Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

4 comments

Date Votes
  • spanielsells
    quote: key factor in Judge Friedman's decision was the fact that MercExchange had gotten out of the online auction business. "MercExchange has no reputation or branding to protect, no customer base or goodwill to defend, and no present royalty stream to maximize," wrote the judge. "The record also indicates that MercExchange has often acted with an
    eye toward litigation, and emails and other evidence suggest that MercExchange may have attempted to generate evidence of irreparable harm in order to advance its litigation position. Considering all such factors, and others discussed above, MercExchange has simply failed to establish irreparable harm or that damages at law will not adequately compensate it for eBay's infringement."

    I think that's a horrible decision. What this says, essentially, is that if YOU invent something, take the time and expense to patent it (and it is expensive), and can't find a way to make money off of your patent, your patent and protection is invalid.

    What should happen is exactly what did happen -- eBay wanted the technology and entered into negotiations to obtain it. A reasonable* price was not arrived at, negotiations broke down, and eBay went ahead and used the technology anyway, without paying royalties for it.


    *I realize what may be "reasonable" will be different to each person but the one who owns the patent is the one who determines if the price is right.
    0
  • Rockatansky
    Not sure if I agree with you there. Besides, you're a bit of on the use of term "technology". eBay developed the technology, MercE has a patent on a concept. Makes a big difference. eBay didn't "steal" the code developed by someone, did they?

    Anyways, at this point I don't know enough details of the history and why exactly eBay decided to abandon negotiations with MercE in 2000/2001, so I can't say either side is right or wrong, but from where I stand right now, and my point of view on patenting concepts (rather than actual technology), I am glad it turned out the way it did.
    0
  • spanielsells
    quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
    Not sure if I agree with you there. Besides, you're a bit of on the use of term "technology". eBay developed the technology, MercE has a patent on a concept. Makes a big difference. eBay didn't "steal" the code developed by someone, did they?

    Anyways, at this point I don't know enough details of the history and why exactly eBay decided to abandon negotiations with MercE in 2000/2001, so I can't say either side is right or wrong, but from where I stand right now, and my point of view on patenting concepts (rather than actual technology), I am glad it turned out the way it did.
    I'm not a patent lawyer, nor do I play one on television, BUT, if I have an idea and I patent it, and the government issues me patent protection, and someone, in turn, finds a method to put that idea into action yet fails to compensate me for my idea, then my intellectual property rights have been infringed.
    0
  • Rockatansky
    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130

    same goes for well known algorithms, concept of a mouse, concept of GUI, etc.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity