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."

9 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Guess they'll just have to make it... by GroundBounce · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Buy it later"

    1. Re:Guess they'll just have to make it... by PresidentEnder · · Score: 5, Funny

      How about "Skip bidding?"

      --
      I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
  2. Alternative by kmahan · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Buy it after waiting 1 second" button.

    --
    Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
  3. Or create a different button with the same fxn... by feedmetrolls · · Score: 5, Funny

    Buy it immediately?
    Purchase now?
    Screw the bidding?
    Screw the bidders?
    Screw Flanders?

    --
    You are reading a sig. Cancel or allow?
  4. A Very Simple Summary Breakdown by Nymz · · Score: 5, Funny

    MercExchange patents 'buy it now' - Thank You!
    Ebay negotiates a license - How much you want?
    Ebay doesn't get a license - Whoa! That's too much
    Ebay intentionally uses it anyway - What are they gonna do, sue us?
    MercExchange brings a lawsuit against Ebay - Yes
    Judge rules in favor of MercExchange - I can see your name on the patent
    Judge misapplies injuction process - this stuff is complicated
    Ebay appeals the injuction - HaHa! a technicality
    Judges rule that the injunction was done wrong - I can see the process wasn't followed
    Judges also comment on current patent law - this shit sucks
    MercExchange requests the injunction be applied permanently - we hate Ebay
    Ebay requests postponement until patent is reassessed - No rush, we can wait 10 years
    Judge must now make a decision - damned if I do, damned if I don't

  5. Heh by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heh. Given that, say, the in-game auction house on WoW has an instant buy option too, I wonder how long until they'll want their cut there too.

    And will they take the license fee in game money, since that's all that changes virtual hands? I can just see a party of lawyers riding to Ironforge and Orgrimmar to demand their license fees.

    Well, the dwarves might even pay up, but I'd worry about trying to collect from the Orcs. I doubt anyone explained to Thrall yet how the license system works. And troll tribes tend to kill each other on sight, so I'd advise the patent trolls to stay clear of the Darkspear trolls ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  6. Re:Judicial System: Redo from Start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And lets not forget about hot cups of coffee
    Gah, everything else in your comment is spot on but people always bring the McCoffee thing up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit when it actually wasn't. The coffee was very hot, enough to cause serious burns (she needed skin grafts). They had previously been advised it was dangerously hot but carried on serving at that temperature. The cup it was served in was flimsy and tended to collapse when the top was taken off. In short, it was inherently dangerous to be serving at a drive-through and it was quite reasonable for the court to find them criminally negligent for doing so.
  7. Re:Yeah by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Which hints at the ultimate remedy for this nonsense:
    Shaming.
    When companies engage in blatant absurdity, and try to abuse the legal system in the name of lining their wallets, the online community needs to publicize the fact that these companies suck much pond water.
    After enough negative profit impact from bogus lawsuits, even the most pointy-haired of bosses will get the memo.
    If the gubmint can't do the right thing, then let's rally the market.

    Consider this still-steaming loaf of farce:

    "Our law enforcement resources are seriously misaligned," NBC/Universal general counsel Rick Cotton said. "If you add up all the various kinds of property crimes in this country, everything from theft, to fraud, to burglary, bank-robbing, all of it, it costs the country $16 billion a year. But intellectual property crime runs to hundreds of billions [of dollars] a year."
    http://www.contentagenda.com/CA6452245.html
    RMS torpedoed this one nicely: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
    Unfortunately, money both talks and buys legislation.
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  8. Re:Yeah by GeckoX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about simple rules for obviousness?

    The fact that this can even be patented is frankly asinine.

    If it's not truly original, if it's just stacking a bunch of existing lego pieces together in another configuration, if it's blatantly obvious, then No Fucking Patent!

    What I don't understand is why the court system doesn't get this, why it continues to foster this situation by allowing this crap to go on.

    It's a fucking BUTTON.

    It's NO different when it comes right down to it to walking into a store and buying something from the clerk.

    INVENT something and I'll fully support your right to capitalize and prosper from it. Re-package the fucking wheel again, and try to gain the same protection, and you should have your head forcibly rammed as far up your ass as it will go, and then a bit more just to be sure.

    --
    No Comment.