|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
Is that really the level law cases have descended to these days ?
Apple: Samsung stole our designs !
Samsung: did not !
Judge: Samsung is not as cool as Apple, case dismissed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 03:26 PM EDT |
Might be worth mentioning that this was in the "Patents County Court"
not the High Court (despite what the BBC says). This is for more minor cases
than the High Court and the decisions aren't really binding.
The case will have to go to appeal for a binding result which undoubtedly Apple
will do.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:44 AM EDT |
| This judge's use of logic is peccable. This is the same clever man that said,
in Re
Halliburton Energy Services (my bold)
"21. In my judgment
the skilled reader would understand perfectly well that the simulations referred
to in claim 1 are computer simulations from reading the specification as a
whole. I also note that the simulations being "computer simulations" is
expressly referred to from p21 line 30 - p24 line 23 in the specification.
Moreover the reader would understand that "outputting" to a "resource" is
something computers do, not people. Accordingly I find that claim 1 (and its
brethren) are limited to carrying out the simulations on a computer. They
are computer implemented methods. "
And
then,
71. That does not mean it is necessarily immune from the
computer program exclusion but that is a different matter. Is it more than a
computer program as such? The answer is plainly yes. It is a method of
designing a drill bit. Such methods are not excluded from patentability by Art
52/s1(2) and the contribution does not fall solely within the excluded
territory. Drill bit design is not a business method, nor a scheme for playing a
game nor (as I have held) is this claim a scheme for performing a mental
act.
72. Mr Mitcheson did submit that the method was a mathematical method.
I note that Mr Thorpe did not think so. No Respondent's Notice was filed but Mr
Davis was content to deal with the point in any event. I agree with Mr Thorpe.
Although obviously some mathematics is involved, the contribution is not
solely a mathematical method (on top of being a computer program) because the
data on which the mathematics is performed has been specified in the claim in
such a way as to represent something concrete (a drill bit design etc.).
That is an important difference between the position in Gale and the position
here. In Gale the claim was broadly drafted and it was nothing more than a
mathematical method implemented on a computer.
So, a computer
simulation is acknowledged as being a computer implemented method for designing
a drill bit, limited to carrying out simulations on a computer, yet it is
more than a computer program? Perhaps someone can explain that to me because I
just don't understand it.
And he says that a drill bit design is
concrete, so that makes this "invention" patentable. Again, I am stumped.
IANAL but I think I could have written a better decision that this.
I have
no pleasant words for this man.
j
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
