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)
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) Is there any evidence that eBay actually received any benefit from the former company's patent, rather than having developed the ideas independently?
In theory, the patent system was designed so that people would patent their ideas in useful fashion and, as a reward for doing so, receive temporary exclusive rights to them. In practice, I think the primary effect of publishing patents is to prevent any sort of "independent derivation" defense, even in cases where it would and should be applicable.
Although there are times when it can be useful to look through expired patents to see how earlier products work (e.g. Activision's Pitfall II cartridge for the Atari 2600), I don't think very many people look through current patents for new ideas. While I don't know about this particular case, it's not uncommon for some companies to patent ideas they have no idea how to do anything useful with but which might become obvious due to technological developments. When the ideas become obvious, the "inventor" then gets to go after anyone who independenly comes up with the same idea.