uaru
|
posted on September 30, 2002 10:45:43 AM
The thought of a jury trial ( especially one possibly in California ) has to scare the livin' crap out of ebay.
Didn't eBay fail to get the trial moved to California? I thought that was something they wanted.
|
Reamond
|
posted on September 30, 2002 11:17:57 AM
They did try to get the venue changed to California. The main reason was is increase the costs for the plaintiff, he is located in Washingto DC.
Waiting to file suit while someone else bult a multi-billion business with your patented idea will have nothing to do with a finding of infringement. There are only three legal questions to be answered in court- is the patent valid and is eBay infringing on that patent, and if eBay is infringing what is the remedy (how much $$$) ?
If I steal a patented idea and make a successful business out of it, I am still liable to pay damages and be forced to cease the business. Otherwise I would steal patents for all the expensive medicines out there and under price the patent holders and create a very successful business in short order.
|
RB
|
posted on September 30, 2002 11:24:37 AM
I don't know much about patent law, but what is the law regarding a renewal of a patent? I am thinking of the drug companies ... when their patent "runs out" for a certain medication, is it fair game for someone else to manufacture and market it? I recall hearing something about this during the Anthrax scare last year wrt to company who developed the antidose but I can't recall the results.
|
RB
|
posted on September 30, 2002 11:25:50 AM
Another thought ... the eBay legal team doesn't have a complete brain between all of them. This could get interesting.
|
tooltimes
|
posted on September 30, 2002 11:51:39 AM
In the first place, I doubt if there would be a jury in this type of suit, and in the 2nd place, the jury would be instructed to make their decision based on law ... not on how they "feel" about it.
Juries often break every rule in the book. Crazy verdicts are often handed down ( where's OJ playing golf now? ). The case
with probably be heard by a judge though.
|
Reamond
|
posted on September 30, 2002 12:03:00 PM
Patents for drugs can be "extended" through a backdoor method. One way is by claiming a new use for the drug. One drug magically was found to be useful for children when the patent was about to expire for the "adult" use.
Cheaper generic drugs come on the market when patents expire. But the brand name and trademark protections still apply for the drug.
|
RB
|
posted on September 30, 2002 12:05:01 PM
The OJ case sorta proves my point. If the jury was allowed to rule on emotion, OJ would be 6 feet under right now. Unfortunately, in that case the prosecuters screwed up and couldn't make a legal case against OJ. I don't the eBay lawyers have any legal skills at all -- it should be a slam dunk for the patent owner (at least I'm hoping it is).
PS --- thanks Reamond ...
[ edited by RB on Sep 30, 2002 12:05 PM ]
|
mlecher
|
posted on September 30, 2002 12:20:03 PM
So you are in favor of someone patenting every thought they had in life and then wait for someone else to expend the effort and make it profitable then cry "foul" There should be a time limit from the time the "infringement" become known and when the person files suit, maybe 90 days. EBay was not developed secretly, and did not become successful secretly. The guy just waited until he could reap the rewards of someone else's hard work. had he done it he first knew of eBay, he would have only gotten a couple thousand dollars and probably killed eBay, BUT NOW, millions. Without working up a sweat...
Patents were created to protect ideas, not curtail them. By patenting your ideas and not acting on them, you prevent progress, killing the entire idea of patents.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
[ edited by mlecher on Sep 30, 2002 12:21 PM ]
|
RB
|
posted on September 30, 2002 12:24:46 PM
Actually, I am not in favour of that at all. I don't believe in suing someone everytime they look at you cross-eyed (I..AM CANADIAN, after all). But, anyone who can use any method to break the eBay bubble is a friend of mine. eBay treats their members like garbage and it's about time what goes around comes around.
|
blackjack21
|
posted on September 30, 2002 12:51:29 PM
Is THIS why ebay management has been selling off huge amounts of stock? They figured they'd ditch it before the lawsuit reaches Wall Street? Hmmm, ain't that "insider trading" or something?
Now's the perfect time for Yahoo, MSN auctions, or another auction site competitor to grab hold, IF they were smart.
Like RB said before me, what comes around goes around, and ebay has evolved from a small company that everyone rooted for to an 800 pound gorilla that is both arrogant and incompetant in the way it selectively enforces their own rules. They ruin lives while deadbeats are given the key to the city. And I got two words for the 800 lb gorilla: King Kong.
It couldn't have happened to a better company.
