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
no double jeopardy, just prior art | 219 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
087 and 677
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 09:19 PM EST
I think you are correct (IANAL), but it sure is double DIPPING ... and I'm not
sure how that fits with concepts of patents covering novel inventions ....

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

no double jeopardy, just prior art
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 11:35 AM EST
i don't think it would be considered double jeopardy anyways. legally, they are
suing for violating the 087 patent and for violating the 677 patent. You can be
found guilty of 087 because you are found guilty of violating 087 and you can be
found guilty of violating 677 because you are guilty of violating 677. Then you
would appeal 677 because it has prior art (the first patent), not double
jeopardy.

however, ianal. just the way i see it.

---
- IANAL

[ 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 )