<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
As I've said before, I wish you had the guts to post your profile and give us an idea of who you are, Mr. Anonymous Bigbetter You're too much >>
You don't need to see my profile to take my money Mr. Negative! Off to a Hold'em Tournament now so don't take my silence as weakness.
Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
IMO, the fraudulent practice of quoting the PCGS price guide for non-PCGS coins is a totally unrelated issue (and one I think needs to be stopped completely). That's misrepresentation by a specific seller, not passing judgment on the quality of a particular company's products that makes eBay more than "just a venue."
<< <i>One big difference between this lawsuit and the last one is Ebay basically has infinite funds and is unlikely to cave like the ANA et al did. >>
Yeah, but the problem is that when you start making specific judgment calls on which services deserve to be "certified" and which have to be sold as raw, you are undermining your tried and true "just a venue" defense. So if eBay wins this one, it can still be used against them potentially in another dispute when they fall back on "we're just a venue" after someone sues them for being ripped off.
IMO, eBay is trying to have it both ways here. Either you are "just a venue" which allows a free-for-all (and exempts you from liability over bad transactions) or you exercise some amount of control over what is sold there. It's just not consistent to be "just a venue" while making qualititative judgments about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw." You are MORE than just a venue when you do that. >>
You make a good point, but I differ from you in that Ebay has ALWAYS had a history of offering a level of security for its' participants, all the while sucessfully maintaining the "just a venue" argument.
One could assert that just making the judgment about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw" establishes a level of "control" on the part of Ebay.
I believe that "Resonably within its control" is probably the essential pivot point of the argument.
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
Correct. It's the crux of the issue, and an irrefutable defense. This thing is over before it starts.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
My guess is this will never go before a jury, too risky for Ebay that way, they will file various motions to dismiss the case and if that fails they will settle.
<< <i>It will be interesting to see how much they claim they lost, especially since they can still sell the same stuff as before. >>
Since the plaintiffs have to prove their claim of lost revenue and the only way to do so is to produce before and after financial statements, the discovery process could prove to be quite interesting. I've always wondered just how much revenue some of these guys are generating.
Oh, and another thought just occurred to me. Why has Abon, aka SGS, not joined this action?
<< <i>One could assert that just making the judgment about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw" establishes a level of "control" on the part of Ebay. >>
In so doing they are passing judgment on the legitimacy and quality of a particular entity's products, at which point they are simply no longer a venue. If they want to win this case -- and I think the law is with them -- I think they will have to use a defense that seriously undermines the credibility of the "just a venue" claim in cases moving forward.
In any event, I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
Correct. It's the crux of the issue, and an irrefutable defense. This thing is over before it starts. >>
True. eBay is just disqualifying them from using a label as an entitlement. It is up to eBay to set that standard just as they might for Power Seller.
<< <i>Now, we who pay close attention may conclude that it's a numismatic "death penalty", but eBay is just one of many venues, and as a single venue it cannot reasonably assumed their policy results in said capital punishment, unless they also are found to be a monopoly, which they are not, and cannot found to be when there are alternative venues, including those provided by members of this forum >>
Keep in mind that I'm trying to think like an average juror here, many of which aren't fans of big, huge powerful businesses that have the ability to destroy smaller businesses with arguably arbitrary judgment calls that can make or break a business. For the average individual looking to sell into a large audience, there really *is* no alternative venue to eBay. Thus, even if it's not an actual monopoly, it is in many ways a de facto monopoly for practical purposes. >>
Remember the jurors will get juror instructions and will only be able to rule on the evidence, not the general philosophical what we believe is right that we discuss here. Most of the people posting here, including me, don't even know what the applicable law says. thus, I'm eager to see a real legal opinion. --jerry
<< <i>My guess is this will never go before a jury, too risky for Ebay that way, they will file various motions to dismiss the case and if that fails they will settle. >>
Unfortunately, the latter is what a lot of these frivolous lawsuits are hoping for.
