A Federal Court judge has found that MercExchange LLC is due $30 million from eBay in compensation for a patent breach of MercExchange’s “Buy It Now” patent, a long standing feature available on eBay auctions.
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.
MercExchange has said they will appeal the denial of its request for an injunction, but welcomed the $30 million in damages. eBay also plans to appeal the ruling.
that is nothing to them, but still suprised such a big company and didn’t research this earlier. they other company is lucky for they get 30mil and publicity.
I agree…just a minor annoyance. And of course there will be an appeal…these will be lucky if they get paid anytime soon.
But then again… What’s $30 million to Ebay?
1,2,3
agree, but they are annoyed enough to be appealing it…like buying fly spray for one fly in the room I guess.
Very surprised the patent haterz haven’t posted yet.
Come on.. someone pleeeease post a “Boy I’d better patent the air and sue the whole world” comment!!
that’s pretty lame if there’s no injunction, that’s the whole point of a patent – if i patent something, you can’t just use the stuff and pay me damages…you have to stop using it AND pay the damages for when you did use it…
otherwise patents would be totally meaningless to protect against large corporations – they could violate them at will!
given how large corporations control pretty much everything in this country, this is probably the way it will go
Boy I’d better patent the air and sue the whole world!!!!!!!!!!
Now back to reality, why wouldn’t they appeal? It’s $30 million dollars. I don’t care who you are, you appeal.
Darn, they just made that from eBay listing fees in the past week. Somehow I think eBay will get over it.
I hate patents…especially on software.
If only ebay had called it “buy instantly”
software patents are a bad joke.
Ugh… This is ridiculous. How can there be a patent on a button that is intuitive? Can someone clarify? Maybe I missed something?
$30 million may not seem like a lot of money to us for a company like eBay but they certainly don’t want to have to pay it. eBay isn’t the darling that they used to be and while their market cap is still around $45b, what strategies do they have for growth? How do they evolve the business? The acquisition of Skype was a bust and this is news they didn’t want. They need to smarten up.
Duncan, you are the most sensitive Australian ever. Thanks for blocking my posts.
Bottom line eBay knows that they HAVE LOST. But, let’s do the equation here.
1) The appeal takes 12 months and eBay loses
2) Lawyer fees are minimal probably $50,000 for eBay during the 12 month appeal.
3) Cash on eBay’s balance sheet is earning 5% in a institutional money market during these 12 months.
$30M x 5% interest = $1.5M earned interest minus $50K lawyer fees
= net gain of $1,450,000
as a result eBay pays $28.55M instead of $30M and with an outside chance that this will be overturned.
That’s good business…..remember when the Exxon Valdez settled for a few billion dollars. I think after appeals it was something like 9 years later. How much did Exxon really pay?
MercExchange is nothing but a shadow company for b.s. patents. eBay is going to continue to fight this purely out of principle, and good for them.
Sometimes software patents indeed are nothing short of a bad joke. Patenting a feature that allows you to buy something immediately instead of after the auction?
Is this right? That’s what they are going to court for? How on earth can you patent that? Is it a specific business model? If so, every ebusiness is liable for paying patent licensing fees because you can “buy now”.
@Dave M, me too. Even worse are business process patents, which this actually seems more of to me.
so would this mean that some company in the 90s patented the “Buy” button and now every single e-commerce site can be sued for it?
I will patent submit, post, and search buttons on websites in all languages.
The US patent system is sick joke. Who’s the clown who issued this patent? Who’s this so called judge? Patents were originally meant for inventing new things, scientific developments and such. Buy Now button? Give me a break!!! Ebay should appeal and I hope they succeed and teach another troll a lesson.
Patent system contributes its share of b/s to the already dysfunctional legal system exploited by insurance fraud, malpractice lawsuits, and Joe Shmoe’s suing microwave makers for no warning them about risks of drying their cats in microwaves. You can’t make this stuff up.
Go Ebay. Beat them in court.
US PATENT LAW RUN AMUCK!
It is incredible that could happen in America. It is totally crazy the kind of patents you can put on things. I could understand a patent on something very difficult to imagine and very expensive to develop.
Patents should be protected only by the amount of development you save if you copy the idea.
For instance, the “original” company should take something like 10 bucks for the button idea.
I would imagine Meg Whitman is going to have to take this settlement out of her change purse. This is just a minor annoyance to Ebay’s coffers.
JMHO.
This is ridiculous. A “Buy Now” button?! eBay should crush them in court, so these things will never happen again. Imagine someone taking you to court because they invented the “About Us” button. C’mon…give me a break! Like someone above said: now, every e-commerce website will be sued?! Lol.
Got off cheap!
I usually pay this amount just for lawyers!
http://fakestev...er.blogspot.com
Oh come on! $30m for a little button that says: I want to buy this now for an amount set by the seller.. Patent law needs reform.
Didn’t think so. Certainly not a ” Software patent”. I hate ignorance. Patents are important and have been instrumental in the US businesses forever. Concepts don’t just happen, they have to be conceived by people looking at a problem.
Who cares if eBay has to pay? They’ve been raping consumers all over the place for a very long time. This is a corporate entity that has lost its creative flair and fails to continue innovation.
They are no longer disrupting, but disruptable
What a ridiculous patent. Our patent laws desperately need to be refined!
Pretty stupid patent.
Change it to “Quick Buy!” and tell patents where to go.
OK, whether you believe patents are good or bad, it’s important to note that the post is misleading about the Supreme Court’s previous holding in this case.
The default rule used to be that injunctions were all but required; the Court’s opinion firmly rejected that point of view, holding that patent cases required the same traditional balancing test before issuing an injunction that applies in all other types of cases. Essentially it asks whether damages are an appropriate remedy for the harm suffered by the plaintiff. In patent cases, it seems that they often will be, because rarely if ever will an inventor not be willing to license their invention for any price.