decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
re: 702 patent - google statement? | 52 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
re: 702 patent - google statement?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT
From your link:

<blockquote>
In order to get the trial moving, Oracle last month agreed
to drop the '702 patent and other rejected claims if they
were to "remain rejected at the time of trial." Despite the
USPTO's reversal, that decision could make it hard for
Oracle to assert the patent again.
</blockquote>

I guess the Judge could decide to allow it, but Google would
object.

Would there be anything to stop them suing separately for
this patent after this trial anyway?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

re: 702 patent - google statement?
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
This would mean FM is back in form (always being wrong), since
Oracle seems to be pointing journalists to claims by FM that
nothing can prevent Oracle from reintroducing the '702 patent
claims.


---
Do the arithmetic or be doomed to talk nonsense. -- John McCarthy (1927-2011)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

re: 702 patent - google statement?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 10:20 PM EDT
Does anyone know what prior art was presented to the PTO?

When I looked at the 702 patent I could not see anything that
differed from the way that Multics in the late 1960s
implemented dynamic linking. Chapter 2 "Intersegment
Linking" of Elliott Organick's "The Multics System: An
Examination of Its Structure" (MIT Press, 1972) has a 40+
page detailed description.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )