Slashdot Mirror
eBay May Lose 'Buy it Now' Button in Patent Case
Spamicles writes "A judge has delayed his ruling on the eBay patent infringement case. eBay has been involved in a legal dispute over the use of its popular "Buy it Now" button, which allows consumers to skip the bidding and purchase items on eBay directly. The patent suit was filed six years ago by MercExchange L.L.C. In May of 2003, a jury ruled in MercExchange's favor finding that eBay did in fact infringe on the patent, but in 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that MercExchange was not automatically entitled to a court order blocking the offending service, essentially handing a victory down to patent reform advocates. However, the ruling by the Supreme Court does not affect the final judgment of the court."
That makes sense. Yay for software patents!
Doesn't even strike me as a software patent - more of a business process patent.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Ebay vs MercExchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_Inc._v._MercExch ange%2C_L.L.C.
the patent they are apparently fighting over [US Patent 5845265]
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5845265.PN.&OS=PN/58452 65&RS=PN/5845265
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Evidently the people who use these programs want the items you are bidding on more than you do, or it would not matter that they are entering last-minute bids. Enter as your maximum bid the highest possible price you would want to buy the item for, and it won't matter if somebody enters a bid at the last possible moment because you will automatically outbid them.
If you are not willing to do this, chances are the other person wants the item more than you do (i.e. is willing to pay more for it, no matter when they entered their bid) and thus you don't deserve to win it. The system is not broken.
audioLibre - freedom of music
Thus, not only can two people hold very similar patents (because the second patented would not be "novel" and thus not eligible for patent protection), but "independent creation" is not a defense to patent infringement.
mod parent informative
g =facts
I asked Google about the McCoffee. And it told me 300 contradictory things, including that McCoffee was drunk by whoever was on the grassy knoll and if you look closely at footage of the moonlanding, you can see a McCoffee next to a "moonrock." Then Google showed me crotch shots of celebrities getting out of limmos holding McCoffee. In the corner, an Google ad appeared saying "Buy Hot McCoffee Lap from eBay!"
So I gave up on Google and asked Snopes.com. Snopes is the original urban legends guy from the days when Internet was e-mail and news groups. Think of him as Mythbusters long before beries became unfashionable again. Snopes pointed me at this, which he claims is an accurate summary of the incident:
http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&p
As Snopes says, the details of that case were exaggerated, but there's still a strong case for tort reform. I suspect Judge "No Pants" Pearson will be on poster. For an encore Pearson should sue himself for emotional distress for making an ass (no pun intended) out of himself.
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
OK, granted, the article wasn't specific on what the patent was based on, but it seems to me that if you've got a website that intends to SELL something, that somewhere on that page, there should be a button to allow a potential customer to BUY the item. I am going to assume for a moment that the act of BUYING an item is not a patentable concept (I hope this assumption is correct).. If so, what is patented? The color of the button? The exact wording? What the heck? The Patent office is truly out of control.
-Steve Tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Come talk about it on www.bothsidesarewrong.com
Apart from the usage of words how is 'Buy it now' any different from 'Add to Cart'? The process seems exactly the same to me. Maybe this is why I don't have any patents to my name.
> eBay has claimed that they have changed the code in order to prevent any patent violations claimed in the suit, but
> MercExchange lawyers say that they are still entitled to a hearing in order to force eBay to license the patents.
But that's not good enough for MercExchange because they're entitled to a few bucks, no?? I'm surprised Ford hasn't sued GM for making a car that looks similar to theirs. A LAW SUIT OVER A F**KING BUTTON!!! Give me a break!! This is exactly why countries like China, India, Israel and Japan are kicking our ass!! American companies don't innovate anymore, they sue!! Lawyers are destroying this country one suit at a time.
How about "Skip bidding?"
Ironically, this already exists in stock markets (double auctions): Market Orders.
If you wanna bid, you do limit orders. If you want to skip bidding, you do market orders (to pay whatever price the other party wants).
This is a no-brainer---the fact that it's patentable is amazing.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy