|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
If findings, rulings, orders, etc. from the judge end with "Sent from my
iPhone", then Samsung's lawyer would complain.
OTOH, if that statement is missing, then Apple's lawyers could complain that the
judge has jailbroken her phone in violation of Apple's TOS.
Alternately, on the third hand, not having an iPhone would make everyone happy.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: indyandy on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
Maybe this has all been discussed before but it strikes me that most software
patents are neither non-obvious nor innovative, but are granted because the
filer was the first entity to attack the problem for which the patent describes
a solution.
AFAIK being first to attack a problem is not protectable and - assuming that
software patents are not going to disappear in my lifetime - I humbly suggest
that the patent prosecutor should be required to describe the 'obvious' solution
to the problem and then justify why the patent describes something which is both
non-obvious and innovative.
Clearly the 'obvious' solution could not benefit from patent protection.
If 3-D holographic displays suddenly became available I could attempt to patent
a hundred of ways of using them - but could I as easily design something which
could similarly have been designed by someone who was trying to scratch the same
itch as me? I don't think so.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
| I think you can loose the "Tweet" in the title :p [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
