Subject: Re: Getting long; Was Re: eBay being sued over patent infringement

From: "Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 10:17:01 2003

>  >  eBay prices may be inflated, from a professional dealer's or an
> experienced
>  > hobbyist's perspective.
>

Actually, they are not inflated at all.  Before ebay, prices were
depressed because of the lack of exposure to the item.  Supply and demand
was still at work but the demand side is very much increased by ebay.

On items were there is a fixed supply, like antiques and collectibles, the
only side of the equation that can increase is demand.  Therefore, the
price rises to the fair and correct value.  Simple!

Of course, those that are whining about not being able to find bargains,
don't believe that. :-)

---

From: steve <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 11:15:01 2003

> price rises to the fair and correct value.  Simple!
Wrong, the "available" supply has also increased on
many fixed supply collectibles. People are digging
stuff out of their closets that would of never been
available for sale before, or available to only a very
limited number of people. 

Many collectible items that were considered very rare
before ebay, are now just considered common place, and
prices have dropped greatly even though the actual
supply has been constant. This also applies to
commodity items, I can by caps, resistors, IC's, power
cords cheaper on ebay then anywhere else (the
availablility is erratic though).

Items that are very unique, or in mint condition have,
on average, increased in price because the supply is
truly limited, in the end I think its a wash, some
items have drop in value other risen...
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com

---

From: "Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 11:41:00 2003

> limited number of people.

Only by an insignificant amount.  If only 10,000 of an item was ever
produced, the supply can't exceed that but the exposure could go from a
few hundred that might see it otherwise to millions.

The proof of that is that prices are rising.  They are rising because
there is more increase demand than an increase in supply.  Supply and
demand is on duty 24/7.

---

From: Marvin Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 11:51:00 2003

> Of course, those that are whining about not being able to find bargains,

Bargains are certainly to be found. Spelling errors, bad descriptions,
wrong catagories, etc. all make bargains possible for those people
willing to find them. Not too long ago, I bought the January 1975
Popular Electronics magazine (along with some others) for $25.00; the
going price is $80 - $135 for that issue.

---

From: "Patrick Rigney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 13:55:01 2003

Going back to where this started: Sellam posted a link about eBay being sued
over patent infringement.

What are the real merits of this case?  I know Jerry Kaplan founded OnSale
in 1994.  I haven't read the patent, but I know that eBay is not unique in
what it is doing, and it wasn't the first.  Whether or not we LIKE eBay, it
may be worth considering how the service would change if they lost the suit,
and how this would affect ALL similar sites, including Yahoo, DoveBid, etc.

For myself, I'm very concerned that the USPTO has issued many frivolous and
unwarranted patents for processes that existed previously and/or are too
obvious or trivial.  eBay was also recently sued by a company that claims to
have a patent on the caching of data for presentation in a user interface,
for example.  The patent describes a caching mechanism that is generally the
way most web browsers interoperate with a web server.  The USPTO is, IMHO,
overwhelmed and missing critical resources and subject matter experts in the
evaluation of its applications.  Grave mistakes have been made, and to me
the article to which Sellam refers is just another (quite alarming) reminder
of that fact.

I offer patent #6,549,904 - a patent granted to Amazon.com just LAST WEEK
for "A method and system for generating notifications of auctions based on
user notification requests", which is in summary, you choose categories of
items and identifying keywords, and the system will email you when matching
auctions are found.  This is now a patented process, and whoever felt this
was a process unique and worthy enough of a patent needs a performance
review, IMHO.

I get at least one email a day from eBay and Yahoo Auctions, which is now
evidence of their infringement as of 4/15/2003.

Patrick

Patent 6,549,904:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/net
ahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,549,904&OS=6,549,904
&RS=6,549,904

Caching:
http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1210

---

From: Doc Shipley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 14:09:00 2003

> and how this would affect ALL similar sites, including Yahoo, DoveBid, 

   I don't have any details, but I can say that one of the plaintiffs 
also holds patent to several processes basic to PayPal, and eBay is 
paying royalties on those with no argument.  He developed iEscrow as 
well.  I'm _guessing_, based on those facts, that David's claim, at 
least, isn't frivolous.

