🚀 go-pugleaf

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

> There is a wrinkle on which I would like some clarification. Suppose RIM
> could show that it used the allegedly patented process(es) prior to the
> filing or granting of the patent: would that not be prima facie evidence
> that Visto did not invent the process(es), and therefore has no claim?

No.  It certainly hampers the patent holder if that's shown, but the law is
supposed to uphold the right of the inventor to patent at any point.  The
patentor needs to demonstrate that they've tried to protect their process,
though - and suing at this late date might be a problem.
 
> Another wrinkle: Suppose RIM could show that the processes it uses, and
> which Visto claims are their property, were in fact widely known and
> understood before RIM itself applied them to its technology, would that
> not be prima facie evidence that Visto's claims are void?

That's the heart and soul of most patent cases - "prior art".  You can
patent a process that is _mostly_ well known, but there must be a
significant improvement on your part.
 
> I'm waiting for some leech to patent the answer to a first year
> electronics course problem -- if that hasn't been done already.

Similar things have certainly been done.  I should be able to dig up the
(recent) patent for the rubber tire swing... (apparently filed as a
demonstration of just how simple it is to get "prior art" past the patent
office).
-- 
derek