Our group was assigned eBay v. Bidder's Edge, pages 222-224. Bidder's Edge uses a bot to search through auction sites such as eBay and then makes a list of the different items at different sites available to customers (Spinello p.223). eBay seen that as trespassing and sued Bidder's Edge to stop them from using their bots to search and trespass on their property (website). Bidder's Edge argued back that eBay is a publicly accessible website and had suffered minimal damage to the site. They also argued that there was users who benefited from the site. (Spinello p.223). The court ended up ruling with eBay and Bidder's Edge could no longer use spiders or bots to access eBay's information.
-Kayla Hero, Michael LaPan
1. Do you agree with the court's decision in this case? Is Bidder's Edge really guilty trespass? How strong a case has eBay presented regarding this claim?
I do not agree with the court's decision in this case. I think that Bidder's Edge didn't really do anything wrong. I don't think that the damages that eBay suffered were real damages to begin with. I do not think that eBay presented a strong case in this claim. I think that if eBay had shown that they had actual damages then they might have had a real case, but since they didn't I don't think that they should have won.
-Angela Goodro
Using utilitarianism, which is the greatest good over evil (Spinello p.11), I do not agree with the court's decision. There are many people who could have benefited from Bidder's Edge. Instead of having to go to multiple auction sites to find the selling price of one item, you could go to just one website and they did that work for you. I don't think eBay's website had that much damage done to it, that the damage done to eBay would outweigh the damage done by taking away the site from customers who were benefiting from it. It may have even been a good thing for eBay, showing that their site had the best prices. Bidder's edge may have even sent customers to eBay. Bidder's Edge only used publicly accessible information to their advantage. Bidder's Edge didn't really trespass since the information on eBay is available to anyone who visits the site. All Bidder's Edge did was really take the information and make it more easily available to its customers.
-Kayla Hero, Adam Magiera
I disagree with the rest of my group and believe that the court's decision was correct in this case. I will use Pluralism, which states that something is unethical when universalizing it as a maxim creates a contradiction (Spinello p.15). Bidders Edge asserted that no trespassing occurred because even though they had a robots exclusion header eBay's site was publicly accessible(Spinello p.223). This is the same as saying that because someone lets their anyone onto their property everyone is allowed to come into it. This can be universalized as "It is permissible for everyone to enter another's property if anyone is allowed to" This creates a logical contradiction as if everyone can enter another's property freely then the very concept of having private property becomes invalid making Bidder's Edge's actions amoral.
-James Hignite
2. Assume that you are a lawyer working pro bono on the appeal for Bidder's Edge. What arguments would you present on the company's behalf?
I think that I would present the argument that the damages to eBay were not substantial enough to warrant them winning the case. I would also argue that Bidder's Edge actually helped eBay by allowing customers to see that eBay had the best deals for what they were looking to purchase.
-Angela Goodro, Michael LaPan
-Kayla Hero, Michael LaPan
1. Do you agree with the court's decision in this case? Is Bidder's Edge really guilty trespass? How strong a case has eBay presented regarding this claim?
I do not agree with the court's decision in this case. I think that Bidder's Edge didn't really do anything wrong. I don't think that the damages that eBay suffered were real damages to begin with. I do not think that eBay presented a strong case in this claim. I think that if eBay had shown that they had actual damages then they might have had a real case, but since they didn't I don't think that they should have won.
-Angela Goodro
Using utilitarianism, which is the greatest good over evil (Spinello p.11), I do not agree with the court's decision. There are many people who could have benefited from Bidder's Edge. Instead of having to go to multiple auction sites to find the selling price of one item, you could go to just one website and they did that work for you. I don't think eBay's website had that much damage done to it, that the damage done to eBay would outweigh the damage done by taking away the site from customers who were benefiting from it. It may have even been a good thing for eBay, showing that their site had the best prices. Bidder's edge may have even sent customers to eBay. Bidder's Edge only used publicly accessible information to their advantage. Bidder's Edge didn't really trespass since the information on eBay is available to anyone who visits the site. All Bidder's Edge did was really take the information and make it more easily available to its customers.
