Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/05-130.pdf
Page Number: 10

2 

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

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring 

ceutical  Co.,  733  F. 2d  858,  865–867  (1984).    At  the  same 
time,  there  is  a  difference  between  exercising  equitable
discretion  pursuant  to  the  established  four-factor  test  and
writing on an entirely clean slate.  “Discretion is not whim, 
and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps
promote  the  basic  principle  of  justice  that  like  cases 
should be decided alike.”  Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.,
546  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2005)  (slip  op.,  at  6).    When  it  comes  to 
discerning  and  applying  those  standards,  in  this  area  as
others, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.”   New 
York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (opinion
for the Court by Holmes, J.).