He can't simultaneously have a mound of patents (for which core sycophants regularly excoriate him), and not have any patents.
There is no impediment to him having a mound of invalid patents.
Sure, there's an impediment. While the bar isn't so high as to be infallible, passing patent review is at least prima fascie evidence of validity. So are you claiming all of nChain's patents are invalid?
Bahahahaha not in this day and age
So you are not claiming that all of nChain's patents are invalid. Got it.
Are you claiming that any of nChain's patents are invalid? If so, which ones?
I am claiming that Craig is a known con man who is a fugitive from Australian authorities for tax fraud [fact]
I am claiming that the US Patent Office is grossly underfunded [fact] and was highly unlikely to have had any crypto expertise at the time the patents were taken out [supposition]
I am claiming that that a known conman might just make up a bunch of bullshit troll patents and gotten them past the Patent Office which has no idea what it is doing [supposition]
So rather than clarify and defend your accusatory statement, you instead continue to dissemble. I guess I'm done with this twig then.
For you to be defending someone who is on the run from the authorities for fraud, and claiming that his patents must be valid is laughable.
1) I'm not defending him, I am injecting some much needed objectivity into the discussion.
2) If Craig is on the run from the authorities for fraud, then which jurisdiction is it, and why has he not been extradited to that jurisdiction?
3) I am not making any claim that his patents are valid. I stated as much several posts back. However, you quite clearly insinuated that they are invalid. I am merely trying to understand the bounds of your insinuation. But we all now see that you are unable to man up to your insinuation.