|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
.
This means that the point is not proven. This goes against the person trying to
prove the point. With contrasting experts, everything should be ambiguous.
There is great momentum or bias for a plaintiff since they have a presumably
valid patent and wouldn't be in court unless someone was messing with it.
At the same time Oracle had to call Mitchell their expert back and do some
'splainin' after the Google expert Parr picked them apart. This is an unknowing
crowd that has been screened for anyone that would doubt a patent or the USPTO.
Another hanging may be the best Google can get.
.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
ambiguity = software patents
So why have them?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
Since patents are supposed to lay out to someone skilled in
the art how to do "it", then if there's ambiguity the patent
should be ruled void.
Note IANAL, nor am I a patent owner.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
