I can't recall if the bozos on the court have already specifically ruled on the idiocy of 'business methods' patents. If not, perhaps it's time for them to do so. Seems like Roberts might actually have a clue.
The filing of software algorithm patents has been getting ridiculous as of late. I'm just some lawyer to try to patent: x++;
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
"Justices won't decide whether eBay stole MercExchange's idea for selling goods over an electronic network."
What a rediculous thing that would be to be able to patent. I can understand not being allowed to copy a websites layout, but this is no different than being able to patent the idea of opening a department store. There is level you get to where ideas and words are just too basic to patent. Apple vs Apple would be a good example.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1786992
They use two completely different apple symbols. So there shoud be no problem.
Patents have gone way over the top.
There needs to be a major correction to what qualifies for being patented.
Amazon's "one click" patent is a good example.
Let me get this straight: A company actually tried to patent the selling of goods over the internet? Should Kroger sue Wal-Mart for getting into the grocery business and stealing its "idea"?
What BS!
The idea of selling items over an electronic network were being shown back in the 1880s over TV to housewives at home. (the concept of TV was invented in 1873 It just took 52 years for the technology to catch up so John Logie Baird could make the first working one in 1925)
Baird Television
http://www.mztv.com/baird.html
This should be filed with the guys that tried to patent the AND & OR gates back in the 1980s
I am sure that even George Selden would be jealous of MercExchange's "accomplishments" in the field of patents.
The 'inventers' learned that most of the patents had been filed more than 50 years earlier by Tesla.