Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:40 UTC
Permalink for comment 476828
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-10
The legal system has huge problem when it basically becomes a regulator or administrative agency.
Basically you have the patent office which grants patents. Their criteria is vague and depends a lot on judgment.
Yet, when patent violations occur, these issues head into the legal system with the patents treated as gold.
I'm not going to blame this on the courts per se as the legislative branch writes these rules. But the wording of congress is sufficiently vague, that they could have used it to 'push' the issue a different way.
patents are “presumed valid” and that “the burden of establishing invalidity” rests “on the party asserting such invalidity.”
I personally hope congress rewords the law to make it clear that a patent can be overturned by a preponderance of the evidence.
That all said, Microsoft behaved really poorly in this case. First they worked with i4i... then they did their own thing.