Hah, M-CAM. Anytime an article quotes these guys, I know it's going to have some low quality reporting about patents. (And, yes, this includes the "When Patents Attack" episode [1] on "This American Life", where the very same M-CAM dude claimed there was a "patent on toast".)<p>I looked through every patent on online backups that M-CAM said "covered the exact same thing" in that episode [1], and found each one to claim something entirely different. Whatever their method of analysis is, it was completely useless then.<p>I also looked through the first few of the "just 70" out of the 5160 matches M-CAM found in this article, and found nothing really similar to Bobo's patent (or indeed, each other). Sure, there may be some really damaging prior art out there. I just highly doubt M-CAM found it.<p>But don't take my word for it, others have called these out as well [2, 3].<p>That said, if Huster can show that she indeed was an inventor, this patent is trivially invalid because she is not named on it. This is the same thing that killed the IV patent in "When Patents Attack Part 2" [4].<p>1. <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/transcript" rel="nofollow">http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/t...</a>
2. <a href="http://gametimeip.com/2012/04/13/q-why-was-mdb-capital-right-and-m-cam-so-very-very-wrong-on-aol-patent-value/" rel="nofollow">http://gametimeip.com/2012/04/13/q-why-was-mdb-capital-right...</a>
3. <a href="http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=c5c2c5b5-ecf9-4b7a-b019-6e72ab6170e5" rel="nofollow">http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=c5c2c5b5-ecf9...</a>
4. <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/transcript" rel="nofollow">http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/t...</a>