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
Has Groklaw - looked at jury foreman's software patent (is it affected by prior art)? | 279 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Look back a few articles
Authored by: stegu on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT
A few articles back, this was discussed with a link
to the patent in question. Not a lot of formal prior
art was flying around in that thread, but the general
consensus seemed to be that it was a typical "troll"
patent, both obvious and with lots of prior art.
It was summarized as "do what a video recorder does,
only on a computer", and people commented on that it
was applied for well after TiVo was available on the
market.

(Note that this is based only on second hand knowledge.
I did not read the patent closely enough to have a
strong opinion of my own on its trollness.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Has Groklaw - looked at jury foreman's software patent (is it affected by prior art)?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT

Yes, there was a brief discussion. But looking at the patent:

http://www.freepatentsonlin e.com/7352953.html

Amazing that Samsung's lawyers let someone on the jury with such a troll patent.

Look at claim 1. It's a PC with a video tuner and removable hard drive. Invented in 2002.

The claims get even worse after that. Like a PC with a video tuner and removable hard drive that can check email. Or, how about a PC that can get on the Internet? That was new in 2002 right?

An amazing troll patent, and Samsung's lawyers kept him on the jury.

--nyarlathotep

[ 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 )