Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 03/30/2006 10:12:04 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court debated the rights of inventors Wednesday, weighing in on a dispute between eBay and a small Virginia patent holder.
The case's outcome could mean millions of dollars for inventors working in their garages or in large pharmaceutical labs - including those who develop a product and those who opt only to patent ideas.
The dispute between eBay, the Web-based marketplace, and MercExchange is one of several high-profile legal battles that are calling attention to the nation's patent laws, which some critics - including Amazon.com, Yahoo! and Xerox Corp. - say need updating to keep up with rapidly changing technology.
Justices won't decide whether eBay stole MercExchange's idea for selling goods over an electronic network. Rather, the high court is being asked whether trial judges must automatically issue orders prohibiting use of an idea after juries find a patent violation.
eBay and other high-tech companies warn that patent-holding companies could use the threat of court injunctions to coerce larger firms into settling lawsuits for huge sums of money.
Lawyers for the two sides traded barbs during the argument, with MercExchange accusing eBay of stealing its idea for selling goods in cyberspace and eBay calling the Virginia firm a "patent troll," a company that hoards patents for products it never develops.
"Is the troll the scary thing under the bridge," asked Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, "or is it a fishing technique?"
"For my client," attorney Carter Phillips said, "it's the scary thing under the bridge."
Phillips, who represents eBay, urged the court to level a playing field that he said favors patent-holders who sit on inventions and file lawsuits when someone stumbles across similar ideas.
The eBay lawyer also complained that patent-holders file lawsuits in certain parts of the country, such as Marshall, Texas, where they know they are likely to win big-money verdicts against larger companies.
"Everybody's in this for money," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "Why can't we let the market take care of the problem?"
Scalia also said the high court shouldn't rewrite patent laws "because we have renegade jurisdictions."
Chief Justice John Roberts signaled his concern for protecting "the guy in his garage" who can't - or doesn't want to - build his invention. But he also seemed perplexed by the idea covered in patents that eBay and MercExchange are fighting over.
MercExchange's founder, patent lawyer Thomas Woolston, came up with the idea of using an electronic network of consignment stores that would ensure legitimacy of sales by taking possession of goods being offered. eBay's system was based on the belief that buyers and sellers could trust each other and deal directly.
A jury sided with MercExchange, finding that its business method patents had been infringed, and awarded the patent-holder $35 million.
A trial judge later reduced the award by $5.5 million and refused to grant a permanent injunction, ruling that MercExchange would not suffer because it had not used its inventions commercially and had expressed an interest in licensing its patents to eBay.
MercExchange lawyer Seth Waxman told Roberts he was not a "software developer" and could not explain the technical aspects of the disputed patents, adding, "I have reason to believe neither is your honor."
Roberts conceded as much. But displaying pictures of goods for people to pick what they want to buy didn't strike the chief justice as anything special.
"I might have been able to do that," he said.
The case is eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 05-130.
--
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
--
I can't recall if the bozos on the court have already specifically ruled on the idiocy of 'business methods' patents. If not, perhaps it's time for them to do so. Seems like Roberts might actually have a clue.
The filing of software algorithm patents has been getting ridiculous as of late. I'm just some lawyer to try to patent: x++;
Left out the word "waiting".
I'm getting sick of the whole patent system and Patent Lawyers especially.
I know of one company that beleives that they have a patent on the geometric shape, the CYLINDER. I can't even mention the company's name here, because they have a team of lawyers that search the internet and will threaten to sue you for even mentioning the company's name or the name of the company's founder in a derogotory way.
But here is a hint: It starts with an M and they manufacture portable lighting devices.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
"Justices won't decide whether eBay stole MercExchange's idea for selling goods over an electronic network."
What a rediculous thing that would be to be able to patent. I can understand not being allowed to copy a websites layout, but this is no different than being able to patent the idea of opening a department store. There is level you get to where ideas and words are just too basic to patent. Apple vs Apple would be a good example.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1786992
They use two completely different apple symbols. So there shoud be no problem.
Patents have gone way over the top.
There needs to be a major correction to what qualifies for being patented.
Amazon's "one click" patent is a good example.
Bingo. If I set myself to doing nothing but documenting all the assorted ideas I could come up with, I would almost certainly come up with several ideas which some other person would independently produce and develop for a great deal of money. If I could demand payment for such ideas because I happened to think of first, I'd be rich.
But why should I profit just because I happened to think of something before someone else did, if I didn't do anything wiht my idea. It's not as though my thinking of it added any value to the world.
Let me get this straight: A company actually tried to patent the selling of goods over the internet? Should Kroger sue Wal-Mart for getting into the grocery business and stealing its "idea"?
What BS!
The idea of selling items over an electronic network were being shown back in the 1880s over TV to housewives at home. (the concept of TV was invented in 1873 It just took 52 years for the technology to catch up so John Logie Baird could make the first working one in 1925)
Baird Television
http://www.mztv.com/baird.html
This should be filed with the guys that tried to patent the AND & OR gates back in the 1980s
Get a grip and read the patent before you go commenting on it. It's easy to demagague the language chosen by the media (selling items over an electronic network) while ignoring what was actually patented.
The claim reads:
A system for presenting a data record of a good for sale to a market for goods, said market for goods having an interface to a wide area communication network for presenting and offering goods for sale to a purchaser, a payment clearing means for processing a purchase request from said purchaser, a database means for storing and tracking said data record of said good for sale, a communications means for communicating with said system to accept said data record of said good and a payment means for transferring funds to a user of said system, said system comprising:
a digital image means for creating a digital image of a good for sale;
a user interface for receiving textual information from a user;
a bar code scanner;
a bar code printer;
a storage device;
a communications means for communicating with the market; and
a computer locally connected to said digital image means, said user interface, said bar code scanner, said bar code printer, said storage device and said communications means, said computer adapted to receive said digital image of said good for sale from said digital image means, generate a data record of said good for sale, incorporate said digital image of said good for sale into said data record, receive a textual description of said good for sale from said user interface, store said data record on said storage device, transfer said data record to the market for goods via said communications means and receive a tracking number for said good for sale from the market for goods via said communications means, store said tracking number from the market for goods in said data record on said storage device and printing a bar code from said tracking number on said bar code printer.
Now that is a far cry from patenting "selling on the net" much less your television example.
I am sure that even George Selden would be jealous of MercExchange's "accomplishments" in the field of patents.
Having thought of the idea to sell over the Internet, what you quoted is merely a checklist of the kind of things you would need to be able achieve that. It does not provide a successful implementation.
A first year computer science student given the "sell on the net" brief could have written that checklist on a back of a napkin and saved us the ponderous legal language.
Big ideas are a dime a dozen. The thing we need to reward is good implementation.
This has got to be the most retarded patent i ever heard of...
Thank you!
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that software is a matter of Copyright laws and not Patent laws.
what you quoted is merely a checklist of the kind of things you would need to be able achieve that. It does not provide a successful implementation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.