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
--
Just so people dont get the idea that RCA & Vladimir Zworkin invented TV (check the patent RCA tried the same thing to say they did)
The real inventor of electronic Television
Philo T Farnsworth
http://philotfarnsworth.com/philotfarnsworth/index.html
http://www.farnovision.com/
So as the Constitution stands you believe the makers of the "Jetson's" have invented the flying car?
I can't wait to patent the cure for cancer. Why should I have to actually implement it first?
No, can you be more specific? I am aware that there are thousands and thousands of software algorithm "patents". Perhaps calling them patents is only a layman term? Perhaps this ruling you speak of was recent and just overturned them?
Most of the time no legal challenges are made, because they are just too silly. But there are some lawyer heavy "software" companies who don't really produce software, but simply try to patent the obvious and bring harassment lawsuits.
If they had actually invented the bar-code scanner they would have a case.
Sorry no, I vaguely remember a ruling that software was covered by copyright laws. That is why I asked.
Don't you think there's a problem with issued patents being too broad?
<sarcasm>But I want money for just having the idea of a flying car and of curing cancer. They are big ideas!</sarcasm>
But as I had said (before you obliged me to be silly to make a point) big ideas are a dime a dozen. I think we both agree that detailed not obvious plans that contribute to success should be rewarded, but I just don't think that "software" companies that have more lawyers then engineers are into that business.
big ideas are a dime a dozen
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.