Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[22na22]

[QUOTE]

Are you actually suggesting that the CAFC has not killed patents where 101 has been used as the basis of that decison?

What? I think I already gave a major one and there are many more - USE GOOGLE SIR

Just to try to show where you've gotten lost.

He's not saying that 101 hasn't been used for CAFC patent cases. He's saying that in the case you continue to bring up - GOOG vs. VRNG - the patents were killed using 101, because they were combinatory, using multiple patent ideas that was to the judges "obvious." I don't know too much about the VRNG case, but remember reading about the obviousness of it.

He's suggesting that a better comparison of WDDD's case is to that of VirnetX, in which the patent was NOT combinatory, but rather a "technical solution" patent, which is unobvious and therefore doesn't apply to the killing of VRNG's patents. PatentPlays is arguing that WDDD's patents are also unobvious, or technical solution patents, which I happen to agree with. As long as WDDD's patents are valid (we agree they are), and unobvious (decent feeling says they are), VRNG's 101 killing shouldn't apply to WDDD because of the inherent distinction in the obviousness of the patents, which is what killed VRNG's patents.

So I'm not sure if he is saying that the CAFC cannot kill patents on 101 - they did with VRNG - but that the patents involved more replicate VirnetX (in which the patents were not combinatory, and were unobvious), than Vringo (in which the patents were combinatory, and were obvious).

Hope this helps.