3 ms·

There are a greater number who dispute that the earth is roundish. Their dispute, while not imaginary, doesn't mean they're right. In this case, the patent is v

There are a greater number who dispute that the earth is roundish. Their dispute, while not imaginary, doesn't mean they're right. In this case, the patent is visible for all to see its apparent validity, and it was judged valid by people who judge such things, so we can indeed assume the patent is valid, instead of the opposite, until equal or greater evidence surfaces to the contrary.

gruez 3y ago
>and it was judged valid by people who judge such things Are you talking about an actual judge or the patent examiner?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > Are you talking about an actual judge or the patent examiner? Are you implying the patent examiner doesn't apply actual judgement or make actual judgments? And is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid?
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Are you implying the patent examiner doesn't apply actual judgement or make actual judgments? They might make "judgements" in the colloquial sense, but from a legal point of view they don't make the final call. It's not any different than a cop giving you a ticket for speeding. You're not guilty until convicted by a judge/jury.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > They might make "judgements" in the colloquial sense, but from a legal point of view they don't make the final call. They may not make the final call, but they make judgements, and thus are people who judge such things. Importantly, they do so more than you, so their judgement outweighs yours alone. And, it's actually the opposite of your analogy, because the patent, having been judged by a person who judges such things, is indeed valid unless convincingly proven otherwise. Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid? I'd like to move beyond your purely semantic meta-argument and back towards substance.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >They may not make the final call, but they make judgements, and thus are people who judge such things. Importantly, they do so more than you, so their judgement outweighs yours alone. >And, it's actually the opposite of your analogy, because the patent, having been judged by a person who judges such things, is indeed valid unless convincingly proven otherwise. The same could be said for a cop and/or prosecutor. Do you think someone being prosecuted for a crime is guilty "unless convincingly proven otherwise"?
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > The same could be said for a cop and/or prosecutor. Do you think someone being prosecuted for a crime is guilty "unless convincingly proven otherwise"? Of course not, which is precisely why your analogy fails. You seem to be confusing presumption of innocence in a crime, a thing which exists, with some sort of presumption of patent invalidity, a thing which doesn't exist. Thus, contrary to your latest claim, the same can't, in fact, be said of one and the other. In the US, in the case of prosecution for a crime, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Whereas the patent, having been judged valid and subsequently granted, continues to be valid until proven otherwise. Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent, currently judged valid, is actually invalid? I asked you this already, and you responded with nothing, so if you respond again with nothing, it will look like you're just trying to argue, rather than discuss.

gruez 3y ago

>and it was judged valid by people who judge such things Are you talking about an actual judge or the patent examiner?

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> Are you talking about an actual judge or the patent examiner? Are you implying the patent examiner doesn't apply actual judgement or make actual judgments? And is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid?
- gruez 3y ago
  >Are you implying the patent examiner doesn't apply actual judgement or make actual judgments? They might make "judgements" in the colloquial sense, but from a legal point of view they don't make the final call. It's not any different than a cop giving you a ticket for speeding. You're not guilty until convicted by a judge/jury.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > They might make "judgements" in the colloquial sense, but from a legal point of view they don't make the final call. They may not make the final call, but they make judgements, and thus are people who judge such things. Importantly, they do so more than you, so their judgement outweighs yours alone. And, it's actually the opposite of your analogy, because the patent, having been judged by a person who judges such things, is indeed valid unless convincingly proven otherwise. Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid? I'd like to move beyond your purely semantic meta-argument and back towards substance.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >They may not make the final call, but they make judgements, and thus are people who judge such things. Importantly, they do so more than you, so their judgement outweighs yours alone. >And, it's actually the opposite of your analogy, because the patent, having been judged by a person who judges such things, is indeed valid unless convincingly proven otherwise. The same could be said for a cop and/or prosecutor. Do you think someone being prosecuted for a crime is guilty "unless convincingly proven otherwise"?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > The same could be said for a cop and/or prosecutor. Do you think someone being prosecuted for a crime is guilty "unless convincingly proven otherwise"? Of course not, which is precisely why your analogy fails. You seem to be confusing presumption of innocence in a crime, a thing which exists, with some sort of presumption of patent invalidity, a thing which doesn't exist. Thus, contrary to your latest claim, the same can't, in fact, be said of one and the other. In the US, in the case of prosecution for a crime, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Whereas the patent, having been judged valid and subsequently granted, continues to be valid until proven otherwise. Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent, currently judged valid, is actually invalid? I asked you this already, and you responded with nothing, so if you respond again with nothing, it will look like you're just trying to argue, rather than discuss.