|
|
|
| Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
The non-patent is a mathematical formula. Any semi-decent attorney would know
that mathematical algorithms can not be patented, and hence suing for
infringement of the non-patent is a pure extortion and the lawsuit is outright
fraud.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 03:29 AM EDT |
They can claim to not know that the patent(sic) is invalid, but we can show that
if they had done something to check the validity of the patent(sic), they would
have found the patent(sic) to be invalid and so *should* have known *before*
using it as a legal extortion tool - they are no better than a robber holding up
a bank with a water pistol: the robber may be so thick as to believe that the
bloke selling him the water pistol was selling him a real gun, but that doesn't
excuse him using it to rob the bank, frightening the teller who may not know a
real gun from a water pistol. (In fact the robber may actually know it's a
water pistol, but he is still using it on the basis that others don't know any
better.)
Interesting: reading patents gives automatic triple damages, so the default is
not to read/search patents (which means that if the practitioner has not read
the patent and comes up with the same invention (sic), then the invention is
"obvious"!)
Similarly it looks like, searching for prior art and not finding means if
someone else finds it, I'm in deep dodos; the solution is not to check the
validity of the patent(sic) by trying to find any prior art and can clearly show
no possible knowledge that the patent (sic) can be invalid.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