Jack
(And oh yeah, I've got my reasons)
|
mlecher
|
posted on September 30, 2002 05:16:19 PM
I think eBay should be severely humbled as much as the next guy, but not like this. This will ripple through and kill alot of other online auction sites. Remember, for this guy, it is not about the infringement, it is about the money. He will make his career in life to extort money out of all the other auction sites he can, redefining his "patent" to apply. Auction sites will either have to pay the protection money or close down
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
|
RB
|
posted on September 30, 2002 05:18:57 PM
Which wouldn't be a bad thing. I think the on-line auction fad has peaked. It's time to go back to the good old fashioned face-to-face dealings like we used to do. On-line auctions are partly responsible for our loss of real communication skills.
|
twelvepole
|
posted on September 30, 2002 05:29:08 PM
Actually he hasn't waited that long, only recieved his patents in 2000 and 2001, the patent office took 5 years after the parent patent was filed to issue Mr. Woolston's patents.
eBay is in deep sh*t and I can understand they are fighting for their life. Just remember that in the US juries like the "little guy". eBay would be better off without a jury trial, because, I don't believe they have to be unanimous, just a majority.
Ain't Life Grand... 
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 1, 2002 05:33:07 AM
mlecher - the only problem with your "sweat" of the brow rights for patents is that only well capitalized concerns can develop ideas. Poor people with great ideas could not be protected under your system. Many can't protect their patent simply because they don't have the money to. What you suggest would produce wholesale theft of ideas and patents from those who can not afford the legal expences to protect them. If eBay were setting on patents and you made one successful, eBay would sue you in a heart beat.
The under capitaliztion for individuals that file patents is a major problem. Some companies regularly search the patent office for expirations and THEN use the idea.
Major corporations already have a lock on what gets developed and what doesn't. Putting roadblocks and hurdles in front of patent holders will just make the situation worse.
|
GU1HToM
|
posted on October 1, 2002 05:46:30 AM
The problem more than anything is that EBAY was already in negotiations with him when talks broke down.
So they knew they had to do something.
They just never counted on him comeing after them.
|
mlecher
|
posted on October 1, 2002 09:15:28 AM
Reamond....
I would feel more sympathy if he had files court papers soon after realizing that eBay was "infringing" on his patent. But that would have only been worth a few hundred dollars. He waited until he could make millions, that is where I find fault in the patent owner. He wasn't interested in making money with his idea, just getting it the 90's way, sueing.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on October 1, 2002 09:49:19 AM
Since he is the patent owner, eBay should have settled this a long time ago, if it goes to court, the amount of money that will be paid out will be a lot more then if they had settled outside of court.
As as someone has said, we will end up paying for it the long run.
|
computerboy
|
posted on October 1, 2002 10:06:45 AM
Regardless of the outcome, eBay will be "nicked" for some sort of settlement. It certainly will not be enough to cause them anything but perhaps short term pain and eBay will then carry on about their business uninhibited. In short, the damages won't be something that a nickel listing fee increase to sellers won't cover. Mark my word.
Those who can do. Those who can't patent. Too many lawyers and not enough entrepreneurs.
Amen.
|
RB
|
posted on October 1, 2002 10:07:07 AM
As as someone has said, we will end up paying for it the long run.
Unfortunately, true. But you could quit eBay like the 1000's who "did" (they did say they were going to do this so I have to assume it's true) after the last time they raised their rates 
Eventually, even the eBay diehards will come to realize that eBay is a cold, uncaring company run by a power hungry woman and a bunch of drones (conjures up visions of The Borg). They could care less about you as long as you keep toeing the company line and keep feeding them money.
Maybe when this guy wins his suit and puts eBay back into a place where the sun don't shine, he'll donate the proceeds to education or health care. That way, everyone would win.
|
rgrem
|
posted on October 1, 2002 10:26:45 AM
I and many of my friends have been with ebay for quite a while and with a fair amount of success. I have not been treated like garbage, as RB suggests. I share the bubble with ebay, so I hope it isn't burst. As for fees, my total fees for ebay, auctionwatch and paypal (all of which have their haters) are around 10%. I've run stores, sold at shows of several kinds, fleas and virtually every venue known to man. None have given me the low expense, both in time and $, as ebay has. And I have a feeling there are several million others like myself.
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 1, 2002 10:38:20 AM
Well if it is the patent holder's moral responsibility to enforce his patent before eBay makes it a multi-billion company, we could also ask why Omidyar didn't check the patent office before he started eBay ?
