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

From: Mail List <mail.list_at_analog-and-digital-solutions.com>
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:
>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
>>variety or volume of interesting items for sale.
>
> 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.
>
>> > 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,
>
> 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.
>
>>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.
>
> 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
>>most of their potentially serious competitors.
>
> Not illegal, or even unethical, as long as it's done within SEC regs,
> and other federal guidelines.
>
>> > 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.
>
> 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
>>off base in my thoughts on the matter.
>
> 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
Received on Thu Apr 24 2003 - 09:34:01 BST