Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2012 23:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 525614
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
If the patent isn't assumed to be valid, how should the aggressor argue that no prior art exists? Arguing something doesn't exist is basically impossible.
Perhaps it would be better to allow the other party to show that the aggressor's patent is invalid (as they only have to show an example of prior art).
Edited 2012-07-06 12:55 UTC




Member since:
2010-11-17
I mostly like your suggestions with one big exception:
* Patents will no longer be assumed to be valid by courts.
WTF?! That's plain stupid. If you pay big bucks to file a patent application or whatever and it's granted after long examination, of course it should be assumed valid by courts.