   Please don't ask me for any details past the above -- I won't give 
them, for several obvious reasons.

	Doc

---

From: Brian Chase <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 15:50:01 2003

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Patrick Rigney wrote:

> [...]
>
> For myself, I'm very concerned that the USPTO has issued many
> frivolous and unwarranted patents for processes that existed
> previously and/or are too obvious or trivial.  eBay was also recently
> sued by a company that claims to have a patent on the caching of data
> for presentation in a user interface, for example.  The patent
> describes a caching mechanism that is generally the way most web
> browsers interoperate with a web server.  The USPTO is, IMHO,
> overwhelmed and missing critical resources and subject matter experts
> in the evaluation of its applications.  Grave mistakes have been made,
> and to me the article to which Sellam refers is just another (quite
> alarming) reminder of that fact.
>
> [...]

I'd agree that US patent law and the USPTO allows far too much
"intellectual property" to be protected by patents.  The patenting of
business processes and practices seems absurd to me, and I'm not
entirely supportive of the idea of patenting software.  In my opinion,
eBay is getting a raw deal with this, but only because I don't think
that patenting the concept of online auctions should be allowed.
However, our laws allow for it to be patented, so, unless eBay can get
that patent thrown out, legally they're obligated to abide by the patent
holder's licensing terms.

On a more personal note, I like to believe that there is some sort of
legal karma coming into play.  A little over a year ago, I'd registered
the domain name joebay.org, putting up a website for an acquaintence of
mine, a guy named Joe Bay.  Within a few weeks of registering the domain
and setting up the site, I received a cease and desist letter from
eBay's legal department stating that I was infringing their trademark
with "joebay".  They cited the 1999 Anti-cybersquatting and Consumer
Protection Act and insisted that I stop using the domain name or face
litigation and levying of monetary damages.  Mind you, there wasn't
anything on my site even /remotely/ related to eBay, online auctions,
or any sort of e-commerce.  It was strictly a personal site for a guy
named Joe Bay.

Fortunately I was able to have some helpful folks at the Stanford Law
School volunteered to handle the C&D letter for me, and they put
together a very stern reply for eBay telling them they really didn't
have a leg to stand on.  We never heard anything back from them, but I
did decide to let the domain name registration expire this year to avoid
any further hassles from them.

I'm very happy with the service eBay offers to sellers and buyers; it's
a great business idea and they've executed it very well, IMHO, but I've
little sympathy for their situation.  What goes around comes around.

-brian.

---

From: Mail List <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 17:09:00 2003

> and how this would affect ALL similar sites, including Yahoo, DoveBid, etc.

Even the United States government is using online auctions for a lot of GSA
auctions now.

If online auction sites have to pay to license the ability to operate, they 
will
still operate, but as their costs increase, they will be passed on to the users
( could be buyers and sellers both ) in increased fees, buyer's premiums,
membership fees, or some other revenue generating mechanism.

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Apr 25 02:23:00 2003

> little sympathy for their situation.  What goes around comes around.

That's mainly the problem with the patent system today.  It's used
primarily as a tool to thwart competition, rather than foster innovation.

-- 

Sellam Ismail                                        Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger                http://www.vintage.org

 * Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *

---

From: "Wayne M. Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Apr 25 03:15:00 2003

> > I'm very happy with the service eBay offers to sellers and buyers; 
> > it's a great business idea and they've executed it very well, IMHO, 
> > but I've little sympathy for their situation.  What goes 
> around comes 
> > around.
> 
> That's mainly the problem with the patent system today.  It's 
> used primarily as a tool to thwart competition, rather than 
> foster innovation.
> 

In my experience, its primary use is as a shakedown device to extract
royalty payments.  The idea is not to actually thwart competition, but
to threaten it enough that accused infringers, fearing an injunction,
capitulate and pay a royalty.

