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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
News Picks Here | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT
Please post corrections here.
A summary of the correction in the posts title may be helpful.

Please check against PDFs before offering a correction to
any PDF transcription as we strive to be accurate to originals.

s/Tnahks/Thanks/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT
:-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT
:-P

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World - The Fight Over Claim Construction
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 02:32 PM EDT
Does anybody really think the system works? At all?

If I were dictator for life, I would line all of the patent attorneys up against
the wall and shoot them. No fooling.

While it would probably seem extreme at the time, I have no doubt that within
ten years or so, after a flood of innovation and booming business activity,
history would acknowledge that it was the right thing to do!

Alas, I am not dictator for life, so instead we just get to sit around watching
these legal parasites bleed the lifeblood of companies into their own pockets.
Sigh.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World - The Fight Over Claim Construction
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT
This is clearly a prime example of the US patent system
being completely broken.

How long has the X windowing system supported multiple
terminal windows? I have used, and have seen others use
as well, various terminal windows as non-primary monitoring
devices for various things (e.g. tail -f some_log_file).

Now we have "panels" where we can have little animated icons
that show the time, the weather, wireless signal strengh,
system loads, when updates are available, etc.

There is nothing novel about this stuff. It is just a
natural growth of having more and more resources available
to monitor and show more of what is going on.

Disgusting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And yet again...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
no-one is actually trying to get the patent invalidated as being non-patentable
in the first place...

far too many times we see the software patents being fought on the basis of
prior art or claim construction... never whether the subject is even patentable
in the first place...

This would be because they want to preserve the "legitimacy" of their
own software patents...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World - The Fight Over Claim Construction
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 03:52 PM EDT
Maybe the judge decided to go forward on this without awaiting
reexamination results from the USPO because he knew it would never
survive claims construction. Interval was trying to patent a nebulous
concept.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent lawyers are very useful!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
They stack a lot better than sandbags.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World - The Fight Over Claim Construction
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
There is nothing new here. Any 1970's avionics system like an ATI radar warning
system display or heads-up display performed essentially the same function.

The problem is the software industry has pre-8080 amnesia. There is a wealth of
prior art in the old digital flight simulators and avionics. The problem is,
most of that material was at least confidential so it never got scanned into any
databases and is not online.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is wrong with judges and lawyers and patent examiners?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT
They are so embroiled in playing word games that they mis the whole point that
the alleged patent DOES NOT DESCRIBE AN INVENTION. At best it suggests goals
that some system might like to achieve. That is NOT an invention. It it NOT a
system or a program or a machine or anything like that ... by any stretch of
anyone's imagination.

The whole patent system seems to have lost even the basic concept of the thing
being patented. They are not granting patents on WISHES and allowing nut-case
thugs to sue people over them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World - The Fight Over Claim Construction
Authored by: iraskygazer on Wednesday, October 31 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT
If you blow away the smoke screen setup by the patent language and just step
back you can see this is just another attempt to cut the 'Desktop view' pie into
another chunk. The patents should have never been issued since this is a look
and feel issue. I thought the desktop presentation issue was resolved many years
ago when Microsoft lost their 'desktop' view, look and feel, lawsuit.

Why are we seeing this again? Just because the wording has changed? But the
subject matter and end result are still the same; how the desktop presents
information to the user. This is an entirely personal subject and should have
never been issued a patent because I adjust my real world desk, with real paper,
the way it suits me. I don't want some stupid software package telling me how I
should arrange my virtual desktop, just because some company was issued a patent
for the virtual world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Request for some explination:
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 06:59 AM EDT
I haven't read the whole patent (I'm a developer), but from the bits I've
skimmed, can someone explain how this isn't trying to patent banner ads?

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )