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 makes you think they don't know? | 173 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The USPTO's Reality Distortion Field
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 10:33 PM EDT
Since when contractors don't do as they are told? Since when they implement
stuff without making sure what they do is approved?

It is common in the IT industry to hire a contractor in order to have a
convenient scapegoat if the project turns sour. How do we know it isn't the case
here?

This is opinion. I don't know what actually happened. But I find the contractor
excuse way too convenient.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

..contractor got nooooo patent? No patent fraud? Reexamine how far back? N/T
Authored by: arnt on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 11:47 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What makes you think they don't know?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 02:54 AM EDT
"A contractor set this up" does not mean "a contractor set this
up without being asked" even though that's clearly what they're trying to
imply without saying.

It's comical for the USPTO to suggest a rogue contractor implemented an internet
filter that just happens to block said sites for them.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Could you link the story you're referring to please
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 04:08 AM EDT
As I have no idea what you're talking about, and Googling
hasn't helped :)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Ah possibly this - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 04:10 AM EDT
  • Here's the link - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT
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 )