|
|
|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:23 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- UEFI bootkit vuln found for Windows 8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:50 PM EDT
- Yes, but requires user to be admin to load - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 09:35 PM EDT
- Yes, but requires user to be admin to load - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:25 AM EDT
- Yes, but requires user to be admin to load - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 09:05 AM EDT
- Yes, but requires user to be admin to load - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- Yes, but requires user to be admin to load - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT
- Boot menu - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT
- Boot menu - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- Yes, but requires user to be admin to load - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- mbr - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- Yes, but requires user to be admin to load - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 01:37 PM EDT
- Yes, but requires user to be admin to load - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT
- It depends - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT
- How to get Windows booting again on your PC - Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- UEFI bootkit vuln found for Windows 8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- Marc's Laptop (does he use SSD or regular HD)? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 09:34 PM EDT
- Mozilla and ZTE - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:08 PM EDT
- Mozilla and ZTE - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2012 @ 06:18 AM EDT
- Level 3 sues Apple - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:16 PM EDT
- Eolas wants to try again with invalidated patents - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:44 PM EDT
- SMBC on lawyers and patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 04:14 AM EDT
- Honor Among Thieves - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 05:28 AM EDT
- Dotcom Appeal Court Decision Reserved - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 05:35 AM EDT
- New iPhone 5 street demo - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT
- The next big thing is already here... - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 09:15 AM EDT
- German Government Wake-up Call on IE - Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- Apple Map - Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 09:57 AM EDT
- Apple Map - Authored by: luvr on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- Apple Map - Authored by: GreenDuck on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- US to China: Please stop hacking into our computers - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- Patent Office tries "Stack Overflow for patents" to find prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 03:06 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:25 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
Hope you are feeling better soon PJ.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Get well message here. - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT
- Lots of rest, plenty of fluids - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:19 PM EDT
- Apple/Cinamon tea - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 12:25 AM EDT
- Or... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Hugs - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 01:04 AM EDT
- Rum Grog! Arrr! - Authored by: The_Pirate on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 03:24 AM EDT
- Rum Grog! Arrr! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 09:09 AM EDT
- Hot Toddy too - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- White Knight thread ahoy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT |
maybe the jury got confused thought the prior art was about
the table?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- prior art - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT
- prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 07:41 AM EDT
- prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
PJ, drink, rest, take chicken soup!
MW, Give this an author or re-organize, depending on mood.
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
Apple is arguing that Samsung made their FRAND disclosure
late. The sixth
point is interesting . . .
22 A Yeah, if we
ignore the -- the
general
23 declaration, then one could perhaps
come to that
24 conclusion.
So Apple is arguing
that you must disclose all FRAND patents
before the standard is adopted rather
than saying some of
this standard may be our IP. According to the FTC a
general
disclosure is what is
required before the standard is set.
However, this type of
abuse of the hold-up power can be effectively prevented –
without compromising
confidentiality - by requiring firms involved in
developing
the standard
to make a general ex
ante FRAND commitment, i.e. in the early stage of
standardization. With such a general
commitment the essential patent
holder would commit to be
bound to (F)RAND in respect of any
and all their
patents and patent applications they generate
that may become essential to the
standard.
So basically Apple wants to change the law and
standard
practice in the tech sector to suit them.
Also, how can they argue
FRAND as a non-jury issue when the
jury specifically ruled against them?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:03 PM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:42 AM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:21 PM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Tkilgore on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Tkilgore on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 10:21 PM EDT
- Qualcomm or Broadcomm - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
| WARNING: this exhibit
describes patent claims in
detail
This Exhibit is very interesting. I
won't quote it too
much since it describes patent claims in detail. After
reading this exhibit I would be inclined to believe Apple's
Utility patents
are invalid or covered by prior art.
'859 patent:
36. In
contrast, in my opinion, Apple’s construction is
overly
broad. Under Apple’s
construction, claim 14 encompasses any type of interaction
with the on-screen
data by the user using
two fingers. This goes well beyond what is actually
disclosed in the ‘859 specification and is not
consistent with the way a
person of ordinary skill would
have understood the claims after reading the
‘859 specification.
'915 patent:
Convincing arguments that
the claims would include
devices besides capacitive touch screens. Therefore
the
Diamond Touch would seem to clearly be prior art. Also
several claims
seem to be for algorithms, instructions or
means without ever defining what
those algorithms,
instructions or means are. Therefore it would not be clear
to someone of ordinary skill in the art. IANAL, but it
seems like this makes
the patent invalid.
'381:
169. In my opinion, one of ordinary
skill in the art in 2007
would not have been able to
identify the . . . in the
specification of the ‘381 Patent
because the specification fails
to disclose
the corresponding structure for performing this
function. Each time the ‘381
Patent refers
to this limitation, the patent discusses the functions of
the
limitation but does not identify or describe
the components needed to perform
those functions.
There are similar quotations for other
claims
Question for the lawyers: if someone of ordinary skill in
the
art can't tell what exactly is being patented from
reading the claims what
happens? Does this mean nothing
substantial is being asserted? Does this mean
the patent is
too broad? How can you patent something without actually
disclosing the invention?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
| Samsung points
out a bunch of differences between
Design patent '305 and TouchWiz
interfaces.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
| Warning: Contains some patent claim language.
Samsung's case for the
Diamond Touch being prior art.
Apple's case that it
is not prior art.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
see this on Patently'O.
In an emergency appeal, the
Federal Circuit has temporarily reversed Judge Koh's decision and ordered that
the exhibits remain sealed until the conclusion of the appeal relating to
unsealing of the records. It is an odd appeal in that both parties want the
court to seal the documents. Our adversarial appellate system does not work that
well when the parties agree with each other but disagree with the judge. At the
district court, Reuters News Service intervened to ask the court to unseal the
records. However, Reuters has announced that it will not participate in the
appeal. The First Amendment Coalition attempted to intervene in the appeal, but
that attempt has been denied by the Federal Circuit. Thus, it appears that no
one will be arguing the other side.
Is this applicable to the
documents posted here? If so I believe they should be removed for the time
being.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
