posted on October 11, 2002 11:58:17 AM new
It is remarkable the extent a company will go in order not to have to pay a license fee to a patent holder - see link below for recent Intel situation. But there is a reason for this- no corporation wants to be under the thunb of a patent holder for a future piece of their revenue pie. eBay is under the same situation- all or nothing. The patent holder can limit the license and no corporation wants to develope a business for which another entity owns the patent. It would be like a renter remodeling his rented property.
posted on October 11, 2002 05:18:19 PM new
This appears not so much a poor inventor whose invention has been stolen, as a sharp attorney hoping to finesse a fortune.
posted on October 13, 2002 09:58:45 AM new
The fortune has already been captured, Intel lost the case and has left a pile of money on the table for the appeal.
Intel has billions at risk if the patent holds up on appeal. All of their chip technology developments use this patent, in effect Intel's whole business is built on the foundation of this patent. Intel is better off to go bankrupt fighting the patent than to pay a license fee.
posted on October 14, 2002 06:00:42 AM new
I am curious as to how we know when the inventor contacted eBay about patent infringement.
We know that negotiations broke down but what else do we know?
How long had they been negotiating?
Do you suppose the inventor might have contacted eBay before the Patent Office issued his patent and eBay ignored him?
I know that eBay tends to be arrogant about what they do, almost like they can do what ever they want, and if you don't like it they will sue.
So far the people they have sued just did not have pockets deep enough to fight an 800 pound RICH RICH gorilla.
Now there is enough money at stake eBay will have a real fiight on their hands.
I am not a patent law expert, but a patent pretty thoroughly researched before it is issued. This is why it takes so long and costs so much to get one.
One would think that after the VERO program eBay would have at least checked and found out a patent is even more serious, than a copyright.
My guess is that they did check. They decided the inventor did not have the wherewithal to fight them, and since they are everybody's darling they could do it and get away with it anyway.
posted on October 14, 2002 07:30:38 AM new
Fear not, as both Intel and eBay will go on as sucessful business entitites. They will both, in the end, shell out a few dollars and these lawsuits will be over with.
Anyone who thinks these lawsuits will shut down Intel or eBay isn't thinking properly. After all, who would want to kill the Golden Goose who lays golden eggs?
posted on October 14, 2002 07:58:23 AM new
Don't forget...when the "patent infringement" first began, eBay was NOT a 800 pound gorilla but a small emerging DotCom with little money and high hopes. Had the "inventor" raised questions then, he would have gotten only a little money in the lawsuit. And he wasn't about to take the risk and incur the expenses of starting an auction site himself. Heck, just keep quiet for awhile and if the idea is successful, extort the money from the people who took the chance.
Why was eBay in negotiations with this guy previously? Because it is common business practice to purchase or license EVERY patent or copyright that MAY be related, whether it can be enforced or not. The guy probably wanted to extort too much money from eBay now AND IN THE FUTURE, so eBay cut off negotiations. They may have known the patent is too vague to be enforced but originally chose to negotiate because they hoped it was cheaper. However, the "inventor" probably wanted more than it would cost to go to court, more than likely, hanging himself with his own rope. He could have had a tidy little sum for an unenforcable patent, but rather chose to incur tremendous expenses to probably lose. To "patent" an idea requires some mechanical specifics. To patent an "idea" such as online auctioning should also include some mechanical specifics. The disposable camera was a unique concept and patentable, auctions have been around forever, the formats have been around forever. They have been conducted electronically and over long time periods. Everything that eBay does now has been done partially in different areas. The only thing that eBay did was add the internet. (Now we all know it was Al Gore invented the internat ) So what is so unique about this guy's idea, that he put it all together? That means the person that thought of putting radios in cars now holds the patent on making cars with radios in them.
.
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 Oct 14, 2002 12:53 PM ]
posted on October 20, 2002 02:46:28 PM new
Company WheelsRUs makes and sells something called the "Rwheel". A year later an inventor files a patent on something that is just like the Rwheel. Even though patents are supposed to be for unique inventions the inventor is issued a patent a couple of years after he filed.
Other companies can be prohibited from making Rwheels but since WheelsRUs began before the patent was filed can they continue to make and sell their Rwheel?
Not knowing anything about patents it seems to me the case will turn on whether the eBay is subject to the patent filed after it began business. The patent filed before eBay began:
doesn't look like it covers internet auctions. However, the patent filed after eBay began looks like it does but I don't know if the fact that it was filed after eBay started matters:
) So what is so unique about this guy's idea, that he put it all together? That means the person that thought of putting radios in cars now holds the patent on making cars with radios in them.
[ edited by mlecher on Oct 14, 2002 12:53 PM ]