[evilC]

I am just not sure that what the patent described is really innovative concept.

[LurkingSince'98]

it is certainly not your call to make.

The last time I checked its the USPTO that decides.

whew, talk about armchair quarterbacks.

Lurking'

[common_pundit]

I agree - the patent is garbage. For example, when was the last time you used a bar code scanner (as claimed in the patent) to buy something over the internet from your home. In order to infringe this patent, each of those "checklist" items must be present. If any of them are missing, the patent is not infringed.

So MercExchange, which seems to have validly come up with a new idea of practicing a method that necessarily embodies each and every one of those things listed in the claim (back in 1996 mind you), is enforcing a patent that Ebay probably has violated with any number of Ebay retail stores or outlets.

Why shouldn't MercExchange be entitled to protect their idea? Evidence seems to show that they wanted to license it to Ebay anyway. Ebay probably shrugged this tiny company off and dared them to file infringement suit. Now Ebay's tactic has come home to roost, albeit for a rather small amount of money ($5.5 million)

[Atlas Sneezed]

I am just not sure that what the patent described is really innovative concept.

---

You don't need to be sure, and the SC is not even considering that issue. That is what patent examiners, appeals boards, and federal courts determine after hearing all the evidence from both sides.

You can't evaluate a patent from an AP article, nor even from a copy of the patent itself. You need to study the whole history of how the patent was obtained, what prior art was considered, and what was not.