The lawyer is right.
"What makes this case particularly egregious is the allegation [...]". Yes. Exactly.
eBay is being sued for a minimum of $3.8bn by a company which claims the auction house wilfully copied six of its patents. Should eBay be found guilty of wilful and malicious infringement it would have to pay three times that or up to $11.4bn. XPRT Ventures LLC of Connecticut claims that eBay not only stole its technology for …
I might have got this wrong but aren't some patents available for licence on a 'per-use' basis? Perhaps XPRT are doing just what the RIAA are doing and claiming costs based on the number of transactions carried out using the allegedly infringing technology.
Apologies if I'm dreadfully oversimplifying things but just because 'a big company' decided to dismiss the suit as egregious doesn't mean it isn't up to anything naughty.
Question a) When did sued company apparently begin using the already patented technology?
Question b) What was the revenue of sued company at that time?
Question c) What is the revenue of sued company now?
If the answer to a) Is a long time ago; the answer to b) not so much; and the answer to c) a sh*tload; You have a troll...
Any questions at the back?
Rebel - that was my first reaction. But, we don't know whether there have been settlement discussions over the years between the two sides, and whether a key piece of evidence has surfaced, making the suit viable. The timeliness issue was undoubtedly argued--and lost--by the defendant to the court in an attempt for summary judgment.
The notorious patent infringement case against Ford [Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 203, U.S.P.Q. 884, 888 (E.D.Mich. 1978)] took twelve years to adjudicate, because these companies have the resources to drag out the process until the plaintiff either tires of the delays, runs out of resources, or drops dead.
The overriding facts here are the patents held by the plaintiff which were applied for several times by--and refused to--the defendant.
I'm no fan of eBay at all, but why has it taken so long for this patent infringement to hit the court? Surely, eBay has been doing things the same way (and presumably infringing these parents) for years?
As for "One of the inventors, George Likourezos..." : Why do ALL American computer people seem to have weird names? Wozniak, Kernigan, Zimmermann...
>>"As for "One of the inventors, George Likourezos..." : Why do ALL American computer people seem to have weird names? Wozniak, Kernigan, Zimmermann..."
Last thing I heard, the USA had dropped the requirement to be English before moving there.
Also, does non-English automatically equal 'weird'?
In any case, what about Gates, Thompson, Bell, Moore, Grove, Ellison, Evans, Sutherland, etc.
Or the 'slightly more weird' Warnock, Kildall, etc
I've always wondered why one (or more) large companies with deep pockets doesn't try hitting a patent troll in the wallet. In other words, attempt to get their patents invalidated based on prior art or any other means. After that happened a few times, those trolls would either find some other line of work (probably as spammers) or approach companies early on with reasonable licensing terms.
Many "IP trolls" cannot be sued for infringement themselves, since they merely sell licensing and not the technology itself. So there's no way to counter sue them.
Invalidating the IP troll's patents may be possible, however that's likely to result in significant friendly fire on one's own portfolio. The evidence used to invalidate the troll's patents could also directly invalidate one's own patents. Let's not forget that a troll can threaten not only patents in the suite, but also patents that are not part of the suite. It's black mail, but it's very likely target company has plenty of invalid patents itself.
Given how little software patents do to promote innovation, and how much damage is done by monopolizing it, we should bar any further software patents from being issued.
It might be worth sacrificing some of your own patents to kill a troll.
Remember, the patent holder has the twin advantages that (1) they are already making the product and (2) they have already established a strong brand for themselves.
It's all about who is in the better position to deal with the consequences.
You mean NutMeg Whitman? That's one of the less nasty names she's being called on Facebook. I heard today that her ratings are still going down... They can keep right on dropping for all I care. I can't be bothered to vote for someone who, by her own admission, "couldn't be bothered" to vote for the last 20 years or so.
MEGaFAIL Whitman. Really need two icons for this one... FAIL, and flames, to burn her chances
She was gung ho for the AZ stop-and-deport law until she routed Poizner for the GOP nomination. The next day she flip flopped on immigration. About the only certainty with her ensconced would be a CA version of the Bush II tax cuts for the rich.
Naturally, she'll use her influence to bail her children out of trouble.
Whether it's Bloomberg running NYC or this piece of work running CA, it's a bad idea to let billionaires set the agenda for the rest of us. :(
To help you appreciate El Reg's particular brand of iconoclastic journalism, I'll point you to the site's tagline, visible at the top right of the header: "Biting the hand that feeds IT". That tagline is there for a reason. It's what El Reg does. And it's what we, the commentard community, appreciate it for!
"XPRT Ventures LLC of Connecticut claims that eBay not only stole its technology for use in online payment systems including PayPal but added insult to injury by then filing its own patents."
eBay didn't steal XPRT's technologies. That would involve ebay breaking in and removing those technologies from XPRT's possession. For the Nth time, infringing does not imply theft!
Register reporters need to use the correct technical terminologies.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018