Replies to post #125120 on Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[fung_derf]

LOL!!
"novel" opinion is right!

[SOu812]

You forgot the mic drop..

[nyt]

I have been here for close to 13 yrs on this. I'm no patent law expert for sure but I've done more DD, research, reading on as many aspects as I can wrap my head around so that I know what I'm talking about when I make statements and for my own knowledge and understanding. I've researched a huge amount of people more than you can shake a stick at. However, in this case, all I need is my common sense IMHO. I'm absolutely certain that a patent is VALID the moment it is born, same as a baby is a human the moment it is born. The difference is you can't take away being human but you can invalidate patents. That said, a patent is as valid as a newborn baby is human. I take issue 100% with you stating that a patent is not valid when parenthood is issued. Of course it is. It's a simple definition of the word valid. A patent is valid in every way shape and form until such time that a judge in an IPR trial or some other legal means finds some reason to invalidate a patent. Just the term invalidate implies initial validity. Common sense dictates that a patent award by the uspto makes it a valid patent. I challenge you to show otherwise anything under the law that supports your contention that a patent is not valid when it becomes a patent. To me, that notion is absurd. I highly doubt you can show something to support it's not valid. Ridiculous I say.

[nyt]

Additionally and FYI, the uspto is considered to be the ultimate experts on patent validity. That's been discussed here numerous times. And......it so happens that the IPRs were indeed trials held in courts. Someone took that idea to task once and I researched it and they definitely were trials in a court and their decisions stated they upheld the validity of the patents although I disagree with that verbiage. As far as I'm concerned, the validity of the patents was challenged by various companies and they lost all the challenges which meant that vplm neither gained nor lost anything other than bragging rights and I'm told also stopped rights. But when those IPRs were ruled upon by the judges, a tribunal, they had nothing more than they had before the challenges. They were left with exactly the same thing they had the moment the patents changed from application to patent. A patent is valid otherwise it would not be a patent, period. And I also don't believe the uspto said that only a judge can rule on validity and not the uspto. I think that's patently wrong. A patent is valid until it's made invalid such as in an IPR.

Please show anything that in the law that states otherwise. I don't believe you can and if you can't, then most likely you have learned wrongly about this. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong if you can show proof. My take is so obviously correct, it seems, that I'm way sure it's right.

[nyt]

"My opinions are what I express in my posts....each and every one of them. BUT...I was wrong once and could be wrong again sometime so do your own research and don't blame me if you are too lazy to do so."

You need to update your siggy to say: ".....could be wrong again and again and again and again... "

You were wrong b4 and are still wrong. I schooled you in the facts but you chose to play hookey. I never thought I would agree with Emu or him me, but I accidently came across this... It is an excerpt from an article written by guess who?.......your savior, lord Emu of Egypt. It 100% says what I told you and fully contradicts your fallacious contentions. I schooled you but you didn't bother to either back up your contentions with some supporting facts or to apologize and agree. Pay closest attention to the bold and highlighted parts.
___________________________________________________________
"Leave Patents to the USPTO
Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise.
Patent validity issues such as sections 101, 102, 103, indefiniteness, and all other technical matters should be decided prior to a patent being issued by technically qualified examiners at the USPTO, not by the court. Once issued, a patent should only be challengeable at the USPTO, and only for a predetermined period, i.e. six months. The courts should only decide matters of infringement and damages.

No aspects of patent law should ever be subjective. Congress can fix the inconsistencies between the USPTO and the courts and put them on the same page by passing laws that clearly define patent validity guidelines, i.e. what is abstract. Life in the 21st century is dependent on computers. Consequently, many software-centric patents adding new inventive steps are being developed, only to be labeled abstract by the courts and invalidated. The lack of uniformity is responsible for nullifying valuable patents and strengthening the chokehold the Silicon Valley has on the necks of small inventors. Courts should only deal with infringement and damages based solely on clearly these defined guidelines."
________________________________________________________________
Above is in compete agreement with what I told you when you said I need to learn patent law. Actually, I know very little about patent law. What I had told you was based completely on common sense.