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
What Mr Hogan said: | 149 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Too blind to see your own bias, eh? n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 07:15 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

PJ is a woman
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 | # ]

What Mr Hogan said:
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 | # ]

Wrong on all counts
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 | # ]

IF that's what interchangeable means
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 | # ]

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 )