spend matters spend matters About this site
Advertise with Spend Matters
Advertise with Spend Matters
 

February 09, 2010

 

The Emptoris Sourcing Patch -- What it Means for Users

Earlier this week, I had the chance to take a quick look at the patches Emptoris will be deploying to satisfy Ariba's claims and the court's findings that it infringed on patents "6,499,018 and 6,216,114, patents covering, respectively, the use of individual bid ceilings and certain auction overtime rules in electronic auctions." The bottom line is that from the screen shots I've seen, Emptoris has eliminated the infringing features.

I am familiar with both patents going back to my time at FreeMarkets, and while I am most certainly not an IP attorney, the patches appear, in what I saw, to ameliorate the violation. For the approximately 80% of Emptoris customers that are running the Emptoris sourcing product in a SaaS model, Emptoris will manage the deployment of the patch process for them. For the other 20%, Emptoris will send out the patch and these customers will have a set time period to install it before it becomes Ariba's option to get involved.



For patent 6,499,018, which dealt with preliminary bid features that essentially took a supplier's ceiling price from the RFQ and transferred it to the auction, a supplier in the Emptoris system had only one choice historically -- to accept the bid or not participate. With the patch, Emptoris suppliers will have the ability to accept or reject the price on a line-item basis with the request to each supplier that "before making a decision, please review and accept/decline an initial bid that will appear. To decline a bid, uncheck the box next to that item". This appears to be a suitable fix, and in fact provides greater flexibility to suppliers in accepting or declining a price ceiling prior to a market (which, for example, might be important if underlying commodity prices have increased from the time of the RFQ on a line-by-line basis).

For patent 6,215,114, which covered automatic extension rules in the overtime phase of an event, Emptoris used to offer multiple options to users that could trigger overtime or an additional overtime. To be specific, a supplier's bid that was either the leading bid, one of the top 2 bids, one of the top 3 bids, one of the top 4 bids, one of the top 5 bids, or any bid could trigger overtime or an additional overtime. To eliminate the patent infringement, Emptoris now only supports two auto-extension rules that can trigger overtime or an additional overtime: for any bid submitted or the leading bid. This fix will limit, to some degree, the amount of flexibility in extending overtime situations to balance increased competition with unduly long overtime periods, but I estimate that it will have a potential material impact to <1% of the auctions that customers currently run.

Now that Emptoris has eliminated the infringing areas with these patches, what will it mean for the market? The two customers that I've had a chance to connect with so far were not overly concerned -- for different reasons -- though one did caution that the fix is not a hot patch and requires a new release of the code, IT involvement, etc. In other words, the end business result is minimal, but it will come with at least some hassle. Emptoris SaaS customers, however, should avoid any code release headache.

- Jason Busch

Comments
Jason,

Nice job buffing up the geek credentials of the blog!

;-)
# Posted By David Rotor | 11/6/08 4:44 AM
It was painful, man. Painful. But someone had to do it ... :-)
# Posted By Jason Busch | 11/6/08 5:02 AM
those two processes/pieces of "technology" were patented? Oh brother. How about patenting some real innovation.
# Posted By in disbelief | 11/6/08 6:48 AM
Sorry, a process patent for "innovation" already exists ... ;-)
# Posted By Jason Busch | 11/6/08 7:23 AM
Has does the recent departure of Ammiel Kamon impact this since he was instrumental as the SVP of Products? His timing is very interesting considering what is going on at Emptoris, lawsuits, layoffs, bad quarter.
# Posted By nothingbutthetruth | 11/6/08 8:30 AM
Ammiel left Emptoris last month for personal reasons; everyone at Emptoris knew it weeks before any jury verdict. Judging by the company’s consistent product leadership - http://www.emptoris.com/newsroom/analyst-research.... - it is hard to believe one person’s departure will impact its track record. Avner remains the tech visionary, and the world class team of thirteen Ammiel built remains in tact. The company’s product direction was strong before he joined and while he was here, and it will be strong afterwards.
# Posted By IRT nothingbutpathetic | 11/6/08 1:37 PM
If NBTT knew where he went, he would know that it was a logical career move. Sad that this digresses into such a bash-the-vendor-at-all costs tirade.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 11/6/08 1:58 PM
As far as the detail of your post if you do not think you sound like a schill for that company then you are just not being honest with yourself...I know there have been many denials of a business relationship here I must state the obvious. No company...I mean not even close...gets the favorable press that you LATHER on Emptoris.

Go ahead and protest but me thinks thou doth protest too much.
# Posted By Eric | 11/6/08 5:19 PM
Shill? You obviously don't remember the "Lies, Damn lies, and Emptoris" post. But regardless, whatever angle, you'll piss off someone, as I've learned over the years. Listen, I could criticize Emptoris for a lot of reasons -- and have, and will continue to do so -- but I have a strong hatred of litigation, even though the target in this case was ironic indeed. I suppose you'll like my forthcoming and final coverage after reading through the complete court docket, but then you'll just accuse of me of shilling for Ariba.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 11/6/08 8:01 PM
Do you think it is a problem that only 3 of the executives at the start of 2007 are still with the company today?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070103225532/www.empt...
# Posted By JBoy | 11/14/08 7:21 PM
If you're interested in the final outcome of the Ariba v. Emptoris case, you can read about the conclusion here:

http://www.emptoris.com/newsroom/pressreleases/new...

The Court has rejected Ariba's motion for review of the Emptoris "patch" effectively concluding the trial.
# Posted By Dan Cahill | 2/26/09 5:33 PM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2010 Spend Matters, LP All rights reserved