|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
Well, named inventor, actually....on just two unrelated patents, both in
hardware but dependent on software...
Both issued patents on which I am named inventor have major issues with not
describing what is claimed, and obviousness (at least to me, a highly-skilled
electronics/programmer type) issues. In the second case, however, it can be
shown that the technique we practice (basically solid power electronics with a
brake chopper, with both hardware and software implementations available) was
unknown in the industry (large lifting electromagnet controls) until we started
selling it. One competitor has worked around it by returning the magnet energy
instead to the AC bus. The various competitors know that they need to stay out
of court; it's way too expensive. I could write *much* better claims, but was
never allowed to do so...so we claim the enclosure!
So the moral state of this patent of mine is distinctly murky. I personally
think that NONE of the patents in this suit should be valid...not Apple's, not
Samsung's. And certainly not in the light of Borland vs Lotus, where there was
a substantial research investment in determining exactly what was
intuitive...enough to put Visicalc out of business in a year.
Oh, and if you want to look up basic documents, the first patent is 5,106,192;
the second number I haven't got memorized, but don't forget to include my middle
initial "S" when searching for it. Co-inventor is Andrew S Thexton,
assignee should be Cableform, Inc. There's a bunch of other
"impostors"(grin!) with my name in the issued patents database.
(Christenson)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
> it comes as no surprise that the verdict was 100% in favor of Apple
> while Samsung's own patent claims ended up totally discounted.
And this is the part I don't get. Why was he so keen to defend Apple's
patent(s), and not to apply the same reasoning towards Samsung's?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
"Based on what's being printed in the main media1 from
interviews
with some of the Juror's..."
Now, that's exactly it, based on
third-hand hearsay that does not
necessarily reflect what actually went on
during deliberations, nor serves as
absolute proof of misconduct.
And
this is an *entire thread* discussing conclusions extrapolated from
such
comments, fueled by some missplaced sense of outrage because
some major
corporation that some happen to disagree with, received a
verdict in their
favor.
Jeez, you would imagine that legal-minded people would be more
level-
headed than this.
Go outside, get some perspective, read
different accounts from different
sources. It's just cell-phones,
people.
dZ.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
