grafts done on her entire inner thighs and legs because she had 3rd degree burns. That coffee was more than hot, it was scalding to the point of being able to melt skin. Not to mention she was wearing sweat pants... I cringe at the thought of that.
Here's an excerpt from a website ( http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.h
two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
With a revenue of $2.85 billion, $29.5 million is a great deal for eBay if they did copy the idea for fixed price auctions (how is that even an auction anyway??). Whether or not eBay knew what they were doing, they banked it well.
claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.
Funny. I would consider that a feature.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Probably the worst thing to come out of judgements like this is, that for every Slashdotter who condemns the result, there are another 1000 people somewhere out there who is inspired to try to do the same thing.
"I can't be bothered buying the product, I'll just keep eating the free samples"
"The difference between pornography and erotica is the lighting" - Woody Allen
So, you list a law firm as your web page and you do not emphasis the significant distinction between a a preliminary and permanent injunction?
I didn't emphasize many important distinctions, true -- in fact, I wasn't addressing that point at all. With all due respect, I didn't think it relevant, and wasn't inclined to write a treatise about irrelevant things.
I don't see anywhere a relationship between irreparable harm and a permanent injunction.
So look deeper. Consider actual sources of law, many of which are available on the internet, rather than sources of summaries of the law.
Section 283 of the patent act provides that injunctions (permanent and termporary) will issue in accordance with "the principles of equity," which is a legal term referring not to general niceness, but to a particular body of law --equity-- which requires "irreparable harm" as a precondition to the issuance of an injunction. While a showing of patent validity gives rise to a presumption of irreparable harm, the presumption can be rebutted by evidence of record. It is rare a permanent injunction is denied, but facts could exist where it would be inappropriate.
Didn't see the statement "On the other hand"
Sorry....:)
"The difference between meat and fish is that if you beat your fish it dies"
Sure seems easy to me. You have to devote much of your time navigating a minefield of patents--the lawyers are the only ones getting ahead here. Short term or long term, patents retard development and that's easy to see.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
If you're on a jury and you're told someone has patented breathing, and you're given evidence that a person is breathing, and you're asked if he infringed the patent, then the answer is obvious, you don't have to think about it. The answer is, "yes", of course the breathing person is infringing the patent.
But it's the wrong question. What you should be asked is, is this patent nutty. Then you can say, "yes, it's nutty, it's invalid."
I read three newspaper articles on this, and not a single one said whether the jury was asked to rule whether the patent in question was frivolous. And that is the key question.