Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Are you looking at the patent text or the claim construction for the court? | 439 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Sad

Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT

The lawyer might have had to obfusflatificate the patent text to avoid prior
art.

If you take out the convolution required to relate it to a Java-like VM
platform, what is left looks like a fragment from "Programming 101, 1st
Edition", Introduction.Programming 101, 1st Edition

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Are you looking at the patent text or the claim construction for the court?

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:29 AM EDT

I understand the standard practice is to take the patent
texts, and then basically rewrite them for the court
according to what you (think you) want to prove infringed.

Of course that doesn't make much logical sense, but that's
the impression I have got from looking at these cases.

Does the claim construction have to relate to the actual
patent? I'm not even sure if it matters to the law as long
as the parties agree on the terms they are arguing.

Of course I may be wildly off base here, IANAL.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I never look at patent text... I want to remain a programmer. - Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT

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 )