|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
In another thread interchangeable does not simply mean the ability to run one's
code in another platform.
Rather it means that it produces the same result. So if the newer code makes an
improvement for example, the the prior art is not interchangeable.
There was good example given of a gear drive. If the drive was created instead
with a chain and gear then these might be considered interchangeable, since the
result even with the change is the same.
But if you were to replace the gear drive with say a belt and wheel and a auto
disengaging gear to prevent jams then they are not interchangeable. Therefore
it would not be considered violating the prior art.
So in this case the jury might have come to the conclusion that in each case of
prior art Apple's innovations made some improvement and thus the prior art was
not interchangeable.
Pretty neat this concept of interchangeable. Not that I am agreeing with the
jury.
This whole patent system is not as daft as many people suggest.
More and more I am beginning to appreciate the courts, the patent office and
juries. Its remarkable really that what you might think of as complex really
isn't
when you break it down. I have much more confidence in the jury's decision
now.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Whoa - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Making up the law - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