<< <i>It will be interesting to see how much they claim they lost, especially since they can still sell the same stuff as before. >>
Since the plaintiffs have to prove their claim of lost revenue and the only way to do so is to produce before and after financial statements, the discovery process could prove to be quite interesting. I've always wondered just how much revenue some of these guys are generating. Oh, and another thought just occurred to me. Why has Abon, aka SGS, not joined this action? Russ, NCNE >>
And why did PCI choose to ally with these others? I would have expected them to want not to be lumped in with the rest of them.
<< <i>One could assert that just making the judgment about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw" establishes a level of "control" on the part of Ebay. >>
In so doing they are passing judgment on the legitimacy and quality of a particular entity's products, at which point they are simply no longer a venue. If they want to win this case -- and I think the law is with them -- I think they will have to use a defense that seriously undermines the credibility of the "just a venue" claim in cases moving forward.
In any event, I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. >>
Agreed. Bur what I meant to say is that, historically, Ebay has been "just a venue" but at the same time has reserved and enforced its rights on what, and in what manner, items may be presented in that venue.
I haven't seen any update on Tiffany v. Ebay, but I suspect that the ruling will impact here - less on salient issues but more on sentiment, and how the "just a venue" holds up.
i dont see them winning. they still can sell, just cant list a grade in header. heheheh i hope it get tost. john
References
Loe-steelielee-bought 690. sale nate-grandrapidian-bought 70. sale Paul-commoncents-3500+ sales Ken-jfoot-sold-125.00 sale Mike-mozeppa-bought 1080. sale Dave-Badger-sale 560.00 Lochness-sale 1,000. 00
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case. >>
An auctioneer (Heritage, Stack's, Teletrade, me) is actually SELLING the merchandise. A seller has the right to determine what type of merchandise they sell. The buyers pay the auctioneer. The auctioneer pays the consignor.
eBay, however, is NOT an auctioneer. Buyers don't pay ebay, they pay the owner. Ebay sells advertising. An advertising service will refuse to accept advertising for illegal items (child pornography, counterfeits, items infringing copyrights, Nazi items in some countries, etc) But putting restrictions on certain brands of products, while giving other brands preferential status, REGARDLESS OF THE DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY exposes them to charges of restraint of trade, and conspiracy (with the ANA and the PNG) as long as there is no universal standard for coin grading. Unless these "unapproved" grading companies have been charged with and convicted for fraud, it's very hard for ebay to justify discriminating against them. Since"MS65" is neither a trademark nor a government standard, and considering that both PCGS and NGC developed their own in-house standards differing from the ANA standards, and it's not a crime to start your own grading service using your own standards (as PCGS and NGC did two decades ago) I really think ebay will lose this lawsuit. The jury will see that PCI and SEGS have suffered obvious losses directly related to ebay's actions, ebay will be forced to produce records of how many listings they ended, and you can bet Brian Beardsley's widow will testify how her company (PCI) was "auctioned off on the courthouse steps."
I DON'T support "crap slabs" or lax grading, as I have often been accused of here. Back in 2003 I began using an electric engraver to permanently etch the correct (lower) grade on Accugrade slabs that I sold.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>And why did PCI choose to ally with these pigs? I would have expected them to want not to be lumped in with the rest of them. >>
I suspect they felt they were between a rock and a hard place. I've heard it claimed (unconfirmed) that PCI lost 90% of their business after this change in eBay policy. Desperate times call for desperate measures sometimes, I guess. They may have felt like they had nothing to lose and that the only chance they had was to ally with the den of vipers.
If I had a business that was my livelihood and someone made a decision that cost me 90% of my business, I know I'd probably consider a lot of desperate things, too. Whether or not I had legal standing isn't the point. For you and me, it's not food on the table or the roof over our heads. For the folks like Larry Briggs and the ownership of PCI, it is.
