|
| Authored by: ChrisP on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:19 PM EST |
Not quite free for anyone to use yet because it is not a Final Office Action.
Apple could conceivably salvage something from the patent. Perhaps a
one-fingered pinch? A bit like one hand clapping? :-/
---
Gravity sucks, supernovae blow![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:26 PM EST |
Note the predilection for the USPTO to invalidate with earlier patents, which
may be still in force although you could likewise question their validity. A
look through the continuity data shows 4643 pages of non-patent literature as
prior art references submitted for the current reexamination.
Makes you think the courts could start seriously considering stays in the patent
infringement cases when ex parte examinations have been requested.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 08:06 PM EST |
If they didn't assert the patents, they're useless -
everyone would be free to use those technologies anyways.
Plus there's some waiver and/or estoppel arguments to be
made that if you don't pursue known patent violations,
you're out of luck.
There was always the option that the patents would be
invalidated if asserted, but really they're no worse off
than they'd be had they not asserted them (these are patents
they never should have had in the first place). They had a
chance at a big payoff.
Oh, and by the way, Apple probably got some payoff.
Companies rarely license patents on a patent-by-patent
basis. They tend to cross-license portfolios of patents.
During the time when Apple was making noise about this
patent (and ESPECIALLY post-verdict when the patent appeared
to have teeth), I'm guessing the perceived value of Apple's
patent bundle in any cross-license agreements was
substantially increased. I suspect Apple got more from HTC
than it would have without this patent being asserted (and
actually held infringed).
That's the real danger of bad patents. The companies who
have them get paid even if they're later invalidated, and
the customers who pay more than they probably needed for a
cross-license never get made whole. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 08:43 PM EST |
Both rulings are preliminary, which means
Apple can try to save them, but if not, it
becomes final.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 09:28 PM EST |
If you remember some years ago job's said he would spend every cent in a thermal
nuclear war to kill Android. Problem even with a nuke war besides the side
having nukes as well is the wins that blow the radiation from your nukes back on
you. so you end up killing your self as well.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 10:29 AM EST |
Apple failed to neutralize its target on first strike and is now reaping the
consequences.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 09:15 AM EST |
The point IS NOT to get rich off patent royalties ... the point IS TO STOP YOUR
COMPETITION FROM SHIPPING PRODUCT UNTIL THE PRODUCT IS OBSOLETE.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 08:26 AM EST |
I didn't see anyone else ptoniing out that the Traceroute failed. If it had been
successful, the line above Trace complete.' Should have read something
likepool-141-155-57-198.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.155.57.198] 48ms SuccesA
valid traceroute is crucial to the plaintiffs case. Without it none of the rest
of their evidence has any value since there is no evidence that any of it was
collected over the Internet from their office near Dayton Ohio to New York City.
It could easily have been done within their office with a few PCs that were
never connected to the Internet.If MediaSentry was conducting a valid
investigation, they would have abandoned it when the traceroute failed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
