They look like they may rule against the rights of E-Bay to patent a patently silly claim. Roberts Asked" Thats like a supermarkett patenting the sale of vegetables." Frivilous they call it. He said in another statement, "It's not like they are patenting the internal combustion engine or something." The analysis is that basically you better have something serious to patent before they will extend you that level of protection. They are calling mercexchange a "Patent Troll." They say they are; "Stifling Competition." Should be interesting. The lower court refused to grant an injunction.
I haven't followed that one only because it really only affects Apple; doesn't really have any relevance to things like DRM and other stuff that affects you'all and me'all. The E-Bay case will define when and where injunctions against companies for patent violations can be used. Many of these so-called patents are bogus; this company Medcovore or some thing wants to enjion E-Bay from using it's Buy-It-Now feature because they claim they patented that concept a couple yrs before E-Bay used it. Thats why Roberts asked,"Isn't that like a supermarkett patenting the sale of vegetables?" Those sniper companies use the injunctive relief as a weapon to strong-arm companies into giving up when they have every right to fight because it is too costly to stop production; so the victims give in and pay the extortion the snipes are asking.
Posting Rules
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Get a T-Shirt!
