Motorola beats attorney-owned patent company at trial over Bluetooth

This title is misleading - the patent dispute is about the design and placement of the headset, not about Bluetooth itself.

The prior art had the bulk of the device attached significantly above the neck line which was not enough to render the patent invalid (paraphrased)

I don't know how you write down in law the difference between an invention (something new) and a new product (doing something that's already been invented in a slightly different way). There has to be a way though right... right?

Filed in 2005, granted in 2009. Doesn't seem like "actively working" on production to me. Surprise!

I don't think there is any such thing as a "good" patent, whether that is software or what most people would consider a "real invention". For one thing, there is no meaningful distinction between the two. For another, the patent system exists under the auspices of the common good, but the common good would be better served by the open sharing of ideas (PLUG! -> http://moron4hire.tumblr.com/post/50928032057/free-unused-id...).