Subject: eBay being sued over patent infringement

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Apr 23 19:52:00 2003

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/5699838.htm

-- 

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: Mail List <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Apr 23 21:09:00 2003

That's right here in the next town over. If it's an open courtroom I could
go over there and check it out.

I don't know about eBay and patent infringement, but I think eBay
has a monopoly on the online auction market for private individuals
which might warrant anti-trust action. I don't think a private individual
would be able to sell many types of items anymore through a classified
ad, and if they tried to use another online auction service, would do so
poorly, that if they would like to do the best they can, just about have no
choice but to list on eBay. Also, eBay has such power in this arena
these days, i.e. no other online auction service for the private individual
seems to be able to compete very well with them, that they got the
sellers by the "nads". They don't seem to be very interested in the
performance of their customers, i.e. the sellers. That's why I don't offer
anything for sale on eBay anymore. I only buy on eBay these days.

---

From: Doc Shipley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Apr 23 21:59:00 2003

> which might warrant anti-trust action. I don't think a private 

   The fact that an entity may be the only viable player on a given 
field doesn't "warrant anti-trust action."  If eBay is actively doing 
anything to hinder their competition, other than doing what they do 
VERY well, and marketing it well, *that* might warrant action.

> poorly, that if they would like to do the best they can, just about 

   I sell goods all the time on the austin.forsale newsgroup.  As far as 
I'm concerned, eBay is an *asset* to that, not a detraction.  eBay is 
the de facto Blue Book for used/surplus goods, allowing me to decide if 
my property is salable, whether it's worth more in cash than as a 
possession, and how to price it.  It also shortstops lowballing by 
prospective customers.  Naturally, it isn't the only resource I use, 
but it a very convenient and extremely well-organized asset for any 
seller, and for any buyer of either local or online goods.

> anything for sale on eBay anymore. I only buy on eBay these days.

   As far as I can tell, and I haven't heard even a rumor of eBay 
leveraging their weight against the competition, the only reason the 
other online auction services aren't getting action is that they suck.

	Doc

---

From: Mail List <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Apr 23 23:07:01 2003

Doc,

Your's is an interesting perspective.

 > the only reason the other online auction services aren't getting action 
is that they suck.

They definitely do. But the reason they suck is that the others don't seem 
to have much
variety or volume of interesting items for sale.

 > eBay is the de facto Blue Book for used/surplus goods

Yet on this very same mailing list, many have said eBay prices are 
"artificially" inflated,
etc. and that Michael's book is the more accurate guide to true market 
value. It really
does still end up boiling down to each individuals perspective as eBay 
buyer's, eBay
seller's, and hobbyist's goals vary quite widely.

 > As far as I can tell, and I haven't heard even a rumor of eBay 
leveraging their weight
 > against the competition

I heard that with them being the Goliath that they are, they bought out and 
absorbed
most of their potentially serious competitors.

 > other than doing what they do VERY well, and marketing it well

Wouldn't that definition fit Microsoft as well. ( Being honest, and not 
just bashing
Microsoft because it's the popular thing to do ). Yet Microsoft was brought 
up on
anti-trust charges.

 > The fact that an entity may be the only viable player on a given field 
doesn't "warrant
anti-trust action."

If they were the only player that wanted to play, that would surely be so. 
But if almost
no competition can make a dent in the market against such a Goliath, it 
seemed to
me that was what the "anti-trust" laws were all about. But, IANAL, so I 
might be way
off base in my thoughts on the matter.

At 09:56 PM 4/23/03 -0500, you wrote:
>   The fact that an entity may be the only viable player on a given field 
> doesn't "warrant anti-trust action."  If eBay is actively doing anything 
> to hinder their competition, other than doing what they do VERY well, and 
> marketing it well, *that* might warrant action.
>
> I'm concerned, eBay is an *asset* to that, not a detraction.  eBay is the 
> de facto Blue Book for used/surplus goods, allowing me to decide if my 
> property is salable, whether it's worth more in cash than as a 
> prospective customers.  Naturally, it isn't the only resource I use, but 
> it a very convenient and extremely well-organized asset for any seller, 
> and for any buyer of either local or online goods.
>

---

From: "Jeffrey S. Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Apr 23 23:39:28 2003

I agree wholeheartedly with Doc.

It is one thing to have a type of service , and another entirely to have
one which excludes certain users, types of users, or otherwise prevents
free trade.  Ebay is not (yet) a member of this group. They have done
nothing wrong (Yet).

Just because they are successful doesn't justify antitrust action.

Best.
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Doc Shipley
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 10:57 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: eBay being sued over patent infringement

	Doc

---

From: Doc Shipley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 00:33:00 2003

On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 11:05 PM, Mail List wrote:
> > the only reason the other online auction services aren't getting 
> action is that they suck.
>
> They definitely do. But the reason they suck is that the others don't 
> seem to have much

   Yahoo Auctions is the only other one I've really spent time on 
lately, and at least as far as Yahoo goes, I submit that you have put 
the cart before the horse.  In my view, the reason they don't seem to 
have much variety or volume of interesting items for sale is that they 
suck.  Their search engine is very poor, navigation of the categories 
is a nightmare, and they host far too much extraneous advertising.

