Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jheisey on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
I see one of the trolls has shown up. You have not even been around long enough
to know that PJ is a woman.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- PJ is a woman - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 10:17 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
Your description is not consistent with what Mr Hogan said:
At 3:10 in
the
interview
"The software on the Apple side could not be placed
into the processor on the prior art, and vice versa; and that means that they
are not interchangeable."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 09:10 PM EDT |
Even if the jury foreman used the term "interchangeable" as you
suggest (he did not), and even if the meaning of interchangeable is what you've
been led to believe it is (it is not), the point would still remain that it is
not Mr Hogan's place to present that defense (that would be the job of the Apple
legal team). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
Logically, if "interchangeable" is part of Patent Law1 and it
really does mean:
the two systems produce a different
outcome
Then logically:
Any software patent is only valid for
the exact combination of process that it performs and the exact combination of
data it processes leading to very specific output.
Anything else is
guaranteed to be either:
A description of a different process - so is not
patent infringement
or
A different outcome produced by the process - so
is also not patent infringement1
1: Please produce a reference
for your suggestion that it is.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|