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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|