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
Correct. It's the crux of the issue, and an irrefutable defense. This thing is over before it starts. >>
True. eBay is just disqualifying them from using a label as an entitlement. It is up to eBay to set that standard just as they might for Power Seller. >>
And I seem to recall that after various members here got their beetching and moaning about it out of their systems, that was the general consensus. It might just be that time has passed, and this legal action causes some to have renewed hope, but it goes back to that bottom line. These guys have a real uphill climb, and seems to me have to upset several established legal applecarts to have a prayer. Ain't gonna happen. And eBay is not going to settle, that's ridiculous. It's thinking like that that may have convinced these guys to file the action. Good luck with that
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i> And eBay is not going to settle, that's ridiculous. >>
Pharmer, For once I hope you're correct. --jerry >>
Putting aside what Dbldie pointed out, consider the ramifications. They won't need to, but it would be worth it to them to throw every penny at this in order to win in court, cuz the feeding frenzy would be on should they cave. A settlement would be the same as a loss, so they figure they might as well lose in court, which again won't happen.
Hey, just a thought, maybe they get so fed up with the ankle biters of the coin world, they eliminate the category. Then the plaintiffs take everyone down with them.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
"Thus, coins graded by Plaintiffs, NNC, ACG, PCI, and SEGS, cannot be listed or sold on eBay as "certified" coins and are referred to as "counterfeit" by eBay. In fact, since the institution of of the aforementioned unfair and deceptive policy, individuals whom have utilized eBay to bid on coins that are not graded by the "approved" grading services are notified by eBay that the products are counterfeit. (See Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.)"
That's a bit of a stretch. What it states is "ebay does not permit the sale of currency that is improperly described, fraudulent, or counterfeit"
I can easily find coins slabbed by ACG, PCI, SEGS or Numistrust (which, to their credit, has not chosen to participate in this lawsuit) by searching the names in item description. I have no intention of searching for NNC, period. We all draw the line somewhere.
I love this country. Unfortunately it lets scumbags sue for the right to rip people off. I hope ebay wins hands down and counter sues for their legal expenses.
<< <i>Putting aside what Dbldie pointed out, consider the ramifications. They won't need to, but it would be worth it to them to throw every penny at this in order to win in court, cuz the feeding frenzy would be on should they cave. A settlement would be the same as a loss, so they figure they might as well lose in court, which again won't happen. >>
Yeah, though in my perfect world they'd settle with one or two of the more legitimate of the plaintiffs, play hardball on the rest, and essentially (IMO) take out almost every shred of legitimacy the plaintiff group has.
I still say that would damage their "just a venue" argument, but eBay has to choose their poison here.
I wonder if this thread will become Exhibit J eventually...
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
By the way, many have said essentially the same as I did, but you singled out my comments to have a tantrum over. Why?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
Correct. It's the crux of the issue, and an irrefutable defense. This thing is over before it starts. >>
True. eBay is just disqualifying them from using a label as an entitlement. It is up to eBay to set that standard just as they might for Power Seller. >>
You guys seem to be off the track here. There is nothing in the lawsuit about them not being able to sell on ebay. The crux is that they are not able to sell their products as "certified". There is a big price difference between certified and non-certified coins and that is part of the basis for the claim of lost revenue - not lost ability to sell on ebay. Inability to sell on ebay is not mentioned anywhere in the lawsuit.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I asked a lawyer (and former forum member) to read the suit. He said basically the same thing Frankcoins (Frank Provosek) said. Ebay has a little problem on its hands but he did say the suit was poorly crafted.
Also of note is that the Ebay v. Tiffany suit is going into its 4th year. Do you think that the plaintiffs have the resources to endure that long?
Anybody but me laugh hysterically at the thought of watching the painful rectal probe that would be Centsless's deposition? Man, what an experience that would be
<< <i>I asked a lawyer (and former forum member) to read the suit. He said basically the same thing Frankcoins (Frank Provosek) said. Ebay has a little problem on its hands but he did say the suit was poorly crafted. >>
Lawyers are tough on each other when grading someone else's paper.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
<< <i>I DON'T support "crap slabs" or lax grading, as I have often been accused of here. Back in 2003 I began using an electric engraver to permanently etch the correct (lower) grade on Accugrade slabs that I sold. >>
If it's okay for you to decide that Accugrade doesn't grade correctly, why can't eBay make the same decisions about other grading companies and set up listing policies based on those descisions?
