Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

accentnepal · 04-02-2006, 10:21 AM,

You see, there are different kinds of trolls.

Meg and co. are trolls with small minds and big sticks.
MercExchange and co. are trolls with big minds and a small piece of paper.

What we peasants really need is an antimonopoly lawsuit - which this is not. This is a fight to see who gets the monopoly. MercExchange simply wants to take Ebay's big stick.

And stand at the bridge (and raise fees) themselves.

**Kristijntje** · 04-02-2006, 03:53 PM,

Auctionbytes editiorial on eBay/MercExchange Supreme Court hearings:

Quote:eBay has had the opportunity to license or acquire MercExchange's patents but has steadfastly refused. Supreme Court Justice Scalia asked eBay's lawyer why the free markets weren't adequate to solve the issue of licensing - no one is going to hold off on giving the license at the right price, he said.

But eBay has dug its heels into the ground and in doing so, jeopardizes the ability for its sellers to list items using the Buy It Now feature.

Quote:As someone who follows this industry, it's my opinion that March 29, 2006, was not eBay's finest hour.

full editorial: http://auctionbytes.com/cab/abu/y206/m04/abu0164/s02

dimucci · 04-02-2006, 10:08 PM,

Quote:eBay has had the opportunity to license or acquire MercExchange's patents but has steadfastly refused.

Stealing them is cheaper. ;D

accentnepal · 04-03-2006, 12:01 AM,

[quote author=dimucci link=topic=564.msg11773#msg11773 date=1144015712]

Quote:eBay has had the opportunity to license or acquire MercExchange's patents but has steadfastly refused.

Stealing them is cheaper. ;D
[/quote]

That is the essence of legal negotiation. Does not matter at all who is right. All that matters is the numbers -
cost of fighting the suit + plus expected verdict vs
cost of paying for a "license".

Right now Ebay figures the cost of fighting is cheaper, so they fight. An injunction could change that tune, but then MercExchange's case becomes more valuable too.

No doubt lawyers on both sides are feeding the emotions to keep the gravy train running as long as possible, then, hopefully settle in a way that all the lawyers look good. Who knows - those lawyers may be on the same side next time.

All the while they burn up the money we have paid eBay at an astounding rate.

thentavius · 04-29-2006, 06:01 AM,

Actually--I really think you guys are right about the eBay Express thing. I kept wondering why on Earth they were trying this weird catalog format thing, and now I know. If they lose "Buy it Now," they can champion the Express method. Holy crap. It all makes perfect sense now.

Lame as it is, Express is their back-up plan. If they keep the right to use Buy it Now, and if Express doesn't work, they'll just phase it out like they always do. If they lose, they'll stop using Buy it Now and bring Express to the forefront, as if it was their master plan all along...

sneakymagenta · (This post was last modified: 04-29-2006, 06:43 AM by sneakymagenta.)

Quote:EBAY INC. AND HALF.COM, INC.,
Petitioners,

It does make sense. The patent covers the methods used by Buy-it-now and Half.com. It explains why they backed off their plans to use Half.com

sneakymagenta · 04-29-2006, 06:41 AM,

MercExchange sued eBay and Half.com in September 2001.

[quote author=bargainbloodhound link=topic=2247.msg12813#msg12813 date=1145663307]
I'd completely forgotten about this, but in 2001 eBay announced plans to rename Half.com to eBay Express Buys:

March 2002 article:

Quote:Last month, eBay, which bought the fixed-price trading site in June 2000, backed off earlier plans to eliminate the Half.com site and rename it eBay Express Buys.

http://news.com.com/eBays+Half.com+integ...67028.html
[/quote]

bargainbloodhound · 04-29-2006, 03:12 PM,

The AntiVirus might be on to something (and so might sneaky). Big Grin

I must be braindead Smileyyellowbang

I knew (obviously, since I posted a link to the article) that eBay announced plans to change Half's name to eBay Express Buys in 2001, but I never connected the timing of its decision to drop those plans with the filing of the MercExchange lawsuit.

***regic*** · 04-29-2006, 06:16 PM,

bargainbloodhound Wrote:I must be braindead

***mandy*** · (This post was last modified: 05-15-2006, 03:41 PM by mandy.)

Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court, siding with EBay Inc., the world's largest Internet auctioneer, said companies found to have infringed patents shouldn't always be ordered to change their products to avoid future violations.

The justices today unanimously set aside a ruling that would have barred EBay from using patented technology owned by MercExchange LLC, a Virginia company. The justices told a lower court to reconsider the matter.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=azVslmiR5.R8&refer=home

Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday set aside a patent injunction against online auctioneer eBay Inc., but also rejected a key argument made by the company that could have narrowed the rights of patent holders...

The high court unanimously reversed an appeals court ruling in favor of MercExchange, a developer of e-commerce technology that sued eBay for patent infringement, saying an appeals court had failed to apply the proper legal test in deciding whether MercExchange should be granted an injunction barring eBay from using its technology.

However, the justices also rejected a crucial argument advanced by eBay, and embraced by a U.S. District Court that handled the case, that companies lose some of their right to an injunction if they have agreed to license out their technology or are not using it to make a product themselves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00448.html