IMO, if you read the comments following his, its pretty obvious that he's wrong. Prior art does render it invalid if it shows that what the patent holds is Obvious.
If prior art is A+B+C and the Patent is A+B+C+D, then the patent is invalid in my opinion (to a certain degree I must admit.) Depending on the situation +D can mean absolutely nothing, could be a slight variation not worth patenting or can make the whole difference in the world (the missing link to the Ultimate answer about the meaning of life, the universe and Everything).
So I think looking at prior art IS very important, and yes, prior art might not always mean an invalid patent, but it could!
Toysmart did not "baltantly turned around and tried to sell it." they where trying NOT to sell it, but where being told it was an asset and being forced to sell it to pay of creditors.
Please take time to read, information is easily misunderstood.
Also the disgusting issue is not the courts allowing them to do it, its the courts FORCING them to do it. Big Difference.
Slashdot Mirror
I just read this on ZDNet and about 20 posts explaining how old this is. we know Guardent is just looking for fame! Waste of time I say.
IMO, if you read the comments following his, its pretty obvious that he's wrong. Prior art does render it invalid if it shows that what the patent holds is Obvious.
If prior art is A+B+C and the Patent is A+B+C+D, then the patent is invalid in my opinion (to a certain degree I must admit.) Depending on the situation +D can mean absolutely nothing, could be a slight variation not worth patenting or can make the whole difference in the world (the missing link to the Ultimate answer about the meaning of life, the universe and Everything).
So I think looking at prior art IS very important, and yes, prior art might not always mean an invalid patent, but it could!
p.s. The answer is 42!
You have missed a very important point.
Toysmart did not "baltantly turned around and tried to sell it." they where trying NOT to sell it, but where being told it was an asset and being forced to sell it to pay of creditors.
Please take time to read, information is easily misunderstood.
Also the disgusting issue is not the courts allowing them to do it, its the courts FORCING them to do it. Big Difference.