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
How can anyone argue that any of this is encouraging innovation? | 134 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple's Multi-touch Patent Found Preliminarily Invalid - Did Apple Sue Too Soon? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 07:15 PM EST
"important techniques which make touchscreen-based interfaces usable"
so couldn't it also be labeled a FRAND patent if its pretty much needed to make
touch screens useable?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Multi-touch Patent Found Preliminarily Invalid - Did Apple Sue Too Soon? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 07:18 PM EST
"assuming the USPTO has already investigated and found validity, and juries
tend not to assume they know better. If you are ever on a jury, please don't
make such an assumption"

If go back and read cases notes from groklaw, you can see how the jury HAD
instructions on how to declare a patent invalid and even had the prior art in
front of them showing a few of apples patents were so invalid. they just choose
to ignore the prior art cause it would took to long. That is not way for a jury
to go in to a case. One juror assumed made his mind up first day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Multi-touch Patent Found Preliminarily Invalid - Did Apple Sue Too Soon? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 08:15 PM EST
All this functionality patent abuse, really, it's ridiculous. While tech users
hope and pray that the USPTO will, at some point, finally learn to regard these
patents as they do in other industries, my fear is that the office just might
start granting the same type of patents in other sectors. I can imagine what
would happen if a company could patent the turn clockwise on-off/volume control
operation of a radio potentiometer, worse yet, the right/left sweeping action of
rubber bladed rain removal devices for a vehicle windshield. Good grief. Some
sanity puhleeese.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Multi-touch Patent Found Preliminarily Invalid - Did Apple Sue Too Soon? ~pj
Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 08:17 PM EST

The second of the patents in suit, the previous claim 19 of the 7,469,381 patent (See Apple "rubber band" patent invalidated by previous Apple patent). Again found invalid and not yet final by the USPTO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's it all for?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 08:18 PM EST
Lawyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How can anyone argue that any of this is encouraging innovation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 09:22 PM EST

They can argue this quite easily. What they can't do is provide proof that
they are right.

I'm working on an article about this right now. I'll be using Groklaw as one
of my sources, of course.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 09:36 PM EST
Please post corrections here.
A hint in the posts title may be helpful.

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 10:03 PM EST


---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 10:05 PM EST


---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 10:09 PM EST
Please include a link to the article you are referencing
as the article will roll off the main page.


---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fosspatents wrote to you? :-)
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 08 2012 @ 03:03 AM EST
You'll be exchanging Christmas cards next! :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

"If you are ever on a jury, please don't make such an assumption. "
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 08 2012 @ 08:05 AM EST
If you're ever on a jury and come in with this prejudice, please disclose it to
the court.

You should make your informed decision based only on information provided to you
during the court process, not based on your previous groklaw-earned knowledge...
previous to the process... properly known as prejudice.

K

[ 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 )