U.S. Supreme Court Hears eBay Case Wednesday

siddesu wrote to mention an article on CNN Money about the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court patent suit involving eBay. We've previously mentioned the case. The SCOTUS will hear opening arguments on Wednesday, March 29th. From the article: "Lawyers for eBay and small e-commerce company MercExchange will square off over whether eBay should be barred from using its popular 'Buy it Now' feature, which infringes on two MercExchange patents. The case is being closely watched to see if the high court will scale back the right of patent holders to get an injunction barring infringers from using their technologies. Software companies complain they can be held for ransom by owners of questionable patents while drugmakers oppose any weakening of patent rights, which they say would chill their investment in new medicines."

Comments

Re:Software vs. Drugs

[brewer13210]

I have a brother who works at a major drug company. They don't spend millions on developing new drugs, they spend billions.

This patent dispute is warranted

[jerryodom]

Alot of times you see companies patent broad things, don't use them and then show up with a hand out but MercExchange looked to be trying to use their ideas, met with Ebay and then Ebay took their from ideas and ran with them.

At least thats what I got from this article which is an interview with the guy who owns MercExchange

http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y04/m09/i30/s0 1

Re:There has to be a way.... not in this case

[kansas1051]

The only issue before the Supreme Court is when should a patent holder be entitled to an injunction against an infringer. Courts have already determined (several times) that MercExchange's patent is valid and that eBay infringed the patent. Validity (i.e. is MercExchange's "invention" actually an invention?) will not and cannot be considered by the Supreme Court because it is not the issue being appealed.

Instead, the Court will determine if an injunction should automatically issue once infringement is found. Injunctions have been the standard remedy for patent infringement in the US since before the ratification of the Constitution, but to due patent trolling some (eBay) have suggested that injunctions should not be so easy to get, particularly in the software arts.

Re:Even better than RIM v. NTP!

[hackstraw]

What should be on trial here is not this specific patent, but the state in which our patent system currently is. The fact that this case is likely to appear ridiculous to a common citizen with no technical or legal background helps make the case for patent reform, and hopefully serves as a dire warning to the legislature of any other nation currently considering implementing software and business process patents.

The last time this was posted on slashdot, people did not get this point. A google search on the address of the "company" yields this google optimized page:

    http://patents.oncloud8.com/paa/us_patent_agents_i n_us_va_great_falls.php

Which shows:

ATTORNEY Thomas Woolston 703-757-6503 MercExchange, LLC P O Box 1272 Great Falls, VA 22066

Clearly his legal and monetary interests outweigh the info found here that says:

Mercexchange's mission is to improve businesses through the application of new digital technologies, especially in networked environments. The businesses and products developed by MercExchange address large-scale consumer needs and business inefficiencies, resulting in new ways of doing business, new ways of creating value, and new industry paradigms.

This guy is a lawyer, disguised as an "inventor" that invents patents into inventions to give himself business that make working people pay for him not to work. Nice.