> As I have said several times before, I don't think there is > anything in the
> patent that wasn't covered by prior art ... (but reality > doesn't always
> hold sway in court ...).

Indeed.  The problem is that to prove a patent invalid, one must do so to the satisfaction of a jury by clear and convincing evidence.  The C&CE standard is the highest standard used in civil cases, analogous to "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Ultimately, when a jury (just six or so guys off the street) is sitting cross-eyed after a week-long (if lucky) trial of meaningless gobbledygook, and the judge says that they must find for the plaintiff unless the hold a strong and unwavering conviction of invalidity -- well, you can guess where things stand.  In practice, to litigate invalidity, you pretty much have to plan on winning after appeal, which is very, very expensive.

It is for this reason that I believe it is essential that the standard applied for validity over prior art not considered by the patent examiner be decided by the usual "preponderance of the evidence" standard.  I intend to get frighteningly political on this point, as I believe it is the essential flaw in the patent system today; the rest being wounds that can be self-healing.

So much for my non-sense about this -- I have a quasi-announcement!  

IANAL any more!  (well, still anal, just not a practicing lawyer :-))

Starting end of March, I will be leaving my firm to accept a tech position (VP Eng. R&D) with one of my clients.  I can announce more particularly after they are done doing their PR.  I blame entirely all of you, my dear friends in the Squeak community -- and all the wonderful folk at SqC, who ultimately convinced me by their actions that I needed for my own sanity and happiness to get back to the hack.  What was really neat is that my employment agreement expressly permits me to continue contributing to and messing with Squeak.

Thanks to all of you for your support and encouragement, as I undertake this scary (but exciting) step.