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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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: Day 15 at the Oracle v. Google Trial ~pj - McFadden, Parr, August | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Day 15 at the Oracle v. Google Trial ~pj - McFadden, Parr, August
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT
I'm sure this would meet a lot of opposition. The whole point of patents these
days is obfuscate and to hide the idea you are claiming so that you can ambush
people with it later.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Day 15 at the Oracle v. Google Trial ~pj - McFadden, Parr, August
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 04:53 AM EDT
This makes me wonder, if a patent can be challenged at the patent office to clarify terminologies being used. Forcing them to add specific definition of words to the patent to increase specificity.
I cannot see why not, as the USPTO itself in its Specification [Description and Claims] says:
The specification must include a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
[emphasis added] and if the terms specified are not precise enough, then the validity of the patent must surely be in doubt until such time as they are fully and clearly specified.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Re: Day 15 at the Oracle v. Google Trial ~pj - McFadden, Parr, August
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT
I think the discussion about dexopt would be unfathomable to anyone who had no
knowledge of assembly language or bytecode.

[ 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 )