<< <i>If it's okay for you to decide that Accugrade doesn't grade correctly, why can't eBay make the same decisions about other grading companies and set up listing policies based on those descisions? >>
Because eBay is "just a venue" and Frank isn't.
[Edit to add: I think they *can* make this decision, but as I mentioned earlier, if they do they are jeopardizing their "just a venue" claim.]
<< <i> If a new grading company wanted to open their doors today, they would have no chance of selling on Ebay. If the new company graded to same standards and guarantee as the big three, I don't believe that Ebay will let them list. To me this is against the FTC(Federal Trade Commision) standards. Collectors need to be more educated and aware before they buy coins or any other thing. >>
An online auction company that controls 95% of the market ---
is advised by a nonprofit "collector" organization controlled by big dealers ---
to use a survey conducted by a trade association controlled by big dealers --
rating the grading companies, not by objective testing, but by "perception" --
to make rules favoring the grading companies supported by big dealers--
who in turn are the most PQ customers of the online auction company--
and the non profit organization and the trade association deem certain grading companies the "official" grading company of the organizations--
based not on merit or grading standards, but on which grading company makes the highest payment --
That all sounds bad if the FTC starts unraveling the onion.....
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>I asked a lawyer (and former forum member) to read the suit. He said basically the same thing Frankcoins (Frank Provosek) said. Ebay has a little problem on its hands but he did say the suit was poorly crafted. >>
Lawyers are tough on each other when grading someone else's paper. >>
If you have 50 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand....you do not have enough sand!
Also of note is that the Ebay v. Tiffany suit is going into its 4th year. Do you think that the plaintiffs have the resources to endure that long?
Interesting point, if they have kept Tiffany at bay for this length of time I doubt there is any incentive to settle soon with the new lawsuit. They could just keep filing legal motion after legal motion until the other side is facing bankruptcy with legal bills and just gives up. (that is what Ebay would hope anyway).
<< <i>Also of note is that the Ebay v. Tiffany suit is going into its 4th year. Do you think that the plaintiffs have the resources to endure that long? Interesting point, if they have kept Tiffany at bay for this length of time I doubt there is any incentive to settle soon with the new lawsuit. They could just keep filing legal motion after legal motion until the other side is facing bankruptcy with legal bills and just gives up. (that is what Ebay would hope anyway). >>
This suit may not even make the news beyond the coin discussion boards.
<< <i>Interesting point, if they have kept Tiffany at bay for this length of time I doubt there is any incentive to settle soon with the new lawsuit. They could just keep filing legal motion after legal motion until the other side is facing bankruptcy with legal bills and just gives up. (that is what Ebay would hope anyway). >>
Heck, that's how the U.S. defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot at them -- turn it into a battle of financial attrition and spend your opponent into insolvency.
Unfortunately (not necessarily in this case, but in general), what that means is that the deep pockets can prevail without ever going to court, regardless of the merits or lack thereof.
Oh. I think I see by a post above why the plaintiffs' case seems so righteous to some here. It's all a convoluted conspiracy, see? eBay is out to get these plaintiffs, and certain eBay sellers. OK, got it.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Heck, that's how the U.S. defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot at them -- turn it into a battle of financial attrition and spend your opponent into insolvency.
I wonder if these third world slabbers are going to point out to the court and jury that PCGS's own Buy, Sell, Trade Forum doesn't ban their products.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
funny how these people are mostly located in Florida. why am i not surprised by that?
i predict this suit will take so long my attention span will lapse before it ends.
to me, this is normal in the coin biz. "dealers" taking advantage of clueless people. nothing ever changes. most ebay auctions are crap to begin with, crap slabs or not!
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
As I've said before, I wish you had the guts to post your profile and give us an idea of who you are, Mr. Anonymous Bigbetter
You don't need to see my profile to take my money Mr. Negative! Off to a Hold'em Tournament now so don't take my silence as weakness.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
IMO, the fraudulent practice of quoting the PCGS price guide for non-PCGS coins is a totally unrelated issue (and one I think needs to be stopped completely). That's misrepresentation by a specific seller, not passing judgment on the quality of a particular company's products that makes eBay more than "just a venue."
