From: "andrew fildes" <afildes@netlink.com.au> > >It's common for copyright holders to go directly to the outlet where the > >copyright is being infringed, as well as to the person infringing or finally > >to the law if necessary. If someone on ebay appears to have infringed on one > >of your copyrights (photo), you can go to ebay and complain. ebay will > >attempt to protect you. Do you think this is right? It's the same for > >patents. > > > >As to shakey ground, they can do whatever they want with their policy, so > >long as they don't discriminate based on race, ethenicity, etc. It's _their_ > >site, not some government site. > > What if the claim of copyright is spurious - then ebay will have been > complicit in restraint of your trade, no? I would assume that an intent to restrain on ebay's part would be required. > Also, what is involved > here is a pending patent which may be rejected at some stage and may > have been sought as a legal blocking manoeuvre. I would have thought > that the appropriate action for ebay would be to withdraw an ad or > activity when the complaint obtains an injunction unless it offends > specifically stated rules on such things as pornographic materials. > Such rules could be challenged before a problem arises. > It's their site but what they do is in the international public > domain. Behaving ethically and responsibly has nothing whatsoever to > do with whether you are a public or private concern. I have four pending patents. I am not trying to restrain anyone's trade. I looked at the camera in question. There is sufficient complexity to justify at least 20 patents. To run afoul of one would be easy. To look at an item and sees what appears to be a patent infringement is easy too. Kind of like seeing a landscape that you bet was ripped off from you only to find out that it was a different guy at the same place just behind you and you forgot that two years ago someone else was there. Many things are patentable in nearly all countries. You know the little knoch in the blade of a pocket knife? The one you put your fingernail in to open the blade? That was patented and the patent's 21 (or whatever) years just expired a few years ago. An infringement could be something as easy to overlook as this. ebay is attempting to do their best to avoid lawsuits and thus survive. That's all. If you're a lawyer specializing in this area of law, why don't you offer your services to ebay? I don't love 'um or hate 'um. It does bother me though when otherwise good folk dump on this person or that organization when, in fact, they don't know crap. Are there bad guys out there? Yeah, there are. > > > >See the above... That there is no such thing as a "world-wide patent" is > >irrelavent. If ebay was incorporated in Japan, it would be subject to > >Japanese law and to the Japanese tort system. It has it's eccentricities as > >well. All do. > > > ebay is now a trans-national corporation and needs to act as such. It > has sites in over twenty countries at last count, including mine. It > can no longer hide behind the hamburger curtain. I've recommended > that my friend list on the local site - that should be interesting. > > > > > and US notions of what constitutes an > >> "invention" are pretty skewed. > > > >This is opinion, not fact. Having done many patent searches, I tend to agree > >with you, but of course this too is opinion. > > It's my understanding that you may patent a technique, design or > process but not a fundamental idea. No. You can patent nearly any idea however "fundamental" or trivial it may seem to you. You cannot patent mathematical or physical principles. > Thus, Leica could patent the M > bayonet but the idea of a bayonet mount itself was not (unsure of > that) and the fundamental concept of the interchangeable lens was not > patentable, only the way in which you did it. My friend offers to > modify a 30-40 year old camera for you - how the hell can anyone > patent that (he has not copied the modification) or claim that > Polaroid has the right to licence such a procedure? > > > > > Nonetheless, Ebay are subject to American > >> law, and have to protect themselves. Doubtless their terms and > >> conditions are written under the general American assumption that > >> America is or should be the world. > > > >This is uncalled for and has nothing to do with photography. Please take > >your hate elsewhere. > > Oh dear - my friend is suffering from that exact assumption. Spend a > little time on ebay and it's a generalisation that's not hard to > make. You've already criticised your own government implicitly > earlier in this. Your impact on us earns us the right. Your friends > are not always the ones who agree with you and criticism of American > behaviour does not constitute 'hate.' I think we've been here before. Yeah, yeah. Not like I haven't seen it before and don't know it's rhetoric. For a while, until I got to this, I thought you were sincere and we might have a conversation on the subject. I know you and have dealt with you before. You reason by "extremes" as in the offended French whom you discuss below asking, "do the French then have the right to protect themselves by 'sabotage'?" Then you pat yourself on the back thinking you've made some sort of great intellectual impression. > > > (Actually it's interesting that there was one "Nazi memorabilia" case in > > > which the US judge ruled - absolutely correctly, of course - that yahoo > >> in the US is *NOT* subject to French law, and may ignored French court > >> rulings trying to tell it what to do. Unfortunately, awareness of the > >> opposite situation seems to be longer coming.) > > > >This is a nonsense example. Yahoo does not have to obey French law in the > >US. ebay does, however, have to obey US law in the US. > > This is a problem that will have to be dealt with. Offensive sites > may not be sacrosanct simply because they are in another country > where their activity is legal. If ebay is doing something offensive > to the French, do the French then have the right to protect > themselves by 'sabotage'? No. Control freaks of the world back off! The French can be just as offensive as they wish as well. Just not in this forum... please. THERE IS NO BASIC "RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED". That said, anyone can do anything he wants in his own home. This is Andy's home (for all practical purposes). We do what he wants here. That usually involves keeping to photography. I've strayed off the path. I appologize to the group. > After all, they do not have to leave their > shores to do it and they have demonstrated their willingness to go to > these lengths (remember the Rainbow Warrior?) Where is an internet > crime committed - at origin or destination? > AndrewF I do not wish any further discussions with folks of your ilk, and to everyone's sigh of relief, I'll post no more on the subject.
