> 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 co

> 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.