<< <i>
<< <i>One big difference between this lawsuit and the last one is Ebay basically has infinite funds and is unlikely to cave like the ANA et al did. >>
Yeah, but the problem is that when you start making specific judgment calls on which services deserve to be "certified" and which have to be sold as raw, you are undermining your tried and true "just a venue" defense. So if eBay wins this one, it can still be used against them potentially in another dispute when they fall back on "we're just a venue" after someone sues them for being ripped off.
IMO, eBay is trying to have it both ways here. Either you are "just a venue" which allows a free-for-all (and exempts you from liability over bad transactions) or you exercise some amount of control over what is sold there. It's just not consistent to be "just a venue" while making qualititative judgments about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw." You are MORE than just a venue when you do that. >>
You make a good point, but I differ from you in that Ebay has ALWAYS had a history of offering a level of security for its' participants, all the while sucessfully maintaining the "just a venue" argument.
One could assert that just making the judgment about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw" establishes a level of "control" on the part of Ebay.
I believe that "Resonably within its control" is probably the essential pivot point of the argument.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
Correct. It's the crux of the issue, and an irrefutable defense. This thing is over before it starts.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
fails they will settle.
<< <i>It will be interesting to see how much they claim they lost, especially since they can still sell the same stuff as before. >>
Since the plaintiffs have to prove their claim of lost revenue and the only way to do so is to produce before and after financial statements, the discovery process could prove to be quite interesting. I've always wondered just how much revenue some of these guys are generating.
Oh, and another thought just occurred to me. Why has Abon, aka SGS, not joined this action?
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>One could assert that just making the judgment about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw" establishes a level of "control" on the part of Ebay. >>
In so doing they are passing judgment on the legitimacy and quality of a particular entity's products, at which point they are simply no longer a venue. If they want to win this case -- and I think the law is with them -- I think they will have to use a defense that seriously undermines the credibility of the "just a venue" claim in cases moving forward.
In any event, I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
Correct. It's the crux of the issue, and an irrefutable defense. This thing is over before it starts. >>
True. eBay is just disqualifying them from using a label as an entitlement. It is up to eBay to set that standard just as they might for Power Seller.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>99.999% chance ebay loses this lawsuit. >>
Why?
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>Now, we who pay close attention may conclude that it's a numismatic "death penalty", but eBay is just one of many venues, and as a single venue it cannot reasonably assumed their policy results in said capital punishment, unless they also are found to be a monopoly, which they are not, and cannot found to be when there are alternative venues, including those provided by members of this forum
Keep in mind that I'm trying to think like an average juror here, many of which aren't fans of big, huge powerful businesses that have the ability to destroy smaller businesses with arguably arbitrary judgment calls that can make or break a business. For the average individual looking to sell into a large audience, there really *is* no alternative venue to eBay. Thus, even if it's not an actual monopoly, it is in many ways a de facto monopoly for practical purposes. >>
Remember the jurors will get juror instructions and will only be able to rule on the evidence, not the general philosophical what we believe is right that we discuss here. Most of the people posting here, including me, don't even know what the applicable law says. thus, I'm eager to see a real legal opinion. --jerry
<< <i>My guess is this will never go before a jury, too risky for Ebay that way, they will file various motions to dismiss the case and if that fails they will settle. >>
Unfortunately, the latter is what a lot of these frivolous lawsuits are hoping for.
<< <i>
<< <i>It will be interesting to see how much they claim they lost, especially since they can still sell the same stuff as before. >>
Since the plaintiffs have to prove their claim of lost revenue and the only way to do so is to produce before and after financial statements, the discovery process could prove to be quite interesting. I've always wondered just how much revenue some of these guys are generating. Oh, and another thought just occurred to me. Why has Abon, aka SGS, not joined this action? Russ, NCNE >>
And why did PCI choose to ally with these others? I would have expected them to want not to be lumped in with the rest of them.
