CrunchGear

With the Supreme Court ruling yesterday on a new test for obviousness, this case should have a very interesting new twist. There are 87 patents cited as prior art on the Individual Network patent.

These patents are too generic to begin with, it’s like receiving a patent for a hammer and nail then going from one Home Depot to the next asking for royalties for such an obvious invention. Engineering and complex concepts I agree with, software on the other hand - the industry is still too young to begin stone walling technologies on what is essentially a non-existent item (you can’t touch or feel it).

Jon

@Jon

Hammer and a nail were “obvious inventions”? Are you serious? Certainly not within the time period that the patent system has existed…but an “obvious invention”…no.

Was the hangar an “obvious invention” as well?