What make you so interested in this case, are you thinking about buying into PTSC stock?

Anyway, while you are here, could you give me your opinion on the KSR case. I find the court ruling hard to swallow. I posted here that the obviousness of a product seems to be the same as a Logical Progression of what came before it , in a lot of cases. With that court ruling it would seem to me to suggest that a patent holder would have unknown rights at the time that would become obvious in time. I used the example of a bicycle and a tricycle, if both were issued patents , could the bicycle patent holder sue (and win) because the logical progression of the bicycle (for people who keep falling) is to add another wheel so to make the vehicle more stable. Now , if that is the case would the court award the bicycle guy claim to the trike? and for that matter would it not be obvious to add a fouth wheel and the bicycle guy get rights to the car now? What happens when the guy that has patent rights on the wheel come along and says wait a minute.

This ruling makes no sense to me and I believe it will end up in the high court again.

TIA for you view, and welcome, but I bet everyone is wondering why you showed up here.