latest developments in this case (nothing exciting)
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005...ionin.html
Quote:Case Questioning Patent Injunction Standards Moves Towards Supreme Court
eBay v. MercExchange (on petition for certiorari).
EBays petition for a writ of certiorari had gained further support from a group of patent law professors led by Mark Lemley of Stanford.
Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday that it would consider an appeal by online auctioneer eBay Inc. in its patent battle with MercExchange, a developer of e-commerce technology.
At issue for the justices is whether an appeals court erred in finding that a permanent injunction barring use of a technology must generally be issued once infringement of a valid patent has been determined.
full article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051128/wr_n...atent_dc_5
related topic: :twistedevil:
Arse Kissing eBay Lap Dogs PeSA Boot MercExchange Reps from PeSA Summit http://community.tuliptools.com/index.ph...022.0.html
Another article on yesterday's decision by the US Supreme Court to grant eBay a hearing:
Quote:The US Supreme Court will review a patent infringement case against eBay, granting the online auctioneer's petition on Monday.
The matter under review is whether to allow MercExchange, the plaintiff in the case, to obtain a permanent injunction against eBay related to the way it handles fixed-price sales. A district court in 2003 found that eBay's "Buy It Now" feature infringed on two MercExchange patents.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case could hold broad implications for patent holders and those accused of infringing on them. Judges commonly issue injunctions against companies found guilty of infringement while their cases are on appeal. eBay wants the high court to question that practice
full article:
http://management.silicon.com/government...643,00.htm
[quote author=mandy link=topic=564.msg5392#msg5392 date=1133262182]
Quote:A district court in 2003 found that eBay's "Buy It Now" feature infringed on two MercExchange patents.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case could hold broad implications for patent holders and those accused of infringing on them. Judges commonly issue injunctions against companies found guilty of infringement while their cases are on appeal. eBay wants the high court to question that practice
full article:
http://management.silicon.com/government...643,00.htm
[/quote]
I'm sure that patent stealer eBay does want the court to allow it and other patent thiefs to steal others' inventions and then use them free of charge.
If the champion of "community values" (in this case the 'community value' is stealing from your neighbor) eBay wins this appeal it could have a stifling effect on innovation by smaller companies--why bother coming up with a better mouse trap when your larger deep pocketed competitor can come along and use (steal) your idea indefinitely as it drags the patent case out in the courts for years (hoping the legal fees alone will make the inventor drop the legal battle)
Commentary on the eBay vs. MercExchange case:
Quote:Start with the particulars of this case. Ebay did not commit inadvertent infringement, because it was unaware that MEs patent covered its pricing tools. Quite the opposite, Ebay had wilfully infringed the patent when it and ME came to a bargaining impasse over royalty terms.
Now the plot thickens. Just as we dont like some holdouts after the fact, we also dont like firms that take the law into their own hands by consciously deciding that it is cheaper to infringe than to purchase. Yet once the use of the injunction is relaxed at the back end of a transaction, then every firm can circumvent the law, hoping to profit from its own wrong. A veritable deluge of infringements can descend on ME, until endless litigation saps its incentive to innovate.
full article:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c96aea22-721b-1...e2340.html
See that's the thing.
It's more profitable or "cost effective" for them to circumvent the laws
and pay the fines when and if sued.
It is a business decision and no matter how you slice it.
IT is unethical and in these instances of clear violations
I would love to see monetary judgments making the offenders pay out
super high fines.
I think that would deter further unscrupulous / unethical activity.
Jail time for CEOs and top execs. who perpetrate these violations
would also be a good deterrent to this type of corporate behavior IMO.