<< <i>
<< <i>One could assert that just making the judgment about which coins are "certified" and which are "raw" establishes a level of "control" on the part of Ebay. >>
In so doing they are passing judgment on the legitimacy and quality of a particular entity's products, at which point they are simply no longer a venue. If they want to win this case -- and I think the law is with them -- I think they will have to use a defense that seriously undermines the credibility of the "just a venue" claim in cases moving forward.
In any event, I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. >>
Agreed. Bur what I meant to say is that, historically, Ebay has been "just a venue" but at the same time has reserved and enforced its rights on what, and in what manner, items may be presented in that venue.
I haven't seen any update on Tiffany v. Ebay, but I suspect that the ruling will impact here - less on salient issues but more on sentiment, and how the "just a venue" holds up.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
john
Loe-steelielee-bought 690. sale
nate-grandrapidian-bought 70. sale
Paul-commoncents-3500+ sales
Ken-jfoot-sold-125.00 sale
Mike-mozeppa-bought 1080. sale
Dave-Badger-sale 560.00
Lochness-sale 1,000. 00
<< <i>
Why? eBay restricts what can and cannot be sold on their site in many areas, and always has. In this case they aren't even stating that the material is prohibited, only that it must adhere to a set of guidelines. They also have a phalanx of the best lawyers on the planet. I'm sure the policy changes were extensively reviewed by legal staff before implementation. And, what about the other auction venues that restrict the TPG's they will even allow at all?
I don't see where the plaintiffs even have a case. >>
An auctioneer (Heritage, Stack's, Teletrade, me) is actually SELLING the merchandise. A seller has the right to determine what type of merchandise they sell. The buyers pay the auctioneer. The auctioneer pays the consignor.
eBay, however, is NOT an auctioneer. Buyers don't pay ebay, they pay the owner. Ebay sells advertising. An advertising service will refuse to accept advertising for illegal items (child pornography, counterfeits, items
infringing copyrights, Nazi items in some countries, etc) But putting restrictions on certain brands of products, while giving other brands preferential status, REGARDLESS OF THE DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY exposes them to charges of restraint of trade, and conspiracy (with the ANA and the PNG) as long as there is no universal standard for coin grading. Unless these "unapproved" grading companies have been charged with and convicted for fraud, it's very hard for ebay to justify discriminating against them. Since"MS65" is neither a trademark nor a government standard, and considering that both PCGS and NGC developed their own in-house standards differing from the ANA standards, and it's not a crime to start your own grading service using your own standards (as PCGS and NGC did two decades ago) I really think ebay will lose this lawsuit. The jury will see that PCI and SEGS have suffered obvious losses directly related to ebay's actions, ebay will be forced to produce records of how many listings they ended, and you can bet Brian Beardsley's widow will testify how her company (PCI) was "auctioned off on the courthouse steps."
I DON'T support "crap slabs" or lax grading, as I have often been accused of here. Back in 2003 I began using an electric engraver to permanently etch the correct (lower) grade on Accugrade slabs that I sold.
<< <i>And why did PCI choose to ally with these pigs? I would have expected them to want not to be lumped in with the rest of them. >>
I suspect they felt they were between a rock and a hard place. I've heard it claimed (unconfirmed) that PCI lost 90% of their business after this change in eBay policy. Desperate times call for desperate measures sometimes, I guess. They may have felt like they had nothing to lose and that the only chance they had was to ally with the den of vipers.
If I had a business that was my livelihood and someone made a decision that cost me 90% of my business, I know I'd probably consider a lot of desperate things, too. Whether or not I had legal standing isn't the point. For you and me, it's not food on the table or the roof over our heads. For the folks like Larry Briggs and the ownership of PCI, it is.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
Correct. It's the crux of the issue, and an irrefutable defense. This thing is over before it starts. >>
True. eBay is just disqualifying them from using a label as an entitlement. It is up to eBay to set that standard just as they might for Power Seller. >>
And I seem to recall that after various members here got their beetching and moaning about it out of their systems, that was the general consensus. It might just be that time has passed, and this legal action causes some to have renewed hope, but it goes back to that bottom line. These guys have a real uphill climb, and seems to me have to upset several established legal applecarts to have a prayer. Ain't gonna happen. And eBay is not going to settle, that's ridiculous. It's thinking like that that may have convinced these guys to file the action. Good luck with that
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Did you notice that you're in exhibit B?
