[Tloewald]

I don't think "obvious in retrospect" is a fair criterion for invalidating a patent. Those are actually the most valuable patents. The safety pin and the catseye (road reflector) were both patented and made fortunes for their inventors (or in the case of the safety pin the company that bought the patent).

Now arguing the whole patent system is fucked up is perfectly fair but we shouldn't celebrate a legitimate, non-abstract patent being incorrectly invalidated.

[mattmanser]

It doesn't say that in the article, what are you basing it on?

It says that it wasn't sophisticated enough. Safety pins and cats eyes both require sophistication in their construction.

[Tloewald]

I should have been clearer. Their definition of "sophistication" is arbitrary and effectively amounts to "obvious in retrospect". Safety pins and catseyes aren't more "sophisticated". The inventor of the safety pin made a working version in a few minutes. Differentiating an intentional slide gesture is actually much more sophisticated than bending a wire or mounting a reflector on a piece of rubber.