One of the reason for filing a patent with the Federaal office is that all patents can be researched at a central location.
eBay should have researched the patent before thay started the company. Ignorance is no excuse for theft.
|
mlecher
|
posted on October 1, 2002 01:33:03 PM
Just because the original patent owner didn't enforce his patent doesn't put the responsibility of enforcement on eBay. Plus I have to wonder about this patent, how valid it is and can it be enforce. Why did eBay try to buy it in the first place? Well, it is common for a company to purchase patents that MAY relate to what they are doing just in case.
But did the guy just patent the concept of online auctioning. Isn't that like patenting the concept of bottling tap water and selling it in grocery stores at a price higher than gasoline?
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on October 1, 2002 02:17:06 PM
You'd be surprised at the broadness of what a patent can cover. Look at the photographic world. For example, FujiFilm owns the patent to the disposible camera. That means that every time Kodak, Polaroid, Konica or any other company makes a disposible camera, they pay royalties to Fuji. It doesn't matter that each camera is manufactured differently, it just matters that it is a disposible camera. Likewise, Polaroid patented the concept of instant-film technology. Kodak lost a big-time lawsuit on that one when they stole the patent technology. That's why to this day Polaroid is the only manufacturer of instant film prints.
I think it is very likely that this guy stands a chance to win either a large settlement or an even larger court judgement. Does it mean that eBay will close down? Of course not... it just means that they'll pay royalties to this guy and the fees will increase. The trick will be not to have the royalties be so high that the fees are no longer affordable. It's much better to take a couple apples from a tree and let the tree keep growing. rather than take the entire tree roots and all.
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on October 1, 2002 02:20:10 PM
Oh... and for those of you who think this guy has let too much time elaspe... Kodak had their instant film cameras on the market for years and Polaroid still won their lawsuit... plus Kodak had to buy back all the cameras from the consumers & give Polaroid a portion of their sales money. Time doesn't matter. Ownership of the Patent does.
|
Damariscotta
|
posted on October 1, 2002 02:43:07 PM
ROTFLMAO
Maybe when this guy wins his suit ... he'll donate the proceeds to education or health care. ...
|
horsey88
|
posted on October 1, 2002 03:13:08 PM
Ebay has previously attacked just about everyting that moves with litigation....Bidbay,Reverse Auction & Bidder's edge to name a few. So I have no sympathy for them.
I wouldn't worry about the fallout of this lawsuit too much though. Under the New Economy accounting principles they would probably get away with making the plaintiff a director and offering him stock compensation for the amount of the suit without it having to be expensed. If that fails they might be able to work out a co-marketing agreement for the amount of damages if there is any.
|
mlecher
|
posted on October 1, 2002 06:08:08 PM
But Polaroid filed suit immediately upon the introduction of the Kodak cameras. Polaroid did not wait until Kodak "owed" them millions, then hit them with a lawsuit. Kodak always knew they were possibly living on borrowed time and prepared for it. And Kodak actually made out pretty good.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on October 1, 2002 06:43:02 PM
It is true that Polaroid did file suit 6 days after Kodak released their first camera. However, the settlement took into account all of the years that Kodak produced instant film products. Kodak did not do well at all in this settlement. They had to pay Polaroid 925 million dollars and set aside 150 million dollars to re-imburse customers. This makes it one of the largest patent law suit settlements in american history.
It's my understanding that one of the reasons this lawsuit was filed so late was because an attempt at negotiations outside of court were first made. When that fell though, it was decided that legal action was the right choice. Bottom line is if he owns the patent and eBay is using his patent without his permission, they owe him compensation. It will be very interesting to see how much compensation the courts will award him.
|
RB
|
posted on October 2, 2002 09:45:47 AM
I'm leaning towards the idea that eBay will make this guy a Director in the company, then a month or two later they will create a new policy (to make eBay safer for all of us) that prohibits inventors or patent owners from being allowed to participate on eBay. The guy will get the standard "You are NARU" bot email from some eBay drone (probably Bertha or Fred), he will argue it back and forth for a month or so with a whole bunch of different eBay drones (Shaun, John, Alice, etc.), get a few 'K' numbers, then simply get frustrated and leave eBay behind.
The problem will be solved.
|
tomyou
|
posted on October 2, 2002 09:54:05 AM
His patent is way to vauge and could cover almost anything on the internet. This also isn't this guys first lawsuit. As far as the stock selloff point it is October and that is a Tax deadline for businesses for the end of the years. All Major companys have major stock movement in late sept and early oct. these boards are no more than ammusing speculation.
|
