Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Supreme Court Hears eBay Case Wednesday

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the moving-on-up dept.

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."

19 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Place Your Bids by ExE122 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lobbying efforts center on legislation being drafted by Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas who chairs a key House subcommittee.

    Ironically, Lamar Smith is available on ebay with "Buy It Now" options. I'm surprised Abramoff hasn't bought out the whole lot.

    --
    "Man Bites Dog
    Then Bites Self"
    --
    Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
  2. Even better than RIM v. NTP! by _am99_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here is a patent that doesn't require an EE degree to see that it is
    ridiculous. I hope these cases keep coming and coming so political
    pressure mounts to reform a backwards intellectual property system.

    1. Re:Even better than RIM v. NTP! by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I hope that the relevant people here in the EU are taking note, and that this lends more weight to the anti-software patents campaigners' message.

      No offence, but I suspect that the US is going to have to seriously screw itself over on this issue in order to save the rest of the world from doing the same.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    2. Re:Even better than RIM v. NTP! by Harinezumi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      He did not say that the patent is invalid or illegal, he said it was ridiculous.

      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.

  3. Supreme Court's role by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It should not be forgotten when convenient that the Supreme Court's role is limited to combing through the constitutionality of a past ruling. Roe v Wade being the "Law of the Land" is a misnomer. In this case, it seems that one part of the government established by the legislature made a ridiculous choice that doesn't pass the laugh test, but that's the legislature's job to fix, not the Court's.

    1. Re:Supreme Court's role by geoffrobinson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spot on comment. However, most people don't think like that. If they agree with a decision's results, they like the decision. It could use horrible logic and be based on faulty non-Constitutional reasoning, but many wouldn't care.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    2. Re:Supreme Court's role by faceword · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It should not be forgotten when convenient that the Supreme Court's role is limited to combing through the constitutionality of a past ruling....that's the legislature's job to fix, not the Court's.

      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.

  4. There has to be a way... by ursabear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  5. You don't say. by MartinG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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."

    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.

    Patents on software make as much sense as patents on books or music. Get rid of them now before they give patents in general a bad name.

    --
    -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    1. Re:You don't say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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.

  6. Software vs. Drugs by deanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, I'm the last guy that thinks drug companies are "nice guys" in the prices they charge, but in patent cases, I have to side with them.

    They spend MILLIONS of dollars developing drugs. At least they have some right to patent what they created, because they actually created something. I'm not going into whether they SHOULD or not. That's what the law is right now, and it should probably be changed. I'm getting off track here.

    Software companies with "patents" like these have spent little or no time "developing" anything. I mean..."One click"? "Buy It Now"? That's what you get when you have marketing people patenting things.

    Geesh.

    1. Re:Software vs. Drugs by brewer13210 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    2. Re:Software vs. Drugs by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cure a man - you get to eat a fish today.
      Help a man cope with his symptoms - you get fish for life.

      fuck the pharms

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  7. Why not have 2 patent systems? by nnxion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. How about attacking this instead by Hangtime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. Control and power by quokkapox · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The current copyright and patent regime is simply all about the rich and powerful maintaining control and power over the general public, which suddenly has gained access to a new and better communications medium (the Internet) which, if allowed to function unfettered, democratizes society and indeed threatens their status quo.

    The only way for the proles to fight patents and copyrights is to ignore them. This is, of course, impossible if there are only a few printing presses or factories that exist. But now there are more than a billion printing presses (everyone can publish and discuss ideas on the web); there are a probably 500 million CD burners in the world (wild guess) to pass around music and video, and we can even do better than that just by sharing data directly over the net.

    The Internet is like the next evolution of the printing press. Gutenberg's machine took away the power of the learned few to disseminate information. The Internet represents the natural evolution of that capability, and more.

    The next step will be the dissemination of the ability to manufacture at the molecular level in your house, and then on your desktop. If you don't believe that's going to happen, consider the fact that anyone in the world with a net connection can read this posting seconds after I submit it, and how wildly that would blow your mind if you lived at the time of the invention of the printing press.

    This temporary nonsense with patents and copyrights will be just that, temporary.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  10. "Buy it now" is not technology by Whammy666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was under the impression that patents were only supposed to be issued to innovative and original developments in technology. "Buy It Now" is not technology. It's a sales gimmick. Gimmicks should not be patentable. The patent system in the US is seriously broken. It seems that the patent office isn't even bothering to review patents anymore. They're just handing them out like tissues.

    They really need to tighten the rules over what is patentable. Sales gimmicks, business plans, mother nature, etc. should not even be considered. There should also be a rule similar to trademark law for termination of patent rights for non-enforcement to prevent crap similar to the JPEG nonsense from popping up out of nowhere.

    --
    When all else fails, run.
    1. Re:"Buy it now" is not technology by Secrity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That pretty much sums it up. In addition to the USPTO not properly screening patent applications, I think that much of the problem is that judges and lawmakers do not understand today's technology. Judges try to bend old world legal judgements to fit new technology and lawmakers rely on corporations to write the laws regarding new technology. Interesting thing is that the corporations who write the laws can end up getting bit on the ass because somebody else can find a judge who doesn't understand the new law. Some of the patents sound like joke RFC's, see United States Patent 6368227, "Method of swinging on a swing"

  11. So today... by WisC · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... I went into a shop for a paper and some smokes, but the guy would not sell them to me cos he was scared of being sued for using "buy it now". I was a bit miffed at not getting a smoke and the news but its not all bad as the guy had a half smoked cigar and a paper from 3rd March 2003 going for one buck with only 2 days left, just hope I have some change left from my 5 bucks max bid.