|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
I too think that he was talking about patent eligible subject
matter (if "a machine readable medium containing software
configured to..." should be patentable at all), a matter of
law and thus something the jury is not able to decide.
However it is an ambiguous statement in an area of concern
that really needs to be clarified.
Whoa is that prior art quote damning though. If that's his
interpretation of anticipation I'd just love to hear his
interpretation of obviousness.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:29 PM EDT |
Which is especially funny, because there's plenty of prior art for
his own patent. I wonder if he used this "interchangeability"
defense to get it issued. Anyone up to submit a reexamination
request?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: starsky on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
Yeah I read it differently to PJ too. I read that he was saying that it's not
the jury's job to decide what can and not be patented, but only apply the law as
it is today. (eg: he's saying not the juy's job to say software can't be
patented)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
3rd paragraph.
"Invalidity is a defense to infringement."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
I agree with you that Hogan's response to Demon-Xanth's is accurate, in re: it
is not the jury's responsibility to question whether or not something
"should" be patentable.
However, there is a stark difference in reviewing the validity of a patent
considering similarity to prior art, and throwing up your hands saying,
"Well, the patent office granted the patent, so it must be valid!"
The first anon response to SilverWave's comment, "One thing is for sure,
this is going to be one fascinating appeal." hits the issue right on the
nose: Hogan decided that he would put himself in Apple's position, and defend
their patents as he would his own in a similar case.
As people have remarked, his patent was granted in 2003 for--and I'm
paraphrasing here--a computer device capable of accepting encoded video stream
signals through a coaxial connector, decoding them, and writing a file
containing the decoded video signal onto a hard drive that can be removed from
the device by a user.
Except for the removable media, this sounds incredibly similar to the TiVo,
which was available for sale in 1999, four years previous to Mr. Hogan's patent
being granted. Clearly the TiVo is prior art, and as he stated, he had to argue
that his invention was different enough from the TiVo and similar devices to
warrant granting him his patent.
I expect he used the exact same "interchangeable" argument in his
support: the software than ran his device wouldn't work on a TiVo, nor would
TiVo's software work on his device, so they are "fundamentally
different" (these are over-exaggerated air quotes, mind you) and thus the
prior art does not invalidate his patent.
It is only in this extremely narrow view of how prior art can or cannot
invalidate a patent, that Mr. Hogan can claim that the prior art in Apple's
design patents does not invalidate them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
