
Motorola beats attorney-owned patent company at trial over Bluetooth - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/motorola-beats-attorney-owned-patent-company-at-trial-over-bluetooth/
======
arjn
This title is misleading - the patent dispute is about the design and
placement of the headset, not about Bluetooth itself.

------
Ntrails
_The prior art had the bulk of the device attached significantly above the
neck line which was not enough to render the patent invalid_ (paraphrased)

I don't know how you write down in law the difference between an invention
(something new) and a new product (doing something that's already been
invented in a slightly different way). There has to be a way though right...
right?

~~~
ScottBurson
I think the way you do it is by requiring _objective evidence of
nonobviousness_. I should write a blog post about this, but failing that, I
refer you to a couple of my previous HN posts on it:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5566382>
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5483777>

Also relevant: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5563058>

------
chasb
Filed in 2005, granted in 2009. Doesn't seem like "actively working" on
production to me. Surprise!

------
moron4hire
I don't think there is any such thing as a "good" patent, whether that is
software or what most people would consider a "real invention". For one thing,
there is no meaningful distinction between the two. For another, the patent
system exists under the auspices of the common good, but the common good would
be better served by the open sharing of ideas (PLUG! ->
[http://moron4hire.tumblr.com/post/50928032057/free-unused-
id...](http://moron4hire.tumblr.com/post/50928032057/free-unused-ideas)).

