|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
Perhaps it took a while to search for the relevant patents?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
If not, you ought to include a disclaimer with your lectures
on legal matters or provide references so we can see for
ourselves.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Are you a lawyer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- Are you a lawyer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
Why feel sorry for the party that will step by step be victorious?
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- non sequitur - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- non sequitur - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 12:10 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
Let's forget, for a moment, that patenting language, math, and/or symbolic
constructs is supposedly forbidden. Okay? Let's just pretend that there was
some window through which abstract ideas were within the realm of
theoretically-patentable context. Even in such a case, software patents would
still a monstrous problem, and a problem that would have been difficult for
Samsung to have quelled when this started. Applications and, sadly, issued
patents on software are a continuous avalanche, and they have been for some
time. This isn't like a mechanical or chemical patent, where search terms can
find relevant prior art quickly. These are ideas that are discussed in the
abstract in only vague terms (and vague is also supposed to be unpatentable).
Then, there is the exponentially-increasing wave of software continually coming
into play, as the number of programmers and lines they create increase. Google
was able to do an effective job against Oracle, but Google had to use it's own
massive resources.
Whether or not you believe in software theoretical patentability, it simply
isn't practical. An adequate, reasonable search for prior art simply is not
possible on a day-to-day basis. Whether or not the system is supposed to cover
such patents as-written doesn't matter; we simply cannot afford the
infrastructure to make it happen. As we are now seeing, many software patents
are not a recognition of a new idea; they are dangerous weapons granted as
rewards for successfully gaming a broken system.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
>With respect to Samsung's reputation, why didn't they file this over 2 years
ago when this case got started instead of waiting until this past May to file?
They filed for Patent Office review as soon as Apple specified which half-dozen
of their bazillion invalid patents and uninfringed patents they were going to
sue over.
There's no point wasting money getting patents invalidated before the suit
starts. It doesn't slow the litigator down, Apple would just have named a
half-dozen other invalid patents in the suit.
This applies even (especially!) if you have prior art on some of the Troll's
patents. If the troll doesn't know which patents you have prior art on, it adds
to his risk.
And with software patents, anything that adds to the risk of litigation is a
good thing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 01:07 AM EDT |
Thanks for posting it. Very informative.
It leads to an article about
ruling by the Federal
Circuit. That's the court that never saw a patent it
didn't
like.
Here's a quote from the article:
The Court
attributed the Board’s inconsistent
decision to the differing standards of
review between (1)
court proceedings, which require clear and convincing
evidence of invalidity, and (2) reexamination proceedings,
which only require
that invalidity be shown by a
preponderance of the evidence and do not involve
a
presumption of validity.
Point 2 is a statement
by the Federal
Circuit about the
USPTO. It
might be accurate. It may also be a load of
self-serving claptrap put forth by
the court to justify its
ruling.
I'm not a lawyer either, but as far as I
know:
- patent cases are civil cases, not criminal cases; and,
- the
standard of proof in civil cases is "preponderance
of the
evidence."
So I'm inclined to think these statements are about as
valid as the rest of the court's body of work.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
