By Erika Morphy E-Commerce Times
05/08/07 2:52 PM PT
Amazon's decision to settle IBM's lawsuit for infringing five patented e-commerce technologies is being met with both sighs of relief and head-scratching. Although the settlement is far preferable than an unfavorable outcome, it leaves several technology patent law issues unresolved in an environment that is becoming increasingly foggy.
Increase Customer Sales with VerticalResponse Email Marketing! Quickly and easily send email newsletters, coupons & sales announcements to your customers – no technical expertise needed. Sign up for your Free Trial today and send 100 emails on us!
The lawsuit IBM (NYSE: IBM) filed against Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN) for multiple patent violations has ended amicably, with Amazon agreeing to pay undisclosed license fees.
The legal battle over the disputed technologies began with much fanfare last fall, when IBM filed a complaint alleging that Amazon had infringed five of its patents related to e-commerce.
However, the companies had already engaged in years of wrangling. Since 2002, IBM had been attempting to convince Amazon to pay a licensing fee to use processes related to electronic catalogs; to data storage in an interactive network; and to services such as Amazon's personalized "If you bought this, you might like that" recommendations.
Amazon promptly countersued IBM -- to the relief of the e-commerce industry. The possibility that some fundamental, business process-oriented technologies might be subject to licensing caused online retailers large and small to shudder.
Pandora's Box
With the suit now settled, e-commerce vendors are more unsettled than ever over the questions it raised.
"In my mind, this agreement has opened a Pandora's Box," said Thomas Harpointner, CEO of AIS Media, which designs and services e-commerce Web sites.
"The claims are very broad and could set a precedent for IBM to collect royalties from tens of thousands of other, smaller retailers," he told the E-Commerce Times.
Indeed, in its countersuit against IBM, one of Amazon's arguments was that IBM's patent claims were so broad as to be ridiculous.
Good for Amazon
Still, the move by Amazon to settle the case was a no brainer, said Peter Vogel, a partner with Gardere Wynne Sewell.
"It will give them more technology to use -- without worry -- to make their Web site more competitive," he told the E-Commerce Times.
When it comes to fights with companies like IBM, Vogel pointed out, "they never roll over and just die. In this case, I think Amazon realized it needed to work something out so it wouldn't have to keep spending resources."
Amazon was facing an uphill battle, agreed Randy Lipsitz, Intellectual Property partner at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel.
"Trying to knock out five patents (the number IBM alleged Amazon had infringed) is not an easy thing to do," he told the E-Commerce Times.
"Given those odds -- and given the fact that the average patent lawsuit can run between (US)$3 million to $5 million," Lipsitz said, "I think Amazon sent the case to their accountants who came back and said it may not be such a bad move after all to buy some certainty and peace with a license."
New Uncertainty
Indeed, patent practices and case law have been infused with uncertainty of late. Among other court decisions, a couple of recent Supreme Court rulings have challenged how patents are awarded and what is patentable in the first place.
"The Supreme Court has shown it is willing to review a number of circuit decisions," Bart Showalter, department chair of the intellectual property practice group at Baker Botts, told the E-Commerce Times.
Ever since Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) v. AT&T came to trial, there has been talk of revisiting the scope of laws concerning the patentability of software, he added.
The Microsoft v. AT&T decision favored the software industry -- but the possibility of being vulnerable to global damages left it on edge.
"It is all part of a sense of continued uncertainty in patent law and practice," he said. "No one is quite sure anymore how a jury [will] treat a patent trial -- or whether Congress plans to change our view of patentability of software in the United States."
New Era
It may be that recent events have given Harpointner -- who, as a Web designer, worried the IBM-Amazon case was hitting too close to home -- more of a reprieve than he realizes. The new uncertainty also works to IBM's disadvantage.
"After KSR International v. Teleflex (a groundbreaking case decided at the end of April, in which the Supreme Court made it more difficult to obtain patents for combining existing technologies), it is hard to guess what thought processes are guiding patent office operations, Vogel said.
"It is going to take a while for all parties concerned to absorb the decision and ultimately parse what the court meant by it."
Court Bursts Vonage's New Trial Balloon May 03, 2007
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit turned down Vonage's request for a new trial in the company's patent dispute with Verizon Communications. However, the appellate court did give Vonage some hope that the recent KSR v. Teleflex Supreme Court decision would benefit it, saying that Vonage was free to raise the issue in its appeal.
SC Patent Ruling Gives 'Obvious' New Meaning May 01, 2007
The Supreme Court made a landmark patent decision Monday when it handed down a ruling that could make it easier for the U.S. Patent Office to reject patents for obviousness. The court found that the "Teaching, Suggestion or Motivation" test, a standard by which the office judges the obviousness of a potential patent, is meant to be a general principle, not a rigid rule.
SC Hands Microsoft Victory in AT&T Patent Case April 30, 2007
The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Microsoft and against AT&T in a major patent case could have far-reaching consequences. For Microsoft, it could mean avoiding the need to pay tens of millions in royalties or licensing fees. However, AT&T contends that Microsoft's "loophole" can now be widely exploited, allowing companies to export infringing uses of technology with impunity.
Related News Alerts
More by Erika Morphy
Roku Channel Store Hangs Out Shingle November 23, 2009
Roku's new channel store is based on a "one screen in the cloud" business model, said Michael Gartenberg, vice president of strategy and analysis with Interpret. "Essentially, what they are doing is taking the TV set -- whether it is a standard appliance or a high-def monster -- and enhancing it with content the consumer wants to see."
Ballmer Gives Shareholders - and Dell - Cause for Optimism November 20, 2009
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was all smiles at the company's shareholders meeting, as he touted the early success of Windows 7. Ballmer's cheer may have been contagious; after posting a massive earnings decline for the third quarter, Dell needed some good news to latch onto, and the prospect of broad enterprise adoption of Windows 7 could spur PC sales.
AA.com Sucks the Fun Out of Trip-Planning November 20, 2009
Using AA.com to book a flight was a painful experience. Densely packed, disorganized information was displayed in an unattractive format. On the plus side, it did seem as though the deals American Airlines advertised were real and not mere bait-and-switch lures. For anyone who wants a travel-planning Web site to inject a little pleasure into the experience, though, I say look elsewhere.
Headline Feeds
Talkback: 
