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
It doesn't work like that. | 88 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
It doesn't work like that.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 08:39 AM EDT
A patent is valid or it isn't. Prior art is one important way
to prove invalidity (obviousness being the other main one).
You can use prior art to prove the invention claimed by a
patent is not novel, and then there is no patent.

If the patent is valid, then your defense is that you don't
infringe. Prior art is irrelevant to proving non-
infringement. You either practice the specific claims of the
patent, or you don't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The alternative is
Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT
as the patent is so specific then you 'specifically' engineer around it.
This is a long established practice and has been going on for more than 200
years.[1]
That is why patent lawyers wrap the claims in 100 layers of wool just to make
them non specific. Well, just non specific enough to fall foul of violating
another patent or prior art.



---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ 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 )