i4i's supporters say if that standard is not upheld, it lowers the burden of proof to invalidate a "good" patent. i4i obtained a big feather in its cap when the federal government officially came down in favor of the i4i argument. The amicus brief from the U.S. solicitor general says that the USPTO can be trusted to be the expert, over a jury:

"The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard also furthers the reliance interests created by a patent grant by affording the patent holder enhanced protection against an erroneous jury finding of invalidity. By allowing a lay jury to second-guess the PTO's judgment even in close cases, the preponderance standard would diminish the expected value of patents and would reduce future inventors' incentives to innovate and to disclose their inventions to the public."

This counters arguments made on behalf of Microsoft such as this one from the amicus brief filed by the Computer and Communications Industry Association:

"By making questionable patents hard to invalidate, the clear-and-convincing standard creates an artificial incentive to apply for patents. It induces more and more patents, especially weak, marginal, and invalid patents." []

MORE MICROSOFT NEWS, BLOGS: