From our front-page news:
When eBay was first brought to court due to a patent breach that revolves around the "Buy It Now" feature, I didn't think it was going to go anywhere. As it turns out, I was wrong. A Federal Court judge has ordered the massive online auction site to pay $30 million to MercExchange. It's a good thing eBay continues to gouge their customers with rate hikes - now they have enough money to cover this.
How something this foolish can be patented to begin with is beyond me. You create an auction site... and allow someone to purchase the item by bypassing the normal auction rules. Can I be sued just for explaining the process?
I've become less and less of a fan of eBay over the years thanks to their constant disregard to customer service and price hikes, so I can't say that I feel bad for them. Oddly, though, eBay can continue using this feature just fine. Whether or not there will be future royalties that need to be paid, it doesn't say.
<table align="center"><tbody><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
The case started back in 2001, and in 2003 a jury found in favor of MercExchange. According to the Wall Street Journal, the case triggered a review by the U.S. Supreme Court over whether injunctions or damage awards are sufficient remedies in patent cases, with a ruling in 2006 that "all but required injunctions in patent cases." eBay convinced the court in September that damages alone would suffice in this case given the ruling, leading to the $30 million today.
Source: Tech Crunch
How something this foolish can be patented to begin with is beyond me. You create an auction site... and allow someone to purchase the item by bypassing the normal auction rules. Can I be sued just for explaining the process?
I've become less and less of a fan of eBay over the years thanks to their constant disregard to customer service and price hikes, so I can't say that I feel bad for them. Oddly, though, eBay can continue using this feature just fine. Whether or not there will be future royalties that need to be paid, it doesn't say.
<table align="center"><tbody><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
The case started back in 2001, and in 2003 a jury found in favor of MercExchange. According to the Wall Street Journal, the case triggered a review by the U.S. Supreme Court over whether injunctions or damage awards are sufficient remedies in patent cases, with a ruling in 2006 that "all but required injunctions in patent cases." eBay convinced the court in September that damages alone would suffice in this case given the ruling, leading to the $30 million today.
Source: Tech Crunch
