tolz
|
posted on May 31, 2001 02:48:02 PM new
Is epier infringing eBays Intellectual Properties and Copyrights?
Epiers item and bidding pages, to include the “look” and “feel” of the site “looks and feels” just like eBay.
I have also noticed that sites such as http://www.openscripts.com are creating “Out of the Box” Auction sites and software that also have the “look” and “feel” of eBay’s software for item and bidding pages.
Can they legally do this?
Is epier and http://www.openscripts.com violating the "trade dress" (a more amorphous concept) involving the "look" of ebay’s product?
It is easy to download and reproduce materials that you might find on the Web, but that does not make it lawful?
Do these “copycat” eBay sites have eBays permission to use their format?
Do these “copycat” eBay sites give credit to the author or publisher of eBays software?
We are sure that eBay respects your right of expression and your desire to conduct business on the Internet, However eBay must enforce its own rights in order to protect its trademark and software.
Can these sites copy and use eBays “Trade Dress” or use the “look and feel” of eBays software and its site?
What are your thoughts on this subject?
|
codasaurus
|
posted on May 31, 2001 02:52:55 PM new
What is the "trade dress" or the "look and feel" of an online site that is in virtually constant flux?
|
dman3
|
posted on May 31, 2001 02:59:36 PM new
I put this in the other epier thread but I will put it here too.
if you do your home work you will find Epier is not a new auction site it has been around and looked the same since 1998.
The look and feel has been that way since it opened and before ebay.
check out the original press releases and history on both sites you will find epier has always looked and worked the way it does now.
Ebays look and color scheme just changed last year so who looks like who and who is infringing on who.
http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
|
twinsoft
|
posted on May 31, 2001 03:08:56 PM new
That's a good point, DMan. I remember a while back I got a spam from a new site (don't remember which) and when I went there, it was an EXACT mirror of eBay. Same layout, fonts, colors, etc. Only the logo was different. It looked just like eBay.
I never got past the home page because I thought it was a blatant rip-off.
|
twinsoft
|
posted on May 31, 2001 03:12:06 PM new
I looked at that site and the auction software doesn't "look" like eBay at all, IMO.
|
tolz
|
posted on May 31, 2001 03:12:54 PM new
Hello dman3;
Interesting and valid points. I am not a legal type, so I asked the questions.
If what you say is “fact” then sites like http://www.openscripts.com are infringing ePier’s and eBay’s Intellectual Properties and Copyrights?
Where does it stop?
[ edited by tolz on May 31, 2001 03:14 PM ]
|
Mikecol
|
posted on May 31, 2001 04:53:38 PM new
"Do these “copycat” eBay sites have eBays permission to use their format?
epier's heading has always been light purple...easier on the eyes...they taught ebay one thing.....are they ready for the next....competition....it's here and growing strong
|
capotasto
|
posted on May 31, 2001 07:14:58 PM new
I remember when ebay stole the camera logo from yahoo and used it in place of their old "pic" -- for picture. So someone steals from ebay, so what?
Even if it's true, why should we give a sh!t?
|
airguy
|
posted on May 31, 2001 07:33:46 PM new
when ebay first started, and for quite a long time, and until just recently when it started using some Java and made some other improvement the software they were using was public domain software. I still have the scripts around here somewhere and the software is a cookie cutter of the old ebay. just minus their TOS and stuff, sorry to end the controversy but I believe the only thing these guys were/are guilty of was not personalizing the software a little.
|
tolz
|
posted on May 31, 2001 07:45:33 PM new
Hello capotasto!
"So someone steals from ebay, so what?"
The answer to your question is ethics!.
In the brick and mortar world, infringing Intellectual Properties and Copyrights can result in severe Civil Court actions.
Thanks mikecol and airguy for your comments, as they shed some light on why multiple sites appear to be using the same base software formats.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on June 1, 2001 09:37:53 AM new
I'll ask again...
What is the "trade dress" or the "look and feel" of an online site that is in virtually constant flux?
I wasn't being facetious in asking this. Copyright law was once rather straightforward. You authored a book and it was your work and could not be copied without your express permission.
With the advent of computer programs, there as little change. Copyright applied to the source code of the programs you wrote. But it did not initially apply to the visual effects created by running the programs.
This is when "look and feel" copyright law began to be established (roughly some 20 years ago). And as "look and feel" is subjective in the extreme, I doubt if eBay (or any other auction site) can claim a particular "look and feel" when they are constantly changing that "look and feel".
|
Mikecol
|
posted on June 1, 2001 12:24:52 PM new
"The answer to your question is ethics!."
And I suppose the good folks at ebay have ethics.
Give us a break.
|
airguy
|
posted on June 1, 2001 02:10:14 PM new
ethics???
so if everybody tomorrow decided to use software from Microsoft to build a auction site, and everyone used the template the first person that makes it big is the winner and everyone else ripped them off?
like I said folks the software that they used in the beginning was public domain software, it makes a generic site, if you don't customize it a little they will all look the same.
the only thing either of them is guilty of is not being smart enough to tweak the software to look better than it does/or did.
|
toke
|
posted on June 1, 2001 02:34:44 PM new
Gosh. I'll just bet...with the gazillion dollars eBay has...they'll be able to enforce their rights. I don't propose to worry about them much. 
|
gravid
|
posted on June 1, 2001 02:37:16 PM new
tolz - ethics and eBay in your mouth at the same time? Be careful your teeth don't shatter. They do what they need to for the corperate investors and can get away with. They are already way over the line with wanting no responsibility or liability as a venue but acting as an agent. They are in conflict over ReturnBuy and it is only a matter of time until they are hailed into court like Microsoft was for thinking they could do as they pleased.
|
