Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
sounds like someone needs a good beating with the clue stick (with a nail in). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
Has anyone looked at Velvin Hogan patent?
a clicky link.
There
doesn't seem to be much novel or new, just cobbling together some existing
technologies in a way that wasn't new.
At the time that patent was registered, I
was repairing the second generation Pace satellite receiver with a record to
hard drive feature, encrypted on the drive for copyright protection, so the
signal had to be decrypted before play etc, and that is the second generation in
NZ, with HD that the earlier model didn't have. Quite possibly there were
earlier models that we never saw in NZ.
It seems to me to be rather vague with
specific implementation, just patenting an idea.
Dave [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
From link:
Manuel Ilagan, one of the nine jurors who ruled in
favor of Apple, tells CNET he thought Samsung's internal e-mails about
incorporating some of Apple's technology into its devices, and the evasive way
Samsung executives answered questions, was damning.
The way Apple
had Samsung sanctioned for not keeping evidence when Apple itself only started
keeping evidence much after Samsung when Apple was the plaintiff is
damning.
A pity that Samsung didn't press for Apple not only to be
Sanctioned as well but also harder for failing to keep evidence until much after
they did. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
The juror discussing the "guidance" received from the patent-expert
juror foreman...
"After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had
a hard time believing there was no prior art."
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go
on faster. It was bogging us down." [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|