Dissents

In the case of MercExchange v. Ebay, the District Court did deny permanent injunction relief to MercExchange for their internet invention that became such a success once it was released. Once it was taken to Supreme Court, the judges concurred with the judges of the District Court, but they had to stress that the procedures in patent infringement cases should not go over looked. They did proceed to issue the four factor test to MercExchange to decide whether they suffered any damages to their company and MercExchange wanted to use that to delare permanent injunction of their invention. Unfortunately, it was decided that although that had documents proving that the idea was theirs first, they did not have enough to secure the injunction and so, it was a unanimous decision amongst the courts to revoke their motion and allow Ebay and their subsidiaries to use the idea for their profitable gain.

My Own Argument

I had learned a lot when I studied and analyzed this case. Going about having an idea and protecting it from those out there to gain personal interest for themselves requires an extensive research and understanding the laws. MercExchange had a non-patented idea and had originally wanted to license the idea so they could properly petition it to potential buyers. But when no agreement was reached, another company proceeded to use the invention. Timing was off and MercExchange missed their chance. I understand the decision of the courts but I am not sure if I agree with them. MercExchange had proof that the idea was theirs and even though a decision was not made in time, I think that there should be some sort of compensation made by Ebay and their subsidiary. I am glad that an effort was made on behalf of the court and they did not just try to pass it off as some open/shut case. They put up a good fight for what was there’s in the beginning of it all and their particular case opened up possibilities for future cases to be able to have a chance to defend their ideas. So even though MercExchange did not receive the compensation they felt they deserved, it will remind the courts not to take any tasks lightly and to force courts to follow the procedures when dealing with patent-related cases.

Rule of law

In this particular case, the District Court wanted to deny permanent injunctive relief to MercExchange. It was brought up in court that the Patent Act disputed that “A major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” (Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320). Also, the Federal Circuit applied its “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 401 F. 3d 1323, 1339. That led to the four-factor test that is normally applied by courts of equity when the consideration of awarding permanent injunction relief to a plaintiff arises.

Reasoning of the Court

The reasoning of the court took a lot of deliberation on the District Court and the Supreme Court. The major concern was not only on the permanent injunction of the patent invention but also on whether the courts can manage to take every bit of the Patent Act into consideration and make sure not to skip over the procedures when it comes to the process of proving any infringement damages. That includes the four-factor test which can rule whether to grant injunctive relief in any patent cases. The Supreme Court also wanted to stress that “The traditional practice of issuing injunctions against patent infringers does not seem to rest on the difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary remedies that allow an infringer to use an invention against the patentee’s wishes.” Ante, at 1 (ROBERTS, C. J.concurring). Meaning that one cannot use the personal injunction against the one you are accusing to protect the patent from use against the owner’s wishes. The Supreme Court concurred with the District Court stating that the nature of the patent being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder should be taken into consideration. This is due to the fact that the industry has developed to use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but instead for obtaining licensing fees making injunctions more important. With all these observations, the courts made their decision.

Decision of the Court

As MercExchange continued to file for a permanent injunction for their Patent Infringement, a jury ruled that the patent was valid and that an award of damages should be given. But the district court denied MercExchange motion for permanent injunctive relief. Meaning that this particular patent is to remain the exclusive ownership of MercExchange. The Courts decided that an injunction should not automatically be issued based on a finding of a patent infringement but they also included that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. However, it will be stressed that the federal court must still issue the four factors to determine if an injunction should be issued whenever a relief is requested. So, the concept is still being used by Ebay and their subsidiary and no injunction was issued on this particular patent.

The Supreme Court

As my knowledge grows in this course, I have learned how the systems work in almost every facet of our daily lives. However, tonight we watched a film that focused on the Supreme Court and most importantly, the election of the first woman in the Supreme Court. I gathered that the basic structure of it all of the eight people are put together by the President of the United States, one being the Chief Justice of the United States and such number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by Congress. As it is chosen by the President, the President does receive advice and consent of the Senate. It is stated in the Constitution that the Judge, “both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” (Article 3 Section 1) When I read and understood the duties that are to be carried out by the people of the Supreme Court, I often found myself questioning whether I could even begin to carry out some of the decisions made by those who hold that particular position. I would often be judged on my opinions and beliefs just like Ruth Loomis in the film except times were different during that period and women were viewed as a sensitive matter when it came down to most things. But I would not be surprised if there were people out there that still had that frame of mind pertaining to women in that position of power but it would open a certain amount of trust to the people if you had that sort of diversity in the Supreme Court because they make many important decisions that could make or break the society we all live in.

