Replies

the judges in these cases may or may not be familiar with the law but if an inventor has a patent and shows a judge what he teaches is novel and unobvious to someone skilled in the art then he wins, that is the point shelling out the money and spending several years of your life to get a patent. If the inventor prevails in court, ie his lawyers arguments and proofs are superior - then he wins. This has NOTHING to do with whether someone is worthy or not of a patent - you think of it first, you document it, it is a patentable matter and novel - you get a patent.

Any patent is only as good as it is adjudicated to be anyway, and this Companies patent is $5 mil good.

Lurking'

Any patent is only as good as it is adjudicated to be anyway, and this Companies patent is $5 mil good.

There's a reason companies are often willing to license really stupid patents rather than fighting them: such patents help keep down competition.

If a malpractice insurance company decides to settle a frivolous claim, it will only encourage more frivolous claims; the side-effects from such action are almost all bad. On the other hand, if a company agrees to license a dubious patent, it's a pretty safe bet that the patent holder will attempt to go after any other companies that might compete with the first one. The first company gets many of the benefits it would receive from owning the patent, but none of the downside publicity it might get from trying to enforce it.