|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 10:14 PM EDT |
That's unlikely. Oracle would withhold any
dubious ones, actually. They view these on
the list as sure shots, or they wouldn't be
in the complaint.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 10:36 PM EDT |
I have read Lodsys's patents and as a expert in computer programming I am
shocked that the patent office would grant government sponsored monopolies on
this nonsense.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 06:04 AM EDT |
In order to find something that is not placed directly in front of you it is
necessary to actually look. The USPTO are notorious for only regarding a very
limited range of resources as "prior art".
I do not know the law in the US but if it reflects the UK law any publication
should invalidate a patent, but my experience of having US patents granted and
challenging those from rival companies is that in the US this just ain't so.
Things had to be published in the right media to count, and no software is
published there.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pcrooker on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
One other point, Oracle are not using Boies, Schiller, et al for this case. From
reading Groklaw we are used to frivolous filings, but this time the patent shoe
is on the other foot...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bwcbwc on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
Hmmm, just the sheer number of defendants seems to be an argument for
obviousness: If this many companies use the method independently and used it
prior to Lodsys' filing, doesn't that mean everybody knew it already.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