Issues of the Case

In the case of EBay Incorporated versus MercExchange, we are informed that MercExchange sought to license its business method patent to EBay Incorporated, but no agreement was reached. MercExchange then sought a patent infringement suit and a jury found that its patent was valid, that EBay Inc. had infringed the patent, and that damages were appropriate. However, the District Court denied Mercexchange’s motion for permanent injunctive relief. In reversing, the Federal Circuit applied its “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 401 F. 3d 1323, 1339. Mercexchange then proceeded to push the infringement suit and when that happens they must go through a series of tests to prove whether they truly can dispute under the Patent Act. This requires Mercexchange to demonstrate that “it has suffered an irreparable injury, that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury, that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted, and that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” These principles apply with equal force to Patent Act disputes. “[A] major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320. These tests are then evaluated by the Supreme Court. EBay Inc. and Half.com, Inc., argue that this traditional test applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. Petitioner Half.com, now a wholly owned subsidiary of EBay, operates a similar Web site. MercExchange holds a number of patents, including a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between private individuals by establishing a central authority to promote trust among participants. MercExchange sought to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, as it had previously done with other companies, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As this Court has long recognized, “a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Nothing in the Patent Act indicates that Congress intended such a departure. ThePatent Act expressly provides that injunctions “may” issue “in accordance with the principles of equity.” To be sure, the Patent Act also declares that “patents shall have the attributes of personal property,” §261, including “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention,” §154(a)(1). According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. But the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right. Indeed, the Patent Act itself indicates that patents shall have the attributes of personal property.

Fact of the Case

Facts of the case

EBAY INC. v. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C.

Argued March 29, 2006—Decided May 15, 2006

Petitioners operate popular Internet Web sites that allow private sellers to list goods they wish to sell. Respondent sought to license its business method patent to petitioners, but no agreement was reached. In respondent’s subsequent patent infringement suit, a jury found that its patent was valid, that petitioners had infringed the patent, and that damages were appropriate. However, the District Court denied respondent’s motion for permanent injunctive relief. In reversing, the Federal Circuit applied its “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.

The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. The decision to grant or deny such reliefs an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. These principles apply with equal force to Patent Act disputes. “[A] major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” (Weinberger v. Romero-Barceló, 456 U. S. 305, 320. Nothing in the Act indicates such a departure. Pp. 2–6. 401 F. 3d 1323, vacated and remanded.)

It was then taken to the Supreme Court where they evaluated the tests taken and gave their conclusion on whether the patent infringement will stand in court.

Illicit

Illicit

I think that we as a whole are sorely affected by copyright infringement and it is so common and overlooked because what we see is a good deal on a certain product, was obtained in a most uncommon way. It comes back to the manufacturer because it cuts into their profit and the people involved are just scooping money out of them like there is nothing wrong with it. It is supply and demand with a twist and America is buying in on it. When watching the documentary, I saw people in Hong Kong selling these knock off products like you see the sales person in a mall kiosk sell their lotions and steamers. Sure, it is all at a good price but what you do not see is the lengths those people go through just to hustle their consumer. They say they do it to survive and I understand that times are hard but it comes to a dangerous point when it comes to how these knock offs are acquired. The making and distribution of pharmaceuticals was a topic that really scared me because they could not afford to buy the ingredients made for those drugs so they just grabbed whatever they could find and made the pills in their basements. Some of these ingredients were poisons and people were buying them because they were considered a good deal. Pesticides, glue, and paint were being ingested by people who thought they were using medicines. When you watch this documentary, you see under a fine microscope what this world of black market trading is capable of. You see how everyday people participate in such trades from the consumers to the producers and in the end, somebody always paid. It makes you wonder if the price you pay is really what you bargained for.

What are your Rights as a Landlord?

