wrlwnd wrote on Feb 3, 2021, 10:16:
Benzer wrote on Feb 3, 2021, 09:44:
It's so obvious that no one thought to do it until scuf patented it. It's funny how things seem obvious as soon as they exist.
No. It's obvious because it's obvious.
Except for judges and juries who sometimes can't see the obvious staring them in the face because they don't live in that world. It's called a person "having ordinary skill in the art".
The fact that patent decisions can be made by laymen nooblets with zero clue about patents is the greatness of this decision and court setting. And why I call it a hallmark decision for patent trolls. Every, single, patent troll is gonna want this kind of court proceeding now in that federal state. Counter-claims are nearly impossible to make via zoom as you can't engage with the jury nor does the attacking patent troll have to show any actual products.. if you used zoom you'd know how well inactive participants can follow the stream. just claims and PR images. Lmao.. Washington state is now basically patent troll country. And whoever authorized a digital court over zoom should be fired.. for being an idiot. The amount of legal problems this throws up are beyond imagination. For starters, how you even prove that someone in a zoom meeting is who he says he is? How you control that the jury actually looked at the controllers?