---

From: Jeffrey Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Apr 27 14:40:01 2003

On Thursday, April 24, 2003, steve wrote:
> > On items were there is a fixed supply, like antiques and collectibles,
> > the only side of the equation that can increase is demand.  Therefore,
> > the price rises to the fair and correct value.  Simple!
> 
> Wrong, the "available" supply has also increased on many fixed supply
> collectibles. People are digging stuff out of their closets that would of
> never been available for sale before, or available to only a very limited
> number of people. 

I agree.  The actual 'supply' we should talk about is not the total number
of units produced, but instead the number available for sale.  And not only
do closet diggers affect this number, but the item's turnover rate is also
an important factor; some items simply change hands more often than others.
The total-produced number is really an asymptotic limit to the real supply,
which varies over time based on these, and possibly other, factors.

-- 
Jeffrey Sharp

---

From: Jeffrey Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Apr 27 14:50:01 2003

On Friday, April 25, 2003, Wayne M. Smith wrote:
> In my experience, its [patent system] primary use is as a shakedown device
> to extract royalty payments.  The idea is not to actually thwart
> competition, but to threaten it enough that accused infringers, fearing an
> injunction, capitulate and pay a royalty.  

There is a neat little business process in use today by a few corps.  I call
it the Rambus method:

  1. Hire some lawyers
  2. Get some illegitimate patents
  3. Deceive lots of people
  4. Profit!!!

I wonder if any company has tried to patent the process, and if so, if the
company's employees had any idea of the irony.

-- 
Jeffrey Sharp

---

From: Jeffrey Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Apr 27 14:58:00 2003

On Thursday, April 24, 2003, Mike wrote:
> > > the only side of the equation that can increase is demand.
> >
> > collectibles.
> produced, the supply can't exceed that

The significance really depends.  If the total produced is a low number,
say, below 1K, you are very correct.  But if the total produced is more like
10K or 100K, there's a lot of room for that availability figure to vary.  If
everyone but a few people are holding on to their items, it doesn't really
matter how many were produced at all; the items are still hard to acquire
and thus the value goes up.

-- 
Jeffrey Sharp

---

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Apr 27 15:13:01 2003

I think Rambus did a hell of a job.  Another engineer and I wrote the 
test vectors for some of the first Rambus modules coming out of NEC.  
It's the most incredible RAM I've ever worked on.

Rob

> company's employees had any idea of the irony.
Robert Borsuk - [email-masked]
President
Colourfull Creations
http://www.colourfull.com

---

From: Jim Battle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun Apr 27 21:31:00 2003

> company's employees had any idea of the irony.

That is cheap, uninformed, and baseless.

I worked at a company that used Rambus back in 1993, getting 600 Mb/s 
per pin in the days before SDRAM even existed.  At the time, many people 
didn't believe it was possible.  Remember that at that time routing 66 
MHz signals on commodity PC boards was pushing the limit.

Working with it was certainly a challenge (testing the interface posed 
special challenges), and the price per megabit of it never became 
competitive with commodity DRAM.

Rambus really did have a vastly superior interface technology.  The 
physics of it were better, the architecture of it was better.  It really 
did work.

What happened with respect to the JEDEC standards meeting may be a 
different story.  But to claim that they set out to deceive people and 
take credit for things they didn't do is contrary to fact.  As for point 
4, part of the reason Rambus has had a spotty history is they didn't do 
enough of that.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon Apr 28 01:46:55 2003

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Jeffrey Sharp wrote:

> > In my experience, its [patent system] primary use is as a shakedown
> > device to extract royalty payments.  The idea is not to actually
> > thwart competition, but to threaten it enough that accused infringers,
> > fearing an injunction, capitulate and pay a royalty.
>
> There is a neat little business process in use today by a few corps.  I
> call it the Rambus method:
>
>   1. Hire some lawyers

How about more like this.

1.  Steal underpants.
2.  Hire some Lawyers.
3.  ???
4.  Profit!!

Peace...  Sridhar