Originally Posted by
motytrah
I'm surprised DL is leaving money on the table by not suing other airlines. They could easily assign the patent to one of the many East Texas Patent troll consortiums and collect tidy profits.
What makes you think they didn't license it to the other airlines? Why would they need to assign it to a so-called patent troll to make money off of it?
Originally Posted by
bennos
Within the IT world, it's well known that the USPTO's definition of "non-obvious" (and "prior art", not that that matters much anymore) doesn't always align with the definition of "non-obvious" to those who actually work in the industry.
The definition of "non-obvious" is specifically in reference to a "person of ordinary skill in the art." I'm not sure what specific patent-related controversy you're referring to, but the standard is ideally meant to include what those in the industry would find obvious.