|
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 05:19 PM EST |
Please be sure to keep all posts off topic.
Be sure to use clickable links.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 05:55 PM EST |
Please post corrections hear.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 06:21 PM EST |
URL, please.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 06:24 PM EST |
HTML markups posted in plaintext of "Comes v. MS"
documents for PJ.
See
link above. --- Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rocky on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 07:27 PM EST |
So I think you'd better give it to them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:14 AM EST |
For instance, Exhibits B and F to the Sheppard Rule 37 Declaration
includes product-specific sales,
costs of goods sold, expenses, and profits
data for all accused products for each month between 2007 and
2011.
(Declaration of Hankil Kang (“Kang Decl.”) ¶ 16.) Exhibit C to the Price
Rule 37 Declaration synthesizes this data
and presents it in a format that
those with little accounting or financial experience could use to gain valuable
insight into Samsung’s pricing strategies. (Id. ¶ 17.) The exhibits are
extremely valuable to Samsung, because the
data guide the company’s pricing,
distribution, financial planning, and other business decisions.
Umm, there are websites around that give the BoM of every new
Apple device as soon as it appears. They, or
others like them, track all FedEx
flights, do exit polls at Apple stores. The numbers are almost a matter of
public
record. Post facto, which is why Apple is so secretive prior to the
appearance of every new product. Is Samsung's
data secret simply because the
Westerners have not yet penetrated the chaebol, or fathomed the handshake deals
that lead to multiple paralell imports via different routes?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:18 AM EST |
Who guessed that Anonymous would be so good at technical reporting?
I suspect it is better than being there, because I cannot imagine capturing all
this content, myself.
Thanks for the time and the reporting expertise.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 03:41 AM EST |
System and method for performing an action on a structure in
computer-generated data.
... “separate from a client” and whether
the invention required software separate from a client. One issue is over the
word “server” in claims...
Judge Koh said “Posner” found that the
analyzer server in this patent required separateness.
Judge Koh said..
her tentative thinking is that the action of the processor does not have to be
separate from the client.
[T]he judge gave her
tentative thinking that the history lists can be but are not required to be
shared between/among applications
Apple’s ’414
patent - Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices:
Apple
suggested no cell phones had dual-core processors until three years after ‘414
patent filed. A PHOSITA [“person who is skilled in the art”] reading would not
have thought of using dual-core processors. Samsung countered that the
specification referred to many types of electronic devices including computers,
some of which did have dual-core Intel processors at the
time.
Sorry to have picked on the Apple patents, but they
highlight the issue. There is only one patent, here, that might not
suffer from the following patent problems.
The first invention is an
on-a-computer invention. Is a structure in data an abstract idea? How does one
perform an action on an abstract idea? Once the data is on-a-computer (how,
exactly did the computer generate that data?) the abstract idea of a person
carrying out an abstract algorithm on a perceived pattern or structure of the
data becomes a patentable system... or method... a system and a
method.
How does a computer user know to use the method? What is the
method and what post solution activity occurs as a result of the method? What is
a client in a smartphone and what is a server? Might they both be abstract ideas
expressed as software? Can they only exist in software?
Patent '414 is
only an invention inna-smartphone. On-a-computer it is not an invention because
it is the wrong sort of general purpose computer. Is the invention one of
such additional utility and innovation, that the software written by one
skilled in the art is only stunningly innovative and useful in its function when
it is within his skills to make the invention run on a single
processor?
Sorry to quote Fonar v. GE once again:As a
general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an
invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the
functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such
software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation,
once its functions have been disclosed. It is well established that what is
within the skill of the art need not be disclosed to satisfy the best mode
requirement as long as that mode is described. Stating the functions of the best
mode software satisfies that description test. We have so held previously and we
so hold today.
When Apple say that a PHOSITA would not have
thought of using a dual processor at the time of the patent, they are saying
that the writing of the software to do this stuff is not the invention, it is
just something that software writers do. Servers, clients, computer-generated
data and analyzer servers are invented functions for a software journeyman to
write the software to carry out.
So, if the invention is not
on-a-computer or inna-smartphone, what is the useful thing that the patented
functions do and why are these functions new and innovative when the
on-a-computer or the inna-smartphone are put to one side as being within the
skills of the art?
Do these 'inventions' only make any sense when
interpreted by those skilled in the art of writing software to run on-a-computer
or inna-smartphone?
Without the phone or the computer, can the
functions be any more than abstract ideas?
Is it an invention to decide
the time and place that the software writer chooses to execute parts of the
software and on which general purpose computer(s) to install it? Are these
decisions just what is within the skill of software writers and therefore not
patentable subject matter?
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 04:07 PM EST |
In any patent litigation which requires the plaintiff to explain the patent is
to be considered indefinite. It is a long standing rule of contract construction
that any ambiguous contract is construed against the drafter. Since it is well
accepted and proven that patent drafters purposely draft their language to be as
broad (and incomprehensible) as possible the patent holders should not be able
to benefit from their own deviousness.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|