Replies to post #26008 on Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[AlphaInvestor8]

You continually ignore our explanations that 101 is a real issue, but not as heavily weighted as the VirnetX case because of VirnetX's positive outcome as a non-combinatory technical patent (like WDDD's patents) while VRNG was a combinatory marketing patent.

1. Again, 101 has NOTHING TO DO WITH COMBINATORY PATENTS THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. I AM NOT SURE WHY I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF

101 DOES NOT REQUIRE COMBINATORY PATENTS THIS WAS A FALSE ARGUMENT BY PATENT PLAYS / LACK OF UNDERSTANDING - THIS IS FACT SIR

Just because the company was unsuccessful and cannot generate revenues and profits from its software does NOT mean any company can willfully infringe upon its IP in making a better product. WDDD had the technology first, and is properly documented and patented.

1. NOWHERE HAVE I SAID THAT BECAUSE WDDD IS A NPE THAT OTHERS CAN WIFULLY INFRINGE - I HAVE NEVER STATED AS SUCH, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UP SOME ARGUMENT I HAVE NEVER STATED

2. AGAIN, SINCE YOU CANNOT READ MY POINTS OR UNDERSTAND THEM - I HAVE STATED BEING A NPE PUTS THEM I A WEAKER POSITION VIS A VIS THE CAFC IF THEY FACE ANTI SOFTWARE PATENT/ANTI NPE JUDGES

3. NOT ONCE HAVE I STATED THE PATENTS ARE "INHERENTLY" INVALID. I HAVE STATED NUMBER 2 ABOVE, THERE IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN MY ARGUMENTS THAN WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING. VALID PATENTS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY THE CAFC FOR 'ACTIVIST/POLITICAL REASONS' NOT TECHNOLOGICAL ONES. THIS WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF VRNG/GOOGLE EXAMPLE. WITH LAW THERE ARE ALWAYS MANY PRECEDENTS AND IT IS SUBJECTIVE. IF YOU FACE A JUDGE WHO IS ANTI PATENT/ANTI NPE IT IS VERY EASY FOR HIM/HER TO FIND ARGUMENTS TO KILL PATENTS - IT IS THAT SIMPLE AND THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE POINT

As Patent Plays pointed out well though, the MA court has been on the friendlier side and technology patents have held up much better than others.

1. MA COURT COMES AFTER THE CAFC - I HAVE BEEN COMMENTING ON CAFC RISK SIR


THANKS