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
We're not allowed to read them, remember? | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You need to read them, then
Authored by: Chromatix on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 04:09 AM EDT
Based on the minimal reading I did of just one of them, and comments by others that they probably all cover the same subject matter using different wording, I think they fail *all three* of the tests for patentability. Failing just one should be enough to prevent issuance.

The tests in question are:

1) Novelty. Nobody must have done this specific thing before. The very fact that four (allegedly) functionally identical patents exist casts doubt on this.

2) Usefulness. This is debatable, but personally I tend to respond negatively to prompts that pop up specifically to ask if I liked something or not. Such things would *reduce* the utility to me of whatever they were attached to.

3) Non-obviousness. Assuming it was my job to create such a thing, I would easily be able to design it without reference to the patent. So would a lot of engineers less experienced than I am - in fact it is the sort of minor task that would commonly be assigned to a junior software engineer.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

We're not allowed to read them, remember?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT

First: as we are not Lawyers, we're not qualified to understand them.... unless we're a paid expert, then somehow we magically gain the understanding that we didn't previously have... must be all that money we get. It passes on understanding via osmosis.

Second: if we so much as glance at them, no matter that we can't understand them (in reality, not just in the Legal argument sense) and we can't actually duplicate the "invention" - at least, we don't think we can because we can't actually understand them - we are still held accountable to trebble damages.

Maybe if we continue to point out such and the illogic thereof, it'll eventually sink in to Congress who might affect change for the better for us non-Lawyer-actual-innovator types that are the targets of such Lawsuits.

And for those that wish to keep claiming things like "you mean steal" I have a question:

    How can I steal something I created based upon a need that I have when I didn't research the solution and just casually thought up the solution myself?
In other words: I didn't get the solution off the net, or via a patent, or via a book, or via education. The skills I got from the education and my own creativity was able to put together a solution to the "problem". So how can I steal something my own mind put together?

RAS

[ 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 )