|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
| The Hello Money Speed test [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT |
I must have fallen asleep. Why would the judge allow such nonsense to be place
in front of a jury? Maybe it's not as nonsensical as my brain suggests but do I
really want to read all the nonsense see what's going on. No, I don not! Good
thing I'm not on the jury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shachar on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:57 PM EDT |
It's hard to know without more details on what was going on there, but I think
that's not what Oracle is trying to do.
The way I read the report, the witness did not use the speed to try and prove
infringement. The witness removed the parts he thought were infringing, and
compared speeds. I can't see how this goes to proving infringement, but it might
go to establishing damages.
Shachar[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darrellb on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:18 PM EDT |
The performance test isn't about demonstrating infringement, it is about
demonstrating the benefit of the patented technology to Android.
The test doesn't do that, but Oracle wants the jury to think it does. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:11 AM EDT |
If its currently rejected by the patent office then why aren't the jury allowed
to know and also have access to the reasons for the preliminary rejection?
On reading the rejection Oracle haven't only got a very slim (if any chance) of
this finnaly sticking, not only that the patent is so obvious that more and more
prior art will crawl out of the woodwork.
And thats not withstanding the fact that as read they don't infringe anyway.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
