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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Next to last section jumbled? corrected here | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Next to last section jumbled? corrected here
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:15 AM EDT
The PDF shows the questions and answers clearly enough:

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AS I HAD STATED EARLIER, THAT WAS -- IN 2008, THAT WAS THE
ACCUSATION AGAINST ME BEFORE THE PATENT WAS ISSUED.

THE COURT: NOW, WHEN THE PROGRAMMER SUED YOU, WAS THAT PROGRAMMER ALSO A
CO-INVENTOR ON THE PATENT?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: NO.

THE COURT: NO. I SEE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE PATENT WAS ISSUED TOTALLY -- EXCLUSIVELY IN MY NAME.

THE COURT: I SEE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: AND I HAD FILED FOR THAT PATENT PRIOR TO HIS JOINING THE
EFFORT TO WORK FOR IT. THAT WAS PART OF MY DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT IT WAS
MINE.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK, IF YOU HAVE STRONG FEELINGS OR STRONG
OPINIONS ABOUT EITHER THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM OR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LAWS, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE?

[ 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 )