Vringo (VRNG) is suing Google (GOOG) for patents in search engine technology. Billions are at stake. I have argued that a United States Supreme Court case, Mayo v. Prometheus, is closely comparable to Vringo v. Google.

In rebuttal to my article, a fellow Seeking Alpha Contributor claimed two things. One: that my case is not relevant to software patent law. And two: that a different software patent law case dealing with admissibility of prior art is more relevant.

I will not respond to claim two, because I feel it is a red herring. How could this different precedent, dealing with a peripheral issue of admissibility, possibly compare to the core principle my precedent raises? Irrelevant or relevant to the case, the admissibility precedent is tangential to my precedent. So you won't hear any more about it here.

Claim one:

From the outset, [Modernist] is incorrect to characterize the Mayo decision as relating to software patent law. It does not.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE...