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
To this non-US confused person | 119 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
To this non-US confused person
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 12:14 PM EST
Don't worry. It doesn't make sense to the US person either.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

To this non-US confused person
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 01:43 PM EST
A personal view:

In the US patent system you pay money and get a license to
sue others that may have a similar idea. The idea does not
have to be innovative or unique. The default mode of patent
application is to grant the patent unless it is blatently
obvious to a dead man or two rocks. The actual patent laws
may say something else, but this is how it really seems to
operate, at least with software related patents.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

To this non-US confused person
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 01:56 PM EST
I stopped reading in the middle of the the first sentence of
the first patent.

"access hypermedia content via a wireless link"

Keep repeating the word "wireless" like it has anything at
all to do with the claimed "invention", which is just a set
of one-key macros for common parts of URLs.

Limiting the claim to wireless devices is mostly a ploy to
pretend there's anything new here. URLs don't care about
the transport layer, and neither do key macros. Take out
the "wireless link", and I was practicing prior art on my
bourne-shell command line as soon as I knew what a URL was
(sometime around 1994, in my case). (The URL limitation is
another bogus attempt to narrow the patent around obvious ob
viousness - a macro is a macro is a macro, text is text is
text, using a macro for URLs is obvious obvious obvious.)

This patent was filed in 2000 and granted in 2004! No, it
doesn't make sense to anyone in the US either.

[ 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 )