-Kayla Hero, Adam Magiera
I disagree with the rest of my group and believe that the court's decision was correct in this case. I will use Pluralism, which states that something is unethical when universalizing it as a maxim creates a contradiction (Spinello p.15). Bidders Edge asserted that no trespassing occurred because even though they had a robots exclusion header eBay's site was publicly accessible(Spinello p.223). This is the same as saying that because someone lets their anyone onto their property everyone is allowed to come into it. This can be universalized as "It is permissible for everyone to enter another's property if anyone is allowed to" This creates a logical contradiction as if everyone can enter another's property freely then the very concept of having private property becomes invalid making Bidder's Edge's actions amoral.
-James Hignite
2. Assume that you are a lawyer working pro bono on the appeal for Bidder's Edge. What arguments would you present on the company's behalf?
I think that I would present the argument that the damages to eBay were not substantial enough to warrant them winning the case. I would also argue that Bidder's Edge actually helped eBay by allowing customers to see that eBay had the best deals for what they were looking to purchase.
-Angela Goodro, Michael LaPan
I agree with the courts decision, because if this would have been ruled it could have resulted in people bending the ruling to extreme extents and could result in serious damage to ebay. What could have edge done to resolve this outside of court and still be able to use his bots?
ReplyDeleteI think the only way to handle this outside of court and Bidder's Edge still be able to use bots is they would have had to come up with some agreement that if they use their bots they will pay eBay a fee. eBay did not want them to use bots to get information from their site at all, so either Bidder's Edge would pay to do that or not do it at all.
DeleteGroup 2, good job presenting on the eBay vs. Bidder's Edge case. Do you think that eBay was concerned about Bidder's Edge stealing eBay's information, or that eBay was concerned that Bidder's Edge was bypassing the advertisements on eBay's website and costing them money?
ReplyDeleteSince Google and other search engines use similar spiders and search bots, do you think that this case could be applied as an argument for or against search engines generally? Or for or against "news aggregator" websites like The Huffington Post or like RSS readers?
I think eBay was more worried about losing out on money because Bidder's Edge could potentially bring them business if their selling price is low, but if it's cheaper at a different auction site the customer would go there. eBay would then lose out on that business it could have received if the user would have first went to eBay. Also by going to Bidder's Edge first they would bypass the advertisements, so I think they felt they were loosing money multiple ways.
DeleteI think this case would be against search engine sites because the court ruled to eBay, denying Bidder's Edge from using their spiders to get information. Search engines do the same thing and search out information and keywords from other sites. Why is it okay for search engines to use spiders to get information from eBay, but not Bidder's Edge?
I agree that bidder's edge didn't really do anything wrong because there are other sites and search engines doing the same as bidder's edge has done and ebay wasn't suing them at all. I think ebay was targeting a big name bidding service because they were afraid that bidder's edge would take people away from them. Good job on your blog.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Bidder's Edge did anything wrong, what they were doing can is basically the same thing search engines do. If it is ok for search engines to do it why is it not ok for this company to do the same?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the difference with search engines is that the do not monitor the pages content as Bidder's Edge did only index it, and if they do monitor it they received permission from Ebay first.
DeleteGroup # 2, you use utilitarianism, the greatest good over evil, to describe your case study and it does fit well. My question is do you think there is an evil in this case study? Or is there a misinterpretation of terms and conditions being violated instead of the actions being evil? Good work on your presentation.
ReplyDeleteGood job on your blog group 2. I don't agree with the court's decision as long as BiddersEdge wasn't making any money from it. It seems like they were just doing what a bunch of search engines like google, bing, and yahoo do.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the courts ruling in this case. I agree that the greater good for everyone would have come with a ruling in favor of BiddersEdge. People should be allowed to view all the options available when buying things online. I think E-bay is just making waves since they aren't selling as much as they used to.
ReplyDeleteI think that if that website had been costing ebay money that they got what they deserve.But it seems that it was doing the same thing as google does
ReplyDeleteI agree with the courts. If there was no money being made then why make something out of nothing. Oh that's right Ebay may have just making noise to generate sympathy and bring positive attention to bring up sales.
ReplyDelete