|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
"As per our previous complaint, we allege iOS infringes our
patent, specifically in the Notification Center.
At the time we filed our complaint, we were aware that
Mountain Lion was planning to "integrate" certain aspects
from iOS into OSX, potentially including the Notification
Center. However, as it wasn't released, we couldn't point
to any specific feature within Mountain Lion and claim "that
infringes," which is the legal standard.
Now that we have a copy of the actual software, we know what
specifically we can claim is infringing. So now that we can
meet that legal burden, we want to pursue those claims."
IMO, whatever you think of Interval, this seems like a
pretty solid legal argument. They're arguing they need to
amend to include new claims they couldn't have reasonably
been able to allege with sufficient specificity previously.
And they make a decent case that the prejudice to Apple is
small (especially compared to a separate lawsuit on OSX,
which I think Interval is correct to claim they're entitled
to file if they don't get this relief from the court). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
Obviously, you just have to look at the Interval useful utility inventions that
only appear in the very latest Apple OS and not at all in any of the previous
versions of OSX and its predecessor OS on the NeXT computers.
Now I
think about it, that's not very likely, is it? Meaningless gobbledegook dressed
up as inventions that have to be bent totally out of shape to fit Mountain Lion,
but for which the same special pleading rules it out entirely and completely for
any previous OS by Apple or any other OS maker.
In a way that does not
show that OS as having that feature pre-dating the patented Interval invention.
Without having the source code and comments that can only become available for
your fishing trip during discovery.
Come to think of it, I can't wait
to see the expert report on how Interval managed not to stumble when achieving
this fine forensic study:
The Local Patent Rules require a detailed
mapping of an accused product's features to the asserted patent claims. See
Local Patent Rule 120. Without an actual copy of OS X, Interval could not have
conducted a thorough investigation of OS X’s features in light of the patent
claims and therefore could not have disclosed the necessary details of OS X’s
infringing features as required under the Local Patent Rules.
So,
let's have it, you clever Interval folk: show us how you failed to discover the
inventions in all the previous OS versions, but suddenly discovered it last
summer in Mountain Lion.
Or perhaps you lied because there was no other
way that you could meet Local Patent Rule 120 and that would prevent you
accusing Apple. You will get found out, you know. Groklaw will analyse your
every claim and show that it is to be found in every OS back to the year
dot.
Bring it on, pond scum!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
What does it mean to "examine in detail" when all they have is a
binary copy.
It means that it might take a little longer than
sixteen days to comb thru all the source code
to see what's going on, provided
the infringing details are in the publicly available
source
code . This document is intentionally vague because they do not
need to waste time
and space on specific details. They are simply asking for
permission to add MacOS 10.8 to
the list of alleged infringing products, and if
it is allowed to be so added they will provide
full details. This document is
also a warning to all concerned that if MacOS 10.8 is not
added to the list
then a separate lawsuit will follow.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
The USPTO allowed us to patent this vague invention. As a result, we can
only vaguely point to where it is vaguely implemented in an infringing product.
If we were to point to a specific implementation it would inherently not meet
the criteria of our vague patent.
:)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
This page intentionally blank.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
