[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.

[evilC]

Both the type of, and the manner of granting patents are important points for debate. Legally issued patents that are too broad or cover obvious ideas can hamper progress and enrich not creators but people with good legal skills. I do not believe that enriching lawyers instead of inventors was the idea of granting patents.

[BTW, this is not meant to be a slam against lawyers]