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
The foreman's perspective is skewed as a patent holder | 307 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The foreman's perspective is skewed as a patent holder
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
As a patent holder, the foreman's perspective was seriously
skewed. If you look at the patent he holds it is dangerously
close to Apple's patent in "trollishness".

In essence, claim 1 of his patent is for a PC + media
recorder + media playback ... invented in 2003. Other claims
are dependent and extend claim 1 adding stuff like an email
client resulting in a PC + media recorder + media playback +
email client. Another claim is PC + media recorder/playback
+ web browser.

It is simply amazing that during jury selection when he told
Samsung that he held patents that Samsung's lawyers didn't
look up the patents and scan for a troll factor.

Of course, someone that has filed and received a very
generic patent that is highly susceptible to prior art is
going to take the viewpoint that once a patent has issued
it's golden.

Samsung plus the rest of the Android community are now going
to pay for their lack of jury selection ability.

---nyarlathotep

[ 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 )