What are your right as a property owner? Personally, I think that when making such a big investment like that, you have to take extra precautions when choosing your tenant. It is extremely important to screen your tenants before that person decides to take up any residence. In the movie Pacific Height, a couple buys a large house in an exclusive San Fransisco neighborhood. They renovate it and plan to rent two apartments on the first floor to cover the costs. When they meet a man promising to cover the rent for the next six months, they assumed that he would meet his promises and allowed him to move in. But it turns out that he is not the perfect tenant that they expected. He never pays any rent, drives the other tenants away and systematically ruins the lives of his landlords. Because paying your mortgage is directly dependant upon your tenants paying you, you should always run a credit check and a check of the tenant’s prior rental history through companies making this information available for a nominal fee. (Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation http://www.mass.gov) Obtaining a security deposit and the rent is a good way to ensure that the tenant you take in can promise to be a responsible tenant with the rent. Interest must be paid to the tenant either on the anniversary date of the tenancy or on a pro-rata basis, if the tenancy ends before one year, for all months except the last month of the tenancy. It is also the responsibility of the landlord to make pre-rental preparation on the apartment. You must make a complete inspections and assess to any damages that were made by the previous owners. Once those are done, be sure to obtain the Inspector’s sign-off once all violations have been corrected. This sign-off also acts as violation-free base line if the tenant should claim there are problems with the apartment after taking occupancy (Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation http://www.mass.gov). Getting all of these duties done and taken care of can ensure that you will maintain an orderly place of residence.

Greed is Good?

Greed is Good? Some people say that if you really want something and if you are willing to do anything to get it, it may require you to step on anybody to obtain it. Friends or family, you would throw them all under the bus if it meant that you would finally get to the goal that you set for yourself. So greed is defined as an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth. It is also one of the seven deadly sins. Is one willing to commit one of these sins just to obtain respect and material wealth? It would seem like one would seriously have to think it over and realize what they are sacrificing in order to get what they desire. Me, personally, I would not go as far as making extreme sacrifices to get what I want. I would appreciate the achievement of my goal if I had to really fight to obtain it. It would only lose its worth if I did otherwise and I probably would not even want it after knowing that I had to go through the process in way such as greed. I guess it depends on the mentality of each individual because everyone has their own views on how things work and whether they even are concerned for others or just themselves. But when the chips are down, it is all about survival and that is when some people’s morals are put into question. Some are backed so far into a corner that the initial reaction is to push out anybody blocking their way of escape. They have to do whatever it takes just to get out of the situation that they are in. But is greed the way to go?

What my Classmates Think of the Legal System

Overlooking what my classmates think about the legal system, I noticed that they all have very different opinions that deal with their experiences and just their all-around view of what makes it up. Some of them do not totally agree with the system but agree that without it, the U.S. would probably not be the same. Kyle H wrote that “If I were to stop and think about it the question I would realize that without the legal system the U.S. would be a different place maybe a place I wouldn’t want to be in. Yes, the legal system has it flaws but that is because it was created by people who have their flaws. From what I’ve seen and not experienced the legal system is full of many, many, many holes which people tend to pass through.” I do agree that there are deffinately a lot of holes in the system for people with the right power to go through and some of them have good intentions and I am sure some do not. Jordan G brought up that “They may make underhanded or unethical calls and deals with the other lawyer or judge in order to make their case possibly not the best it could be but in order to keep costs to a minimum, or they may try to uphold justice to its fullest potential in order to carry out a moral and ethical standing in the courts.” I can certainly agree that the law is not painted as a pretty picture in the media, and I do not really know why, but we cannot say that the things that we see on TV do not really happen out there in the real world. To think about how complicated it is can seem pretty freightening. Michael R mentioned “The legal system is so complex, and so overwhelming that I it scares me.” And it is true but Michael goes on to say “The legal system seems like a guideline of what not to do." And “So in turn I do my best to not break the law. However the fates have my path laid out I know that one day the legal system will come to bite me in the ass! Something I am doing my best to avoid.” I can appreciate the total honesty in that statement because things happen and you are bound to run into the law sooner or later and you must be ready for it when you do. Mixed emotions stir up when one is discussing the legal system and understanding it can help you handle it once it happens to you. Once it does happen, you will form the opinion for the legal system.

Used Cars-Crimes and Torts

Team: Kyle Hudson, Crystal Burrell, Ray Price, Dianne Polo 1. False advertising- tort 2. Battery – crime 3. Illegal gambling – crime 4. Vandalism of property – crime 5. Bribery – crime 6. Perjury – crime 7. Speeding – crime 8. Hit and run – crime 9. Reckless driving – crime 10. Minors driving without a license – crime 11. Fleeing scene of accident – crime 12. Attempted murder – crime 13. Reckless endangerment – crime 14. Reckless driving – crime 15. Threatening to cause bodily harm – crime 16. Slander – tort 17. Sexual harassment – crime 18. Tampering with video – tort 19. Accepting bribes – crime 20. Driving without a seatbelt – crime 21. Illegal use of firearm – crime 22. Lying to a customer – tort 23. Assault with a deadly weapon – crime 24. Minors driving without licensed drivers – crime 25. Animal cruelty – crime 26. Stealing – crime 27. Libel – tort 28. Endangerment of life – crime 29. Defying police orders – crime 30. Driving on oncoming traffic lane - crime

