- Related Stories
-
Supreme Court: We'll review eBay's patent case
November 28, 2005 -
Legislating creativity--feds plan patent reform
September 13, 2005 -
eBay seeks patent ruling from Supreme Court
July 27, 2005 -
eBay wins stay in MercExchange case
May 13, 2005 -
Jury: eBay guilty of patent infringement
May 27, 2003
In a 43-page brief filed Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Solicitor General sided with MercExchange, the Virginia-based patent-holding company that sued eBay for infringing on patents tied to its "Buy It Now" feature.
In 2003, a federal jury found eBay guilty of willfully infringing on two MercExchange patents related to that feature, which allows shoppers to purchase items without participating in an auction, and ordered it to pay $25 million in damages. That court, however, decided against issuing an injunction--that is, forcing a company to stop using a patent in question. It cited several factors, including what it deemed a "growing concern" from the public over key aspects of the patent system.
The U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit reversed that ruling, deciding that eBay should be subject to an injunction--and correctly so, the government wrote in its brief. The injunction was put on hold pending eBay's next round of appeals.
The government in its brief--which also counted support from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--argued that the court handling eBay's appeal did not stick to a "general rule," as critics have suggested, but instead used ample "discretion" in issuing an injunction.
The government said no special exemptions should be made in cases involving companies like MercExchange that do not make products using their patents but instead simply license them--a practice that in some cases has earned companies the disparaging title of "patent troll." The government said a 1908 high court decision correctly established that injunctions can occur even if the patent holder itself has "'unreasonably' failed to practice its own invention."
The Supreme Court will begin taking up the general merits of that ruling on March 29, when it is scheduled to hear arguments from both companies. The central question it faces could have wide repercussions: If patent infringement has been determined, under what circumstances is it appropriate for a court to issue an injunction?
eBay has argued that the appeals court's reading is far too narrow. It said the court's decision that a permanent injunction must follow all judgments of infringement unless such a decision would "frustrate an important public need," such as protecting public health, leads to nearly "automatic" injunctions that could disproportionately threaten a company's well-being. A number of patent-dependent high-tech companies and trade associations have also filed briefs in support of eBay's position.
See more CNET content tagged:
injunction, eBay Inc., brief, patent, court
courts exist for no other reason than to imprison marijuana
smokers and transfer massive wads of cash from productive
companies to unproductive one.
In addition they should be ordered to cease and desist imediately. Should they continue to use that same idea, they should be punished double.
You can either give the seller the money he's looking for or, if the seller is open to it, provide an "Or Best Offer" scenario in the form of bidding. This is no different than trying to buy a house. You can pay the asking price (aka "Buy It Now") or you can go into a bidding war with other potential buyers of that house. News flash. This has been done for centuries if not milenniua. No difference, except eBay uses an electronic format.
In fact, EVERY on-line retailer uses the same concept every time you make a purchase, except there is no auction. You either "Buy It Now" or you don't. So, now this company, which is very clearly a PATENT TROLL, is going to demand licensing payment for every e-trailer, I would assume.
This is EXACTLY why the U.S. patent system is completely f***ed up and why it needs to be totally overhauled.
Is this the justice you seek?
;)
the buyers like dirt. Buyers are the basic reason for eBay's success,
but buyers rate very low on the scale of importance with the
powers of eBay. The arrogant and cavalier handling of eBay
buyers...inexplicably removing them from the buyer pool on a
whim...will eventually come back to haunt eBay. They are truly
controlling and arrogant, and anything that happens to them...they
deserve. No sympathy at all from me...
What these "Patent Trolls" are doing is similar to people registering web site domains like www.PepsiColaSucks.com, sitting on them and then when the company wants it charging large amounts of money. Courts for this country and others have said this is illegal and now in my example Pepsi can file a bit of paper work and take the domain with very little muss or fuss. This should also apply to Patents.
Robert
This happens every time a patent issue is raised... somebody yells "The patent system sucks - abolish it!" Suggesting that software should not be patentable is saying the exact same thing, but limits the argument to one particular market/medium.
The arguments is favor of the patent system have consistently won debates for hundreds of years. It is a valuable system that provides far reaching benefits. It has been argued since its inception and the anti-patent arguments have never won. Today is no different... but some people want to claim that software is some mystical invention medium that can't survive with patents in place. Absurd.
I can see the need to copyright written works and to patent inventions. But where is the dividing line between the two? I always thought patents were for mechanical devices. What's mechanical about software?
