|
|
|
| Authored by: gibus on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
Thanks very much for this feedback!
1. Actually, it is not a blog, it is a website :) More seriously, most articles
are presenting a position that has been discussed /before/ posting the article.
For contents where discussion matters, we have used a system of comments (using
the free software co-ment) quite different to what you can see with blogs. See
for eg. the last post, which is not our opinion but an analysis by Max-Planck
Institute, which we have re-published with the very objective to open it to
comments. Or see the amendments we are proposing, or the original proposal from
European commission. All these posts use co-ment.
Note also that feedback can be posted through the contact form.
2. Thanks very very much. I'm not an English native speaker (I'm French, just
watch the video linked on front page, and don't laugh too much about my accent
;) and any proofreading is very appreciated. I've fixed errors you've pointed
to.
3. Actually, the case of rejection is already (shortly) discussed. In Europe,
there is also some oppositions (by Samsung, HTC and Motorola) before the patent
office to invalidate this patent. I've talked about this in section "The
current theatre of operations". And the short answer is "Whatever
flawed is the opposition procedure of the EPO, it should be underlined that it
comes a posteriori. The patent has already been granted, the weapon is already
ready to fire."
This is the same in US. Samsung is a big firm which can defend itself against a
patent assertion. A SME cannot. Would Apple have attacked some SMEs (instead of
Samsung, this is just an hypothetical reasoning, I don't see why Apple would
have attacked someone else than its big competitors), the re-examination at
USPTO would not have happened. Because SMEs cannot afford a patent litigation.
They find agreement and pay.
Nevertheless, I'm following closely which impact this (not final) decision from
USPTO woil have on the current opposition procedures before the European Patent
Office.
Thanks again![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
