|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
In:
"... a system of icon tiles in an interfact allowing users to zoom in and
out"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Kevin on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
s/paen/paean/
---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 06:44 AM EDT |
He claims that the instructions given were that the prior art and
the patent must be "interchangeable". There is no such word in the jury
instructions.
Yes there is. It's part of Instruction No. 27 on
the "Doctrine of Equivalents", the last paragraph. Mr. Hogan has completely
misunderstood this as it does not apply to prior art. It's one of the
paragraphs that could take a few days to understand just of itself.
I
posted earlier on this but I guess you missed it
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 01:40 PM EDT |
Is the basic question why patent/copyright plaintiffs always want to have jury
trials? They seem to disfavor bench trials.
Apple wants to bias competition, and this result buys them time that way and
time is money. Oracle tried its shot at Google. Firms buy up patent pools to
have dueling patents.
The pattern seems to be sue and hope. What's to lose, by trying? Sometimes the
windshield, sometimes the bug. But at a guess, jury trials give plaintiffs a
greater probability of winning. Winning is not an important thing, it is the
only thing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
