Slashdot Mirror
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."
There HAS to be a way for the courts to define and address the difference between WELL DUH! lawsuits (like "patenting" an immediate purchase button, or cross-category searches) and important lawsuits that protect folks that have invested years and years of work and research (and perhaps tons of money) in creating a complex drug or product.
THERE HAS to be a way to define this and adjudicate accordingly. I'm fully aware that there are gray-area patents, but some things just shouldn't be patented.
A Passionate Independent Musician
From the article:
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.
I understand how drugmakers feel, but why should those rules affect the patents of software. Software is as it says "soft", drugs is "hard". A different set of patent rules should be applied in my opinion.
infringed on two e-commerce patents that MercExchange said were key to eBay's "Buy it Now" feature
How about striking down this lower court ruling
# 1998 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial.[46] holds that there is no prohibition in U.S. law on patents for business methods as long as they are new, useful and non-obvious.
Considering that business methods are NOT new, useful and non-obvious its time to reverse this error in one judge's career sign-off opinion.
That is not completely accurate. The Supreme Court does not merely pass on the consitutionality of legislation; it also gets the final word in interpreting existing legislation. In this case, the constitutionality of the legislation is not at issue. What is at issue is the interpretation of existing legislation. Specifically, the arugment is what standard should be used when deciding whether to grant a patent holder an injunction. The statute provides that courts "may" grant injunctions "in accordance with principles of equity" and "on such terms as they deem reasonable." 35 U.S.C. 283. Over the past 20 years, the Federal Circuit, which has appellate authority in patent cases, has interpreted this clause to mean that injunctions should be granted almost automatically once infringement has been established (with some exceptions for when safety is at issue). One hopes that the Supreme Court will interpret the clause to mean that District Court has discretion to issue an injunction, but only on a showing that an injunction is equitable.
Thus, for example, a company like RIM probably wouldn't be shut down by a patent troll, even on a finding infringement. Instead RIM would just have to pay a court ordered fine/licence to the troll.
"Perhaps that's because, as we have been saying for years, patents on software impede innovation whereas patents increase (or so I am imformed - I don't work in the industry) innovation in the drugs industry."
My dad IS in the drugs industry (or more specifically, in immunology research), and to hear him tell it, the situation's just as bad there as it is with software. There are tons of companies that do nothing but buy up patents and sue anybody who comes out with a new drug, hoping to get a share of the profit.
In fact, the situation might be WORSE for medical research, because researchers often have to curtail their research in order to avoid using patented chemicals or techniques. Everything has to be filtered through a lawyer.
How do you expect new drugs to be developed without the pharms? I know you probably feel it is wrong to profit off of the needs of others, but what is your proposed model for drug development?
all three were done by porn shops on the internet.. remember where amazon went to learn how to sell on the internet. the porn industry, they had already been doing it for years
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
This is no news to anyone I guess, so maybe I'll just get modded as redundant.
I think one critical issue of patent reform should involve removing any patents whose novelty is linked to the media is uses. Consider "Buy it now." In the world of plastic money and paper receipts, this patent would be laughed out of the office. In a word, it's OBVIOUS. The fact that an item on an internet based sales site to me is irrelevant because the novelty lies in the medium being used. The medium is patentable, but should the WAY media is used really be patentable? If it should, then I'd like to patent driving down the road sideways. Heaven forbid someone create some form of cell-phone oriented sales/auction service and "Buy It Now" gets patented again because the medium is "wireless."
I'd really like to just be able to change the world, but I'd be more than satisfied if I could just change the ridiculous things going on with the patent world.