Intel can't compete with charcoal - Bob Colwell, former Intel chief architect
|
|
|
Ebay loses another court battle
AUCTIONEER Ebay lost another round of its court battle against a small Virginia company over its "Buy It Now" option.
The Buy it Now programme allows a buyer to get the goods at a fixed price instead of having to bid.
More than four years ago Merc Exchange took Ebay to court claiming that the system used its patented technology.
A jury agreed with Merc Exchange and said that the auction outfit should pay $35 million. Ebay appealed and the award was reduced to $25 million. Now a federal judge has confirmed a figure of £30 million.
But eBay says that it still hopes to avoid writing a cheque for 'Buy it Now'.
It plans to appeal on the basis of recent US Supreme Court rulings on the laws governing patent enforcement.
MercExchange wants millions in licensing fees for use of its patented technology since the 2003 verdict. However eBay has refused to pay up.
According to AP, Merc Exchange has gone from being a company with 40 employees to one with just three.
http://news.smh.com.au/judge-affirms-30m-judgment-against-ebay/20071213-1gti.html . µ
Share this:
Share
Maybe it seems a petty patent, and maybe it's obvious...

But as sure as I have a a$$ h*le, Ebay, Google, Vole, etc, etc, will use any and all petty patents they have to smack down a competing company (small or big), or negotiate huge contracts.

3 judges have ruled Merc's patent is fine, even though Amazon recently got done for it's 1-click.

Good luck to Merc, and I hope they setup a competing company with the dosh.
So thats £30m divided by 3 instead of 40... hmmm seems like they are getting ready for some ig bonuses....
... and here in the US, "justice for those with the most lawyers" is still in effect.

No matter who loses in this particular case, it is surely a great time to be an attorney. Or at least an invested gaggle of attorneys goldmining patents.

I feel truly sorry for the people, both consumers and entrepreneurs, that get stomped on by legal entities with a payrolled legal department.
Merc Exchanges patent clearly to any reasonable fool is an obvious invention, and as such should not be patentable. In a way I even feel sorry for Merc Exchanges downward spiral to having just three employees on the payroll, but I don’t feel sorry enough that I think Ebay, which I have no particular love for, should pay them millions for something obvious, even though it would barely dent Ebays huge piles of cash. 

The fact is this is more of a patent over a business model than some kind of technology. Going on that same logic Wendy’s should be able to sue Burger King and Mc Donald’s over their copying of their Dollar Menu. Wendy’s invented that marketing ploy, and their competitors matched it with their own version of a menu with items priced at a dollar, something they clearly had the rights to do. And just because you move from the brick and mortar world to the electronic world of the web, doesn’t change a companies right to match competitors offers in any way, such as offering buy it now as an option on auctions. 
How exactly is Buy It Now a Patent?? Surely its just normal selling price. I.e 

This is this the Price I will see at, but I am also willing yo haggle