i4i has said that "patent law [is] at a crossroads," with this decision; if patents can be so easily overturned, goes the argument, than what incentive do creative thinkers have to innovate? (Incidentally, a little entity known as the Obama Administration itself has taken the same point of view, filing an amicus brief on i4i's behalf.) Microsoft takes the opposite stance, naturally, with regards to the i-word: "If you have a really bad patent that shouldn't have been issued, what happens? It stops innovation," argued Microsoft's associate general counsel, Andy Culbert, according to several sources.
"Responding in litigation to these bad patents imposes a tax on all innovative companies and ultimately on the consuming public," Andy Culbert, Microsoft associate general counsel, said in an e-mailed statement.