> Yet on this very same mailing list, many have said eBay prices are 

   That's a patently ridiculous statement, the fact that it is made 
often notwithstanding.  I _will_ grant that items often sell for far 
more than I would pay.  But Bennett, the *definition* of market value 
is the price that the available buyer is willing to pay.
   eBay prices may be inflated, from a professional dealer's or an 
experienced hobbyist's perspective.  For auction prices to be 
*artificially* inflated, as a general condition, is simply impossible, 
unless you assume consistent,  fraudulent price-fixing.

> seller's, and hobbyist's goals vary quite widely.

   Well, yeah.  As I said, I do use other pricing tools.  I match my 
pricing to my market, and my market to the price I need.  For instance, 
I have a stack of HP C160 workstations I'd like to sell.  I won't put 
them on eBay, because the shipping will exceed the probable selling 
price, the size of the machine make them a mother to crate, and I'd get 
a barrage of "I'll buy it if you'll just send me X part" requests.  
I'll sell them locally, on the newsgroup, for a little less than I'd 
get on eBay.  On those, convenience is the bottom line, not the dollar 
value.
   Further, who the prospective buyer is makes a difference.  J Random 
Idjit will pay eBay prices.  Hobbyists I've traded with or expect to 
trade with get deep discounts from market wholesale.  The resellers I 
deal with pay wholesale, or more often trade at wholesale.
   If I have to get market, I offer it to friends and lists at near eBay 
prices, explaining the cash crunch, then eBay it.  That's the case with 
the Laserbus and XMI gear I'm about to put on the market.

   Some buyers will pay 3x or 4x retail, if I'll sell to them at all.  I 
have a very long memory, and my temper takes precedence over my wallet 
every time.

> I heard that with them being the Goliath that they are, they bought 
> out and absorbed

   Not illegal, or even unethical, as long as it's done within SEC regs, 
and other federal guidelines.

> Wouldn't that definition fit Microsoft as well. ( Being honest, and 
> not just bashing
> Microsoft because it's the popular thing to do ). Yet Microsoft was 
> brought up on
> anti-trust charges.

   Now that's just a huge red herring,and doesn't fit at all.  Honestly? 
  I use MS products maybe once a month.  Nothing to do with fashion - I 
just prefer a secure and stable computing platform.  MS *doesn't* do 
their job well, although they market it well.
   As far as anti-trust issues are concerned, Microsoft was not charged 
with having too large a share of the market.  MS was charged with 
exerting undue influence - active coercion - on their customers, using 
that market share as leverage.
   eBay has never even been accused of coercing their customers to do 
anything, and I flatly fail to see that as being even possible.  To 
claim that their paying customers, the eBay sellers, have no other 
venue is laughable.

 > > The fact that an entity may be the only viable player on a given 
field
 > > doesn't "warrant anti-trust action."
>
> If they were the only player that wanted to play, that would surely be 
> so. But if almost
> no competition can make a dent in the market against such a Goliath, 
> it seemed to
> me that was what the "anti-trust" laws were all about. But, IANAL, so 
> I might be way

   The anti-trust laws are about using market share, and absence of 
viable competitors, to exert undue or unwarranted influence on that 
market.
   eBay is the Goliath they are because they provide a good product, not 
because of unethical practices.  [Like Jeffrey Worley said, "Yet"]
   To go with your metaphor, all it takes is one David with a better 
idea to bring them down to size.

	Doc

---

From: Mail List <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 09:34:01 2003

Doc,

 > Yahoo Auctions is the only other one I've really spent time on lately

I was checking Yahoo periodically for some items. While eBay had
a full page or two every day, Yahoo usually had not a single one. I
finally just gave up because soon seemed a waste of time.

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

I'm quite happy with eBay prices, though only occasionally the product quality
is poor, or items are unfortunately sometimes mis-described.

 >  For auction prices to be *artificially* inflated, as a general 
condition, is simply
 > impossible, unless you assume consistent,  fraudulent price-fixing.

Not impossible. There is the potential for the occasional abuse in "shill 
bidding", etc.
But, perhaps I should not have said "artifically"  It was only a 
restatement of what
I thought I had understood that some other people thought that this was so.

 > MS was charged with exerting undue influence - active coercion - on 
their customers,
 > using that market share as leverage.

No one ever had to buy Microsoft products. They always could have gone with the
Macintosh platform, or a Unix system.

 > eBay has never even been accused of coercing their customers to do anything

Just as no one has to buy or sell on eBay. But for an interesting read on 
some of
eBay's customer's viewpoints, scan the eBay DNF message board every time
eBay comes up with a new way to charge their sellers more money for another
new "feature". They aren't all wonderfully overjoyed with eBay. eBay also 
has monitors
that monitor that message board, and they suspended "Tag" for voicing an 
opinion
they didn't wish heard.