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Ziggy,
Did you notice that you're in exhibit B? >>
Exhibit B? Oh, I see. I'm not worried. I never named names.
<< <i> And eBay is not going to settle, that's ridiculous. >>
Pharmer, For once I hope you're correct. --jerry
<< <i><< Ziggy,
Did you notice that you're in exhibit B? >>
Exhibit B? >>
Of the lawsuit.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i> And eBay is not going to settle, that's ridiculous. >>
Pharmer, For once I hope you're correct. --jerry >>
Putting aside what Dbldie pointed out, consider the ramifications. They won't need to, but it would be worth it to them to throw every penny at this in order to win in court, cuz the feeding frenzy would be on should they cave. A settlement would be the same as a loss, so they figure they might as well lose in court, which again won't happen.
Hey, just a thought, maybe they get so fed up with the ankle biters of the coin world, they eliminate the category. Then the plaintiffs take everyone down with them.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
That's a bit of a stretch. What it states is "ebay does not permit the sale of currency that is improperly described, fraudulent, or counterfeit"
I can easily find coins slabbed by ACG, PCI, SEGS or Numistrust (which, to their credit, has not chosen to participate in this lawsuit) by searching the names in item description. I have no intention of searching for NNC, period. We all draw the line somewhere.
<< <i>Putting aside what Dbldie pointed out, consider the ramifications. They won't need to, but it would be worth it to them to throw every penny at this in order to win in court, cuz the feeding frenzy would be on should they cave. A settlement would be the same as a loss, so they figure they might as well lose in court, which again won't happen. >>
Yeah, though in my perfect world they'd settle with one or two of the more legitimate of the plaintiffs, play hardball on the rest, and essentially (IMO) take out almost every shred of legitimacy the plaintiff group has.
I still say that would damage their "just a venue" argument, but eBay has to choose their poison here.
I wonder if this thread will become Exhibit J eventually...
<< <i>
<< <i>"Most people on this board would likely agree the product is inferior, but I doubt that the law will agree because there too many different standards and everyone that testifies will agree that grading is subjective. NNC and ACG have different standards than PCGS, but I doubt that anyone will be able to prove one set of standards is right and the other wrong."
Correct, and well stated. But it confirms why eBay is within their rights to make such a decision. For me, it will be fun to see and hear the court and jury weigh in on the vague, nebulous and subjective industry of coin grading/slabbing. Nothing will change, eBay will win, the standards employed by the bigs will be vindicated, but it will be quite interesting along the way. >>
Well Mr. Pharmer I think you are wrong and I am a betting man. I am willing to put $1000.00 or $10K in escrow along side yours betting that the Plaintiffs prevail. By prevail I mean being paid money by the Defendants or their coins being allowed on eBay along side of the others. >>
By the way, many have said essentially the same as I did, but you singled out my comments to have a tantrum over. Why?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ebay has not stopped one of them from selling anything they could sell before. Just limited the way they can define it in the title as well as claim a value based on data for coins that are graded under a different standard. >>
Correct. It's the crux of the issue, and an irrefutable defense. This thing is over before it starts. >>
True. eBay is just disqualifying them from using a label as an entitlement. It is up to eBay to set that standard just as they might for Power Seller. >>
You guys seem to be off the track here. There is nothing in the lawsuit about them not being able to sell on ebay. The crux is that they are not able to sell their products as "certified". There is a big price difference between certified and non-certified coins and that is part of the basis for the claim of lost revenue - not lost ability to sell on ebay. Inability to sell on ebay is not mentioned anywhere in the lawsuit.
Go ahead and flesh that out and we'll see if we can keep up.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>I can easily find coins slabbed by ACG, PCI, SEGS or Numistrust (which, to their credit, has not chosen to participate in this lawsuit) >>
NTC is down to one guy working out of his apartment.