What I Think About the Legal System

What I think of the legal system is that it is the basic structure of what this society can and cannot do. I see it as a collar on a dog’s neck. The collar is used as a training tool that is used to keep the dog in line. You get a new dog and at first, he does not quite understand the rules of your house so naturally he just runs around doing whatever he wants until you establish what he can do and where he can go. He does not take you seriously until you get that collar out and once you do, the dog understands that you mean business. He has established that you are the alpha and when he gets out of line and you pull that collar, he sees and understands that he did wrong and will never do it again. It is the same with our society, the legal system sets up laws and if you break them you suffer the consequences. I feel that it offers a balance in the society. It has its fingers in everything that we do. “Accountants, for example, need to know that if they do their work carelessly, and cause someone to sustain loss, they could be sued. Just as important as a person who is planning to rent an apartment or buy a home needs to know his or her legal rights as they relate to property.” (Essentials of Business Law page 3, Luizzo ) It may not seem as fast paced and exciting as it is portrayed in the media but they play an extremely important part in our lives and it shows that we cannot just run around doing any and everything we want to do. As long as we familiar ourselves with the proper information, we can all live our lives normally without any complications.

Myspace Hoax

Headliner: “MySpace Hoax Leads to 13-year-old Girl’s Suicide” We all know how hard it can be to be a teenager. Some have lived it and gotten over it, some haven’t. Megan Meier was a 13-year-old who had battled attention deficit disorder, depression and a weight problem for much of her young life. She meets a guy on the ever popular MySpace website and is all caught up in the mad rush of physical and mental emotions. Little did she know that her next-door neighbors were behind a cruel prank to humiliate and embarrass this teenager. Lori Drew was the 49-year-old woman who thought up the whole idea with her daughter and personal assistant. What was the reason? The two young girls were friends who had a falling out so Lori invented a 16-year-old boy, “Josh Evans,” and created a MySpace account for him, and made Megan believe he was new in town and thought she was cool. And then the boy turned on Megan, saying that the world would be better off without her and in the end, Megan took her own life. The whole point was to start a fake account and flirt with Megan then dump her. And then they would post bulletins so that her classmates would see and make fun of her for it. When Tina Meier, Megan’s mother, found out this information, they immediately wanted to press charges. I think that if an adult who personally knew the girl and knew she had problems and still proceeded with the taunting, needs to be punished. The trial had to be taken to California since the network was based in that state. Prosecutors argued that Drew violated the MySpace laws of starting a fake account along with other charges. But since there is no real criminal charge for Megan’s death, the case was dismissed. One of the problems was that FBI was unable to retrieve the messages from the day of Megan’s death including the message that only her father saw. I agree with the Meiers when they say that a law should be changed, state or federal, so that what happened to Megan - at the hands of an adult - is a crime.

What I think about lawyers

What do I think about lawyers? Unfortunately, it is very difficult to distinguish an honest and trustworthy lawyer to the sharks that people seem to pick up on in the media. You have got to be a good judge of character and also prepare yourself to be manipulated at the same time and it can be quite frustrating. Me personally, I have never really dealt with lawyers so I do not think I am really qualified to give my opinion on them on a personal matter. But they are pretty hard to ignore when you see their faces smeared on billboards and when you hear their silly catch phrases on their commercials. I can say that I have met Glen Learner, also known as “The Heavy Hitter”. To put it frankly, he had his nickname on his license plate and he was driving a Mercedes-Benz. Now, here is someone who built his career to the point where he is being recognized by the locals who have seen his commercials but not really by how well he does his job. Like I said earlier, I have never had to deal with lawyers on legal matters it has always been how they are portrayed in the media. I have had my share of traffic violations to which I would fight them myself and pay the price but that does not mean that I have not had the lawyers experience from some sort of stand point. For example, I have an older sister who has had two speeding tickets in three months. She had heard that a lawyer by the name of Craig P. Kenny would take your ticket to a judge who would then drop the price of the ticket to a mere fifty dollars. This is not the first time I have heard this lawyer’s name because when I was dealing with my tickets my oldest sister said to take it to this particular lawyer and he would lower it to a reasonable price. Unfortunately, my dad had other plans for me and I had to pay fully. In the end, my view on lawyers is that I think they are superficial and gaudy and it is only because I have based my opinion on how they are portrayed in the media.