The story of the invalidation of the "obvious" AdvanceMe patent just keeps on going. As I mentioned in previous posts, the New York Times wrote an article about it, University of Washington School of Law has made the story of the AdvanceMe patent invalidation part of the course curriculum for its Intellectual Law class and it has been the feature story of many publications.
Once again, the story behind the AdvanceMe patent invalidation is the COVER STORY of The Green Sheet, one of the largest credit card processing industry publications. The September 10, 2007 issue features the cover story, "AdvanceMe patent ruling opens merchant funding floodgates."
To update everyone on some facts since this article written, it indicates that the case AdvanceMe v. AmeriMerchant (the companion case to AdvanceMe v. Rapidpay) was scheduled to goto trial in January 2008. The article indicates, "experts predict it will be dismissed as a result of the August ruling."
Indeed this has already happened, the court dismissed this case shortly after the AdvanceMe patent was invalidated.
Two other items to point out about this article. In the print version of The Green Sheet September 10, 2007 edition page 67, there is a featured quote of the article that indicates:
"When you call someone and say, 'I'm being sued,' the first thing they think is, 'I don't want to get involved,' not 'Oh, I want to go through all my dusty old file cabinets,'
– Glenn Goldman
This is an actually a mistake as you can tell, that was actually my quote that appeared in the article earlier that they highlighted later saying it was Glenn Goldman that said it.
However, Glenn Goldman, CEO of AdvanceMe is quoted in the New York Times article and other publications as well as The Green Sheet as saying, "Although we feel vindicated that the court found clear infringement of our patent by each of the defendants, we respectfully disagree with the court's findings on validity."
That is not a typo my friends, Glenn feels vindicated that the court found that the defendants in the case infringed on an invalid patent that is unenforceable and OBVIOUS. Enough said......