|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
Let's stick to one topic at a time. That way we won't
overtax my feeble old brain.
Please explain the difference between these two statements:
A) The patent should not have been issued because it covers
subject matter that is unpatentable.
B) The patent should not have been issued because it is not
valid for some other reason.
If there is no difference, then the question asked of Hogan
is the right question, and this whole thread is about
pseudo-legalistic hair splitting.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 12:47 AM EDT |
Please read our comments policy. Thanks.
As to your point, Samsung did a good job. It's the
jury that failed. They were going to rule for
Samsung, according to this foreman, until he
personally turned things around with his argument
that the prior art was not "interchangeable" with
Apple software and vice versa and therefore it
was not prior art.
There is no universe where that is the
standard. So the jury believed him even though
they should not have, and changed their votes
to go with Apple instead. Now, that is not the
fault of Samsung's lawyers. No lawyer can
fix a renegade juror.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
"For each party’s patent infringement claims against the other, the first
issue you will have to decide is whether the alleged infringer has infringed the
claims of the patent holder’s patents and whether those patents are valid."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
