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

Place Your Bids

[ExE122]

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"

Even better than RIM v. NTP!

[_am99_]

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.

Supreme Court's role

[Douglas Simmons]

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.

Re:Supreme Court's role

[faceword]

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.

You don't say.

[MartinG]

"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.

Re:You don't say.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Software vs. Drugs

[deanj]

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.

Why not have 2 patent systems?

[nnxion]

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.

How about attacking this instead

[Hangtime]

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.

"Buy it now" is not technology

[Whammy666]

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.

So today...

[WisC]

... 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.