posted on October 26, 2002 06:35:11 AM
Be sure to read the whole article. Later comes the text: "Friedman looked somewhat more kindly on eBay's efforts to dismiss claims made in MercExchange's patent that covers online auctions. eBay charged that the claims made in the patent were not adequately described in Woolston's original patent application, which was filed in 1995. Instead, eBay argued that Woolston amended his application years later, after he'd seen eBay's system in action.
While sidestepping the issue of Woolston's motivation, the court ruled that he hadn't adequately described some claims involving charging fees or commissions to a seller's account. Friedman's ruling takes away one of the primary claims made in the patent.
"This is not a good development for the plaintiff," said Jeffrey Neuburger, a intellectual property attorney with Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner in New York, who has no affiliation with the contestants. *"When a court throws out some of your claims right out of the bat, it narrows some of the claims against the defendant and takes some of wind out of your sails."* "
posted on October 26, 2002 09:29:54 AM
"Be sure to read the whole article"- yeah, you should.
The plaintiff only needs a few of the 54 claims against eBay to be upheld and eBay is sunk. Thus far 32 of the claims are going to trial, which means that the claims have enough merit to be decided by a trial.
This isn't a glass half full, half empty scenario. eBay must win every claim in this case, while the plaintiff needs only to win a few of the claims to put eBay in a world of hurt.
posted on October 26, 2002 11:24:48 AM
Am I the only one that doesn't understand patents on business ideas?
Is anyone holding a patent on the drive through window idea. Would the drive though window patent be held by a bank or a fast food outlet? Would that be two differen't patents?
I know a lot of people love to gleefully rub their hands together in delight at the prospects of eBay getting 'nailed', but is that a real probablity? If there was a 50/50 chance of eBay really being seriously affected by this suit wouldn't/shouldn't their stock be taking a tumble?
Maybe I am the only one that doesn't understand business patents.
posted on October 26, 2002 11:44:03 AM
A business methods patent may be as narrow as a fast food drive up window or as broad as a drive up window for any good or service. Validity depends more so on novelty rather than broad or narrow claim. Although a broad claim would be harder to defend than a narrow claim.
eBay has already warned their shareholders that if these patents are upheld their business methods would be materially effected.
The reason the stock hasn't yet been effected is debatable. eBay's revenues went up significantly last quarter but the stock didn't go up much. There is also the time frame of the resolution of the suit. Even if eBay loses at the trial level, they will appeal. It could also be argued that eBay's value is not in its business methods, but in its name brand. As example, it has been said that Coca Cola could lose everything it has except its name and walk into a bank and borrow the value of everything it has lost by virtue of its name only.
eBay's business model is easy to copy and rather cheap to do, but copying their traffic by virtue of their brand name is now nearly impossible. eBay can always move to a different business model and continue their success.
Companies are trying to purchase Napster which for all intents and purposes is defunct and bankrupt. However, the name "Napster" still has cache in the marketplace.
posted on October 26, 2002 12:18:50 PM
"but copying their traffic by virtue of their brand name is now nearly impossible" and "eBay can always move to a different business model and continue their success" in the same sentence are contradictory. In any case I wish ebay well.
posted on October 26, 2002 02:25:40 PM
"but copying their traffic by virtue of their brand name is now nearly impossible" and "eBay can always move to a different business model and continue their success" in the same sentence are contradictory. "
How is it contradictory ?
eBay's brand name is what brings the traffic no matter what shape the business model takes. No online auction site has been able to duplicate eBay's traffic, but many have been able to duplicate eBay's online auction business model.
Through brand name alone, eBay has been able to move from Pez to Real Estate and Autos.
If ebay loses the patent suit, it can change its business model to those which do not infringe.
posted on October 26, 2002 02:31:38 PM
I guess I don't understand what you mean by " copying their traffic by virtue of their brand name is now nearly impossible" if is does not contradict with "Ebay can always move to a different business model and continue their success" . But that's OK, I don't understand 3/4 of what you say anyway.