Russ, NCNE
Anybody but me laugh hysterically at the thought of watching the painful rectal probe that would be Centsless's deposition? Man, what an experience that would be
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>I asked a lawyer (and former forum member) to read the suit. He said basically the same thing Frankcoins (Frank Provosek) said. Ebay has a little problem on its hands but he did say the suit was poorly crafted. >>
Lawyers are tough on each other when grading someone else's paper.
<< <i>I DON'T support "crap slabs" or lax grading, as I have often been accused of here. Back in 2003 I began using an electric engraver to permanently etch the correct (lower) grade on Accugrade slabs that I sold. >>
If it's okay for you to decide that Accugrade doesn't grade correctly, why can't eBay make the same decisions about other grading companies and set up listing policies based on those descisions?
<< <i>If it's okay for you to decide that Accugrade doesn't grade correctly, why can't eBay make the same decisions about other grading companies and set up listing policies based on those descisions? >>
Because eBay is "just a venue" and Frank isn't.
[Edit to add: I think they *can* make this decision, but as I mentioned earlier, if they do they are jeopardizing their "just a venue" claim.]
<< <i> If a new grading company wanted to open their doors today, they would have no chance of selling on Ebay. If the new company graded to same standards and guarantee as the big three, I don't believe that Ebay will let them list. To me this is against the FTC(Federal Trade Commision) standards. Collectors need to be more educated and aware before they buy coins or any other thing. >>
An online auction company that controls 95% of the market ---
is advised by a nonprofit "collector" organization controlled by big dealers ---
to use a survey conducted by a trade association controlled by big dealers --
rating the grading companies, not by objective testing, but by "perception" --
to make rules favoring the grading companies supported by big dealers--
who in turn are the most PQ customers of the online auction company--
and the non profit organization and the trade association deem certain grading companies the "official" grading company of the organizations--
based not on merit or grading standards, but on which grading company makes the highest payment --
That all sounds bad if the FTC starts unraveling the onion.....
<< <i>
<< <i>I asked a lawyer (and former forum member) to read the suit. He said basically the same thing Frankcoins (Frank Provosek) said. Ebay has a little problem on its hands but he did say the suit was poorly crafted. >>
Lawyers are tough on each other when grading someone else's paper.
If you have 50 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand....you do not have enough sand!
Interesting point, if they have kept Tiffany at bay for this length of time I doubt there is any incentive to settle soon with the new lawsuit.
They could just keep filing legal motion after legal motion until the other side is facing bankruptcy with legal bills and just gives up. (that is what Ebay would hope anyway).
I can not see the light at the end of the tunnel or the end of this thread..........this is gonna be a 1500+ poster for sure.........
<< <i>Also of note is that the Ebay v. Tiffany suit is going into its 4th year. Do you think that the plaintiffs have the resources to endure that long? Interesting point, if they have kept Tiffany at bay for this length of time I doubt there is any incentive to settle soon with the new lawsuit. They could just keep filing legal motion after legal motion until the other side is facing bankruptcy with legal bills and just gives up. (that is what Ebay would hope anyway). >>
This suit may not even make the news beyond the coin discussion boards.
<< <i>Interesting point, if they have kept Tiffany at bay for this length of time I doubt there is any incentive to settle soon with the new lawsuit. They could just keep filing legal motion after legal motion until the other side is facing bankruptcy with legal bills and just gives up. (that is what Ebay would hope anyway). >>
Heck, that's how the U.S. defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot at them -- turn it into a battle of financial attrition and spend your opponent into insolvency.
Unfortunately (not necessarily in this case, but in general), what that means is that the deep pockets can prevail without ever going to court, regardless of the merits or lack thereof.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Stece
<< <i>Is Numistrust even still in the slabbing business?
Stece >>
Stece, if that is your real name, Russ addressed the current status of NTC on page 7.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
We seem to be joining them.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
surprised by that?
i predict this suit will take so long my attention span will lapse before
it ends.
to me, this is normal in the coin biz. "dealers" taking advantage of
clueless people. nothing ever changes. most ebay auctions are crap
to begin with, crap slabs or not!
Steve
Signed, farghter
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."