marcn
|
posted on May 27, 2003 04:18:05 PM new
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20030527/ap_on_hi_te/ebay_lawsuit
|
auctionace
|
posted on May 27, 2003 05:05:51 PM new
Now the appeals process begins. If I was ebay I'd try to bargain it down to 20 million and settle out of court.
http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/tech/kcswanson/10089823.html
[ edited by auctionace on May 27, 2003 05:52 PM ]
|
chris30
|
posted on May 27, 2003 08:55:18 PM new
The real problem is with the Patent. What if the "patent holder" refuses to allow eBay to license the patents?
|
reamond
|
posted on May 28, 2003 05:17:23 AM new
If I recall, a previous article about this case stated that one of the patent claims was thrown out and is being appealed by the plaintiff. It implied that the patent claim disallowed would in fact cover all of eBay's services.
If the plaintiff prevails through the appeals process things will get very interesting.
Every large and established company out there will be clamoring for Congress to modify the business methods patent system if this guy wins.
And those companies such as Amazon that have been quietly filing business method patents will argue the opposite.
|
msincognito
|
posted on May 28, 2003 06:45:23 AM new
I have been following this case, and this decision is HUGE, irregardless of the dollar figure. The problem is that eBay's really behind the 8-ball now. The judge may reduce the award, but they're stuck with the finding of fact that they stole proprietary software.
They certainly can't afford to settle at this point and leave that hanging out there. They have to convince the appellate court that the original judge and jury were so wrong that the whole thing should be thrown out and started over again.
|
capotasto
|
posted on May 28, 2003 07:34:14 AM new
"A spokesman for eBay was not immediately available..."
Where is Purseglove when we need him??
|
reamond
|
posted on May 28, 2003 08:37:03 AM new
they're stuck with the finding of fact that they stole proprietary software
They didn't steal any software, this acase is based on contraversial business methods patents. Software would be a copyright issue.
In particular, one of the claims won is the "Buy it now" concept which includes both eBay and Half.com. eBay could be enjoined from using that business method on their site.
|
auctionace
|
posted on May 28, 2003 08:50:58 AM new
There was much discussion about the patent part of the case being thrown out at the onset of the case. If ebay doesn't settle and instead appeals the verdict then an appeals court could allow the patent part to be part of the case again and then ebay will really have some major risk of a big monetary award.
|
reamond
|
posted on May 28, 2003 08:56:07 AM new
Only one of the patent claims was thrown out at the onset of the case, and I believe that it was a business methods patent that deals with online auctions. The case went on to trial with other patent claims and the guy won.
Specifically, one of the patent issues was his patent for a "buy it now" type of business method.
There has been no mention of any copyright issues in this case - and software is copyrighted, not patented.
|
chris30
|
posted on May 28, 2003 09:33:56 AM new
We are power sellers and I hardly ever selling anything in the traditional auction format.
Wouldn't this also impact eBay stores as that is also considered BIN?
|
fleecies
|
posted on May 28, 2003 11:17:59 AM new
You bet eBay will appeal! MercExchange, along with a couple of other flaky companies like PanIP LLC are going around threatening lawsuits against a number of online companies, claiming they are infringing patents for online auctions, shopping carts, information delivery, etc. These companies were set up for the sole purpose of suing other companies. They've been milking small companies that can't afford to fight back so they can build the kitty to go after the big boys like Amazon. The reverse argument is that these ideas have been in the public domain long before these companies filed their patents. eBay will be a test case that could very well determine the fate of the other patent infringement cases. Anyone that sells goods through an online venue had better hope eBay wins on appeal.
http://www.youmaybenext.com
[ edited by fleecies on May 28, 2003 11:18 AM ]
|
chris30
|
posted on May 28, 2003 12:34:23 PM new
Well,
I don't blame the patent holder. They have every right to go after those who infringe upon their patents. Amazon has enforced their "one click" so how is this any different.
Even though I use eBay I'm not sure I want them to win just so I might benefit in sales. At least the online auction portion was thrown out.
Our lives revolve around copyrights and patents. Each holder should be able to protect their rights.
|
reamond
|
posted on May 28, 2003 02:23:06 PM new
There are literally millions of patents that essentially lay dormant and the holder waits for someone else to make the idea popular - then they pounce. Just think about it- why risk developing your own idea ?, just let someone else do it. It is a pretty damn smart strategy.
For around an $800 investment, the lawyer grossed $35 million in this case, and possibly $115 million if treble damages are awarded. Not a bad investment at all. He made far more than if he had invested in the eBay IPO.
Now that he has won the lower court ruling, he can get top shelf appelate lawyers to take the appeal.
|
stonecold613
|
posted on May 28, 2003 04:51:16 PM new
http://64.4.14.23/l/wc/msnbc/-30528?um=_lang%3DEN&site=http://www%2emsnbc%2ecom%2fmodules%2fexports%2fct_hotmail%2easp%3f%2fnews%2f918704%2easp
Here is another article.
|
Roadsmith
|
posted on May 28, 2003 07:02:29 PM new
I caught a bit on the news, in passing, about the lawsuit. They said because ebay lost, ebay may need to give up Half.com and "Buy it now". Maybe ebay stole the ideas?? or what?? The Buy it now bit doesn't sound right. I wonder if they meant PayPal. Surely ebay could just change the wording of Buy it now to "Instant purchase" or something.
|
