Subject:
|
Re: SeriousCollector
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 00:07:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
642 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.auction, n.norderSPAMBLOCK@computer.org (Naji Norder)
writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > http://www.seriouscollector.com/
> > . Note the anti sniping policy! Any bid keeps
> > the auction alive for 24 hours. ** I LIKE that **
>
> This part of the _About_ page bothers me:
>
> Along with the debut of The Serious Collector, comes the
> introduction of a proprietary auction methodology unique on the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> world wide web. The Serious Collector employs the
> Aging-of-Bids methodology for all its online auctions, which is
> economically superior to timed auctions for the pricing of high value,
> limited supply merchandise.
>
> Is he trying to claim proprietary ownership on the concept that bids
> don't have to close at a fixed time? This isn't unique or proprietary.
> EveryAuction software has had this available for years. If I ever
> decide to use the EveryAuction engine, I had already planned to kick its
> default 5-minute delay up to, say 8-24 hours. I would think that, when
> he was planning his auction site, he would have at least looked at
> EveryAuction, and that he would then know that his idea is not unique.
Well, "aging-of-bids methodology" could mean lots of things. There's
probably nothing truly proprietary or unique about it unless what they are
referring to is some particular mathematical curve function within their
code which no one else happens to be using. (This would be my guess.)
I'm positive that it doesn't refer to the general concept of bids not
closing at a fixed time -- because that, in itself, is nothing new -- it's
been around since before the fixed-ending-time format.
I would further guess that it doesn't mean setting the amount of the
minimum-raise to be a function of the age of the current high bid.
Something like that can't be considered proprietary either, even if it
hasn't ever been implemented by anyone yet, since it was discussed at length
long ago in RTL by people unrelated to seriouscollector.com.
By "proprietary" I assume they mean "owned." To own a methodology they
would need to either have a patent on it or keep it a trade secret. A
patent relating to varying the amount of bid-increment-requirements based on
bid aging would be unenforceable unless they filed it a *long* time ago.
And if it were patented, it would probably have said "patented" or "patent-
pending" instead of "proprietary." Conversely, if it's a trade secret and
the methodology turns out to be a good one, then it'll be reverse-engineered
by someone and it'll spread to other sites, and it won't be unique anymore.
It's probably just marketing hype. (Good marketing hype. :)
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: SeriousCollector
|
| (...) But seriouscollector.com may or may not know anything about that discussion. Is it on Dejanews? In that case, well, You could probably invalidate any patents they might file - but I doubt the patent office would know, and therefore not rant it (...) (26 years ago, 5-Apr-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: SeriousCollector
|
| (...) This part of the _About_ page bothers me: Along with the debut of The Serious Collector, comes the introduction of a proprietary auction methodology unique on the ^^^...^^^ world wide web. The Serious Collector employs the Aging-of-Bids (...) (26 years ago, 4-Apr-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
