posted on April 24, 2003 07:06:09 AM new
EBay Headed to Trial in Patent Dispute
By MICHAEL BUETTNER
Associated Press Writer
April 24, 2003, 9:38 AM EDT
NORFOLK, Va. -- Online auction house eBay, one of the last remaining winners from the dot-com bubble, is going on trial over the very foundation of its success: the programs and procedures that run the popular cyber-bazaar.
Lawyers were set to make opening statements Thursday in the patent trial brought by Great Falls, Va.-based MercExchange LLC, which claims eBay stole the ideas of its founder, attorney Thomas G. Woolston.
The presiding judge said the case was one of the most contentious he had seen in nearly 20 years on the bench. One patent-law experts said damages in the case could surpass $100 million.
MercExchange filed suit in federal court in September 2001 accusing eBay of using Woolston's patented ideas to operate its online auction house, without his permission and without paying him.
EBay has countered that the company's procedures don't infringe Woolston's patents, and that those patents are unenforceable anyway because other people had proposed similar systems and methods before Woolston filed his applications.
Now, the two sides will be presenting their arguments to a jury, selected Wednesday. The trial is expected to last about three weeks.
Federal district Judge Jerome B. Friedman warned the attorneys that "it's going to be your responsibility to make sure this is something the average person can understand."
If the jury finds in favor of Woolston, it will have to decide how much money MercExchange lost. That will require listening to more testimony from both sides.
Neil Smith, a San Francisco attorney specializing in intellectual property law, noted that because MercExchange is claiming that eBay "willfully" infringed its patents, the court can order eBay to pay as much as three times any amount the jury determines.
With a jury award likely to total at least in the "tens of millions of dollars," Smith said, eBay's total liability could amount to more than $100 million.
posted on April 24, 2003 07:51:02 AM new
Interesting. However, it is not totally impossible for two or more people to have the same ideas. The difference would be that one in that group would decide to utilize the idea while the others sit on it. So, the one or more that were sitting on it can sue to the one who decides to act upon the idea?
Several years ago when I was working in the insurance area, I came up with the idea of pet health insurance. I had many friends with pets who were spending a fortune on surgeries and medications. I presented the idea to my bosses who thought it totally ridiculous. So, I took my happy idea and sat on it. Well, sometime between then and now someone implemented the same idea. All I can say is "dummy me" for not having done it myself. You snooze, you lose as they say.
If Ebay deliberately stole the idea, then yes they should pay. If it was simply a matter of two people from different parts of the country having the same idea and one of them bringing it to fruition while the other filed patents, then I don't think they should have to pay a thing.
posted on April 24, 2003 08:28:09 AM new Is it just me or are there definate impliations in that article that Ebay will lose the suit?
I didn't read it as Ebay will lose. The fact that the idea has submitted in a usenew message group long before Woolston filed his patent is going to be a tough argument.
Did you know the US patent office gave a patent to a kid that swung on his swing from side to side instead of back and forth? Some of these patented ideas are ridiculous.
posted on April 24, 2003 08:45:06 AM new
The writer of the news story made it seem likely that ebay would lose. Another write could make it look like ebay wound not lose the lawsuit.
The pet insurance comparison differs n that the guy suing ebay filed patents before ebay started operations. ebay infringed on those patents.
Maybe the jury will only give the guy $5 million dollars if ebay loses the lawsuit.
posted on April 27, 2003 10:54:58 PM new
eBay will have to have some damn good arguments to win, not impossible but definately the one that has more chance of losing.
Most people just naturally root for the little guy...
posted on April 28, 2003 04:27:30 AM new
"If it was simply a matter of two people from different parts of the country having the same idea and one of them bringing it to fruition while the other filed patents, then I don't think they should have to pay a thing. "
Wrong.
If you have a patent there's no law that you have to use it. (You could simply license it to others.) But it does prevent others from bringing it to fruition without your permission.
posted on April 28, 2003 05:23:42 AM new
Ebay has warned shareholders about this case for at least a couple of years. The information appears in the 0Q reports and the annual report. My reading (I'm not a lawyer and only a patent lawyer would be likely to have a credible opinion) of it is that ebay probably has offered to settle and been refused. Don't know the plaintif's lawyer but I would guess they think an ironclad case o take it to trialEither that or ebay thinks they can't lose (and I'm sure they know better).
posted on April 28, 2003 07:33:00 AM new
eBay may also be trying to run the plaintiff out of money by going to trial.
If I recall the earlier press releases, I think ebay did offer to settle but the offer was rejected.
Large corporations will also fight suits for years knowing full well that they have no basis for winning.
The people running eBay are already multi-millionaires from the stock they sold, so it will make little difference to them how the case goes, except that there is no incentive to settle under the plaintiff's terms. It is better to spend the money on lawyers than to pay it to the plaintiff for a licensing fee.
posted on April 28, 2003 09:15:12 AM new
Look at how long MicroSoft drug it's court case out? Postponnent, delay, request for reviewing new documents, etc. , etc. The other guy better have deep pockets or patient Erin Brockovich-like lawyers.
Cheryl
