Kudos to Julie Watts of CBS-TV-KPIX San Francisco for her opening coverage of Leader v. Facebook. Take special note of two items. First, Mark Zuckerberg claimed to have developed in two weeks while studying for finals what took Leader Technologies 145,000 man-hours. Yeah, right.
Facebook is overplaying the “invalidity” word; “invalidity” means many things in patent law and cannot be sustained without “clear and convincing” evidence
Second, Patent lawyer William Gallagher’s statement “the patent’s invalid.” This use of the word “invalid” threw me when I first heard it. It sounds so ominous; so unequivocally final. What gives? If it is invalid, then why are we still talking about it? It’s because “invalidity” is one of those hopelessly complicated LEGAL terms used to throw us laymen off the track!!! Forget about what you think “invalid” means. “Invalidity” has many layers of meaning related to a patent. What I have concluded is that Facebook is overplaying the word “invalid” because they know us laymen THINK invalid means illegitimate. It appears to be the same tactic they used at trial to baffle the lay jury with confusing legal concepts. That’s not what it means in Leader v. Facebook. “Invalid” in this case simply means Facebook succeeded in getting the jury to believe a “smoke and mirrors” story better suited for a juicy episode of Boston Legal.
“On sale bar” is a hopelessly confusing legal concept; heck, it took me two weeks of practice just to say it right; no wonder Facebook chose it as their “Hail Mary” defense (“in confusion there is profit”)
Facebook tricked the jury with fragmented ‘evidence’ (Interrogatory #9) regarding the “on sale bar invalidity defense.” See what I mean? I used the official legal language surrounding this issue and you have no idea what I just said!!! Ha! See “How Facebook tricked the jury” below. Please be sure to write Julie Watts at CBS-TV San Francisco and thank her for her efforts. Julie’s Email is email@example.com.
Word has it that Julie’s report will be replayed nationally on CBS this weekend and/or on CBS This Morning on Monday. This video starts with an advertisement. And by the way, Facebook did not respond to Julie’s inquiries either. So much for S-1 public accountability.
Speaking of the S-1. I finally found someone at the SEC willing to explore the Leader v Facebook case in detail. Now we have the SEC tuned in to this blog! Yay team!
This is a Flash video, so Apple Mac, iPad, iPhone and iPod users will need use a PC and go directly to this link: Federal Appeals Court to hear Leader v. Facebook Case.
* * *