Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Let's see, according to Wikipedia, the MD5 hash was invented 1991... | 179 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Let's see, according to Wikipedia, the MD5 hash was invented 1991...

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:08 PM EDT

And the article talks about collision resistance, so this falls under highly
obvious prior art.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Let's see, according to Wikipedia, the MD5 hash was invented 1991... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT
- "I don't see how" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT

The new idea about patents...

Authored by: deck2 on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 10:22 AM EDT

I have an aquaintance who believes that there should be no consideration of
prior art. If something that is currently in a field that is patentable (and I
don't believe most software is patentable) has not been patented then even if it
is a known item (i.e. plently of prior art) it should still be patentable. That
is just so upside down. However, this appears to be exactly the case with the
jury foreman of the Apple/Samsung case. I suspect one of this ilk would believe
that you should be able to get a patent on using wood to create the structure of
a building.(What, it has been done for thousands of years; well there is no
patent so its my patent)

[ 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 )