Comments on: “How Newegg crushed the ‘shopping cart’ patent and saved online retail” https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-shopping-cart-patent-saved-online-retail/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:50:46 +0000 hourly 1 By: peter https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-shopping-cart-patent-saved-online-retail/comment-page-1/#comment-199969 Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:50:46 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=35765#comment-199969 end of the judgement. ‘Licences were taken to avoid the cost of litigation, not to use the…flawed… product’.

This must be what they mean when they say the the patent system is vital for encouraging innovation. Encouraging innovation for lawyers maybe.

]]> By: gitarcarver https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-shopping-cart-patent-saved-online-retail/comment-page-1/#comment-199958 Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:32:36 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=35765#comment-199958 Hugo,

The opinion is linked in the article in the fourth paragraph, the last sentence.

Here is the link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF

(I sympathize with tired eyes.)

Take care.

]]> By: Hugo S. Cunningham https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-shopping-cart-patent-saved-online-retail/comment-page-1/#comment-199952 Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:49:01 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=35765#comment-199952 Great news!

But the article does not give sufficient credit to the appeals judges who got it right. Maybe my eyes are tired, but I did not see (1) their names, (2) what Appeals Court they were on, or (3) A link to their opinion.

]]>