eBay Loses Lawsuit, Buy it Now Goes Bye-Bye

[Pete]

Here's the article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/technology/28EBAY.html?ex=1055390400&en=7b8ee1953681afe5&ei=5 004&partner=UNTD)


MercExchange will ask for an "injunction that prohibits eBay from its current `buy it now' mode," said a MercExchange lawyer, Gregory Stillman.

This may be good or bad for the eBay buyer, but I tend to think good, for now: I've always disliked the "buy it now" thing and thought that it made some auction prices a bit too outlandish.

Of course, this is from the NY Times, so they may have made it up :)

[kcp]

NOoooooooooo! This better not be true!

From the standpoint of buyers, I understand, and it's true what you say saxpics, some sellers do exagerate on the Buy it Now price. However this works both ways; for as long as they'll be buyers out there willing to pay too much, for as long as some sellers will exagerate the price.

And then from the seller point of view, I hate it when some sellers are selling for way too less. This devaluates the product and makes it hard for other sellers to get a decent price for the same products and/or same type of products of similar value.

I think that removing the Buy it Now feature would be a downer for eBayers IMHO.

[Bill Mecca]

I see all sides, but what got me from reading the article, was it was "buy-it-now" was some other companies "technology." gimme a break.

Pretty soon someone will claim ownership of inhalation "technology" and someone else exhalation and then where will we be? :twisted:

just a really good thing they didn't call it McBuyitnow

[TOMMYSAXBOY]

:cry: I used buy-it-now to get some great deals on items the seller never thought to research the value. My car ,and a few sax's were true deals from using but-it-now. I also used buy-it-now to sell sax's for a bit more than I :( thought the average would be for the pristine ones people wouldn't mind paying a few dollars more for,and well worth it. :(

[paulwl]

MercExchange will ask for an "injunction that prohibits eBay from its current `buy it now' mode"

I wonder: what exactly was patented? The specific code that powers BiN on eBay? The appearance and workings of the BiN interface? Surely not the concept of automatically ending an auction with a predetermined topping bid.

eBay would have to re-engineer BiN, and call it something else too, probably. But the service itself could still be offered. No?

[Mike Ruhl]

As I read that article, it appears that what's at issue is not specifically the Buy It Now" feature, but rather ebay's fixed-price auction option.


The dispute, narrowed before trial, centered on eBay's fixed-price sales rather than its traditional auctions that were the centerpiece of the lawsuit filed in 2001.

[Mike Ruhl]

Here's a better article, with more details:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251670163&call_pag eid=968350072197&col=968705923364

[Bill Mecca]

"MercExchange of Great Falls, Va., accused eBay and its Half.com unit of infringing patents for the technology."

the article also says the jury found that the patents were valid and were infringed, and also found they were infrigned deliberately so Ebay could wind up paying 3x the $35 million dollar award.

apparently there was some patented "technology" involved, just what???
the article does seem short on details. Inquiring minds want to know ;-)

[Mike Ruhl]

The case highlights the increasingly contentious world of patents, especially "business method" patents that took off with the advent of the Internet.

Four years ago, courts upheld a patent on Amazon.com's "one-click" system for online purchasing. That patent, like the one Woolston received in 1995 for an online auction system, focused not on a product or its underlying technology, but on a method of doing business on the Internet using available technology.

According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, applications for business-method patents soared from 584 in 1996 to 8,700 in 2001.
clipped from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46247-2003May27.html

[Bill Mecca]

Thanks Mike,


what a freakin litigious society we live in. :dazed: there isn't an emoticon for disgusted.

[Pete]

I'm not sorry that I haven't loaded the smiley that becomes ill and then pukes all over :) (I do have it available, though, if it's REALLY needed.)

While you can't patent an idea, you can say, "this is my idea, this is how it should work, this is how it could be implemented". It's easy to infinge on that. (This is implied by meruhl's quote.)

Copyright and patent are highly overrated. Do any of y'all remember a few years ago when someone tried to copyright the key of C? Considering all other key signatures are based on this, he then wanted all composers of any music to pay him royalties. Mmm-hmm.

The reason why I "copyright" my website, for instance, is because I don't want someone literally copying it. I don't mind if someone decides to start another sax history 'site, just don't copy what I have: do your own work.

[MusicMan]

I've read these and other articles...eBay's not done for yet on the Buy It Now...they can:

a) Try to have the judge throw out the award...possible if the judge thinks the jury overstepped it's bounds or didn't understand the technical merits
b) Appeal...40% of patent infringement suits are thrown out on appeal
c) License the technology...ultimately, probably the best solution for both parties; eBay pays a small fee per "Buy It Now" transaction and passes that fee along to the buyer, seller or both.

There's more to come on this case...

[paulwl]

I'm no big fan of monopolistic companies like eBay, but neither am I a fan of patent-weenies like this Merc guy. He provides no actual product or service, because he sent his employees packing to go into the lawsuit business.

People forget that the law can be made a racket of just like anything else, if you're enough of an opportunist. "Merc" ought to stand for mercenary.

[morgan]

Why can't any of these so-called news articles list any of the patents in question?

[Morry]

Probably because one doesn't exist. Of course, that most likely didn't stop a jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Patent law is kind of like DNA evidence in a criminal trial. Most jurors just don't have the mental capacity to understand it, and they normally end up finding in favor of the little guy going up against the big company. Sad, but often true.

[Anji]

Bewary of claims that intangible properties are not valuable.

This is the same sort of thing that brought down Napster and other file swapping services.

The Internet grew out of DARPA and the ARPANET was one of its tools.

If you don't think that eBay is predatory, and snaps up the designs of smaller firms, you have not read the business model (which emulates the other dominant force online, Microsoft).

When pursuing the big dogs, it pays to cast a wide net.

At least he didn't sue because McDonald's made him fat.