Can I now start filing for patents on great ideas I have, even if I don't know how to achieve the desired result?
Can I file for patents on someone else's ideas if no patent already exists?
Then there is the other great ambiguity--just because the patent office grants a patent, it doesn't necessarily mean it is valid!
Maybe eBay should just move to Korea.
Come on Supreme Court... Throw out the patent office! Free the people!
I'll be the first to admit that every "system" has flaws. Progress is made by finding the weaknesses and recognizing them as opportunities for improvement. Starting over simply introduces more flaws and discards any improvements that have been made to date. It is very rarely the best approach. The successful approach is usually one of continuous improvement.
Think about it... its the same arguement anti-patent people are using... "Software builds on software, they say. If its patented, we can't improve it or use it the way we want." Every system works that way... with or without patents. The patent system can be improved... government processes can be improved... and software can be improved... without any need to "throw out and start over."
Of course, if you want to "throw out" the courts and the patent system, then you should try building complex software after you "throw out" Java, C, compiler technology, Linux, and Windows.
I for one have no interest in participating in online auctions. I much prefer to buy things at the moment rather than risk loosing them. If there is one thing eBay should be sued for is there auto matic bidding system. This makes participating in actual auctions next to worthless, as there is very little chance of winning an item when someone has set up a bidding that automatically increases their bid five cents every time they are outbid.
THAT deserves a lawsuit. Well, MercExchange should be sued for trying to use the law and the patent system to try to make a quick buck.
Just think, if they really patented "Buy it Now", they own very commerce on the planet, or at least in US where the patents apply. Because you can "buy things now" on every e-store and supermarket from here to kingdom come!
Moral of the story... if you want to win, enter a higher maximum bid.
Hello... microsoft, blueberry.. read the news lately?
Congress is also authorized (Art.I ss8,cl.8) "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited terms to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." This power was first exercised by Congress in 1790. The copyright term was first fixed at fourteen years, but by the act of 1831 it was extended to 28 years, with the privileges of renewel for 28 years longer by the author, widow, widower, children, or next of kin. Books, periodicals, newspapers, lectures, dramatic and musical compositions, maps, works of art, drawings, photographs, and prints are some of the objects that may be copyrighted. The copyright secures to the author the exclusive right to print, publish, tanslate, and sell the same. The copyright law has been amended frequently but a major overhaul is overdue, because of problems encountered as a result of new forms of communication and the desirability of protection on an international basis.
The law in relation to patents secures to inventors for a term of seventeen years, the exclusive right to manufacture and sell their invention(s).
There is much more the law concerning patent and copyright, but if you invent, and you patent, this according to the united states constitution is soley your right. It says exclusive. eBay, please take your seat now.
Together they couldn't come to terms on the price to use it. So they used it anyway.
They got sued, they lost. They faced a $100M judgement and injuction to cease and desist. They ended up getting a $25M judgement against them but no injunction.
The injunction was appealed, it was then overturned. eBay appeals again and the injunction goes on hold.
No matter what issues you have about the patent system, it's what we have in place. The article and issue at hand that remains unanswered, is should the court make exception to the rule and allow this company to continue to use the idea, even though they were found guilty of infringement?
Together they couldn't come to terms on the price to use it. So they used it anyway.
They got sued, they lost. They faced a $100M judgement and injuction to cease and desist. They ended up getting a $25M judgement against them but no injunction.
The injunction was appealed, it was then overturned. eBay appeals again and the injunction goes on hold.
No matter what issues you have about the patent system, it's what we have in place. The article and issue at hand that remains unanswered, is should the court make exception to the rule and allow this company to continue to use the idea, even though they were found guilty of infringement?
All they are doing is allowing someone to buy something by interacting with an interface. Last time I checked this has been around for a very long time, and you don't even have to be "skilled in the art" to see the obviousness of this patent.
We have been able to buy things over the phone by pushing a button for at least 25 years, I don't see how it is now magically different because it uses the internet. There were even phone auctions that allowed this very thing, you call in bid by phone, and there are options to buy outright by pushing a button.
But I guess clicking is different to some people. When you pick and choose sections of the patent law Ebay looks bad, when taken as a whole, it looks a whole lot different.
They second yes is if they just lisence the software after they pay the damage then they should be able to use it. If not what was the point of having a court case to say they stole it.
- Let's focus on the real issue here...
- by George W Christ March 14, 2006 6:32 PM PST
- DJ's using old records to make new music.
- Reply to this comment
-
(39 Comments)