New Developments In The eBay-MercExchange "Buy It Now" Lawsuit

[bargainbloodhound]

On Monday, two organizations filed briefs supporting eBay's petition of the Supreme Court in its patent fight. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) went so far as to claim the Appeals Court ruling "threatens free speech," and the CCIA claimed it could "undermine the legitimacy of the patent system as a whole."

full story http://auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y05/m09/i28/s01

[amy]

latest developments in this case (nothing exciting)  http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005...ionin.html

Case Questioning Patent Injunction Standards Moves Towards Supreme Court
eBay v. MercExchange (on petition for certiorari).

EBay’s petition for a writ of certiorari had gained further support from a group of patent law professors led by Mark Lemley of Stanford.

[mandy]

It's unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to hear eBay's latest patent infringement appeal, some lawyers predicted Friday.

The court on Monday is expected to announce whether it will hear an appeal in the case of eBay v. MercExchange. A conference on the matter was scheduled for Friday, according to the court's docket.

full article: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5933459.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnet

Related topic: Arse Kissing eBay Lap Dogs PeSA Boot MercExchange Reps from PeSA Summit

[bargainbloodhound]

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

[mandy]

Another article on yesterday's decision by the US Supreme Court to grant eBay a hearing:

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

[bargainbloodhound]

[quote author=mandy link=topic=564.msg5392#msg5392 date=1133262182]

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)

[mandy]

Commentary on the eBay vs. MercExchange case:

Start with the particulars of this case. Ebay did not commit inadvertent infringement, because it was unaware that ME’s 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 don’t like some holdouts after the fact, we also don’t 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

[xppman]

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.

[bargainbloodhound]

-MercExchange, LLC announced today it has reached an agreement with the US Patent and Trademark Office in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No 6,202,051 (the '051), the online auction patent, concerning the patentability of this important innovation. The USPTO has accepted MercExchange's clarifying amendments to the claims of the patent, and has agreed that these claims are a patentable innovation.

"We wish to thank the USPTO and its dedicated staff for their tireless effort in reviewing this complex legal matter," said Thomas G. Woolston, founder of MercExchange. "Our four years of bitter litigation with eBay  has created an extremely large record, one that would be a challenge for any government agency to sort through. The USPTO and its examiner corps have done an admirable job."

In 2003, a jury in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found eBay to be willfully infringing two of MercExchange's patents, awarding $35 million in damages, but the Court declined to issue a permanent injunction against eBay. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision, finding that the District Court should have issued the permanent injunction, and reduced the MercExchange award to $25 million in damages through March 2003. In addition, the Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to conduct a trial on the '051, which had been eliminated from the initial jury trial by a summary order of the District Court.

In July 2005, eBay filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit's reversal of the District Court's decision to not issue a permanent injunction. While on appeal of its loss at trial, in March 2004 eBay also launched an unprecedented attack at the USPTO on the three patents in the District Court suit under the reexamination statutes.

"Today's agreement is an important milestone in our battle to defend our rights as a patent holder," Woolston said. We anticipate a successful resolution with the USPTO of the remaining patents under reexamination."

"eBay was found to be a willful infringer of our patents over two and one-half years ago, and we are now proceeding to the conclusion of their final appeal at the Supreme Court on the issue of the injunction. We look forward to returning to District Court to obtain our relief in this matter, and to finally competing with eBay by practicing our inventions free of infringement," Woolston said.

full press release: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/051223/20051223005164.html?.v=1

[mandy]

In what could easily be the most important patent case in the past five years, the Supreme Court will hear eBay’s arguments on March 29, 2006. Injunctions form the bedrock of traditional patent law, and changes in this area will send waves through virtually every technology-centered business.

full article: http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2006...ions_.html