 > The anti-trust laws are about using market share, and absence of viable 
competitors,
 > to exert undue or unwarranted influence on that market.

eBay market share is the largest by a landfall.

No other online auction service seems to be a viable competitor.

eBay has become a very serious marketplace. There is Federal oversight on the
stock and commodities markets. eBay has gotten to be such a big thing these
days, oversight over the online auction market might be needed someday too.

At 12:31 AM 4/24/03 -0500, you wrote:
>   Yahoo Auctions is the only other one I've really spent time on lately, 
> and at least as far as Yahoo goes, I submit that you have put the cart 
> before the horse.  In my view, the reason they don't seem to have much 
> variety or volume of interesting items for sale is that they suck.  Their 
> search engine is very poor, navigation of the categories is a nightmare, 
> and they host far too much extraneous advertising.
>
>   That's a patently ridiculous statement, the fact that it is made often 
> notwithstanding.  I _will_ grant that items often sell for far more than 
> I would pay.  But Bennett, the *definition* of market value is the price 
> that the available buyer is willing to pay.
> pricing to my market, and my market to the price I need.  For instance, I 
> have a stack of HP C160 workstations I'd like to sell.  I won't put them 
> on eBay, because the shipping will exceed the probable selling price, the 
> size of the machine make them a mother to crate, and I'd get a barrage of 
> "I'll buy it if you'll just send me X part" requests.
>I'll sell them locally, on the newsgroup, for a little less than I'd get 
>on eBay.  On those, convenience is the bottom line, not the dollar value.
>>I heard that with them being the Goliath that they are, they bought out 
>>and absorbed
>   Now that's just a huge red herring,and doesn't fit at 
> all.  Honestly?  I use MS products maybe once a month.  Nothing to do 
> with fashion - I just prefer a secure and stable computing platform.  MS 
> *doesn't* do their job well, although they market it well.
> anything, and I flatly fail to see that as being even possible.  To claim 
> that their paying customers, the eBay sellers, have no other venue is 
> laughable.
>
>   The anti-trust laws are about using market share, and absence of viable 
> competitors, to exert undue or unwarranted influence on that market.
>   To go with your metaphor, all it takes is one David with a better idea 
> to bring them down to size.
>
>         Doc

---

From: Geoff Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 16:04:01 2003

> marketing it well, *that* might warrant action.

They are, the state of Illinois?  has a new law that was pushed through 
with the help of ebay requiring the operators of any Internet auction site 
to register with that state "if any potential sellers or buyers reside 
within the state"  at a fee of $200.  of course you also have to find an 
auctioneer to "sponsor" you and you have to take state approved courses to 
maintain the registration (auction calling, and the like) :(  the state is 
getting ready to start filing civil lawsuits seeking damages of up to 
$10,000 and the shutting down of the offending sites if you don't comply.

  For small auction site operators like my wife (she hasn't made any $ from 
the thing yet and it's been running for > 6 months) that state's 
requirements are onerous.

---

From: Doc Shipley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 16:32:00 2003

On Thursday, April 24, 2003, at 04:08 PM, Geoff Reed wrote:
>
> They are, the state of Illinois?  has a new law that was pushed 
> through with the help of ebay requiring the operators of any Internet 
> auction site to register with that state "if any potential sellers or 
> buyers reside within the state"  at a fee of $200.  of course you also 
> have to find an auctioneer to "sponsor" you and you have to take state 
> approved courses to maintain the registration (auction calling, and 
> the like) :(  the state is getting ready to start filing civil 
> lawsuits seeking damages of up to $10,000 and the shutting down of the 
> offending sites if you don't comply.

   You have to take a *calling* class to run an online auction?
   That does sound really fishy, especially considering eBay's 
participation.  Why is nobody fighting it?

	Doc

---

From: Mail List <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 17:53:00 2003

Geoff,

 > For small auction site operators like my wife

So tell us how to find your wife's site, and perhaps some among us
might check it out.

At 02:08 PM 4/24/03 -0700, you wrote:
>> to hinder their competition, other than doing what they do VERY well, 
>> and marketing it well, *that* might warrant action.
>
>  For small auction site operators like my wife (she hasn't made any $ 
> from the thing yet and it's been running for > 6 months) that state's

---

From: Geoff Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 19:51:41 2003

http://www.lordandlady.net

it's sci-fi, Fantasy ,Ren/Mediaeval and goth stuff

At 06:51 PM 4/24/03 -0400, you wrote:
>>with the help of ebay requiring the operators of any Internet auction 
>>site to register with that state "if any potential sellers or buyers 
>>reside within the state"  at a fee of $200.  of course you also have to 
>>find an auctioneer to "sponsor" you and you have to take state approved 
>>courses to maintain the registration (auction calling, and the like) 
>>:(  the state is getting ready to start filing civil lawsuits seeking 
>>damages of up to $10,000 and the shutting down of the offending sites if 
>>you don't comply.
>>

---

From: Mail List <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 22:09:00 2003

Geoff,

It's very professional looking. My compliments.

---

From: Geoff Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Apr 24 23:50:01 2003

I will let her know you said so