Jamesworrell
I have for months wondered how patentable software can be that, to me, seems to be “prior knowledge”, and hence neither novel, nor non-obvious to one familiar with the field. Consequently, how should a competent court view a challenge to Eagleview's patents, and similarly, how likely is it that NEA's patents in the same field should withstand a challenge? I used "should" rather than "would" so that you do not have to factor in the judges who may have no competence in this speciality.
The trigonometry of triangulation is something I knew as a teenager, and I was aware that it was used in mapping, and that included calculations to allow for the curvature of the Earth. Extending that to handle 3D objects like mountains and buildings is conceptually obvious too. The extension of this knowledge in a way that required massive computing also seems obvious, and it is obvious that modern computers can handle that computing. Using arcane language to cover these fields, does not, IMO, change the reality. And on such language, and bearing in mind that the name “Bentley” has been popped into this HC discussion, “aerotriangulation” is explained at
https://docs.bentley.com/LiveConten...UID-46204DF7-533C-4F55-BB14-4EB45E8584C1.html.
