|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:04 PM EDT |
"on a mobile device" does not make something that was both common and
obvious long ago patentable again. This is a *2005* patent on multitasking.
No, it's not valid, but it got past the USPTO because - as usual - it's
unreadable garbage. What they actually have a patent on is a specific and
convoluted process for background playback - NOT background playback of music in
general.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&am
p;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&
;RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6407325
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Attempt two at a link - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:06 PM EDT
- The '711 patent is garbage - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT
- Well, no ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:54 AM EDT
- Well, no ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:44 AM EDT
- Well, no ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
The jury had already made up its collective "mind" before it
went into the courtroom. That's why, according to the
foreman, they didn't need the jury instructions. It was a
kangaroo court from start to finish. My faith in justice in
this country just took another gigantic hit. Justice does not
exist in our corrupt court rooms. End of story.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
