In reply to leokoo.

If the issue is that Pearson tried patenting something for which there is prior art... who cares? There are thousands of such attempts going on all the time, I'm sure.

If there is nothing novel in the patent, and its just a description of something that has been going on for a long time, then the application is entirely defeasible.

The correct solution is not to take the law into your own hands and bully someone into insolvency or what have you. The correct, moral and ethical solution is to fight the patent, or ignore it and let Pearson defend his patent (as is required) and have it revoked at that point. I highly doubt that such an action would be much more than what has already been spent.

Every week it seems there is some anti-bullying hoo-ha in the news or trade publications. Whether its your local Pink Shirt Day or the equivalent or the constant hand wringing (and finger pointing) about whether or not this Conference or that *Camp is sufficiently inclusive (either in speaker selection or in providing friendly, alcohol-free places for networking, or what have you), we are constantly telling one another to stop being a$$-hats.

What I have learned from the defence of Matt's actions (which I believe are reprehensible as presented) is that it not about whether or not you are an a$$-hat, its whether or not you're the right type of a$$-hat.

This is not a new lesson for me, but it always amazes how willfully blind people can be.