decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pj | 307 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT
Thus I am confused, a lot of people think an idea is patentable, but I think its

one or more implementations of an idea. Otherwise patents can't serve their
purpose which is to spur improvements. A better implementation improves
whatever for society.

On the issue of prior art, why is it relevant? I am only asking to understand.
For
example if in StarTrek they have an iPad like device, since that device on the
TV
show really isn't functional on design patents they might have some claim, but
how can it be prior art on utility patents when such devices for TV shows arn't

actually functional. So I am struggling to understand how props in TV shows or

movies can be prior art for utility patents.

On the Toshiba device I thought it projected the image, which is very different

from what both Apple or Samsung are doing with their technology, so I don't
understand why they are relevant?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.03 seconds