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.
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!!!
...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
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
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
Just chew on some aluminum foil - that temporarily short-circuits the transmitter.
Note that I said temporarily. In order to keep them from hearing you all the time, you've got to chew on the foil all the time.
That, or rip all your teeth out with a rusty set of vicegrips or light an M80 and stick it in your mouth.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
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.
...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.
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!
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/
"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.
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: