Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
Thank you for your helpful suggestion.
Would you please by return post supply a list
of all products that violate SEPs.
[ sorry, couldn't resist. I supposed you are
assuming they haven't a clue on that either... ]
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
What? Do you know what an SEP is and the owners have to be willing to
license them to everyone.
Sorry I respond to someone with the mental capacity of a 13 year old. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 03:32 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:55 AM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 07:03 AM EDT |
Spell it out, please.
(Yes, I did try acronymfinder etc.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
While I heartily agree with the sentiment, the practicalities and economics make
no sense. That is even more true when other patents, that are not SEP, can be
asserted against a device.
If all patents on design, trade dress and function go, the problem is solved.
If none of the patents go, you have MAD. If only part of the patents are
abolished, you enable the proto-monopolist bullies. Not the scenario I ever
want to see.
-- Alma[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 06:26 AM EDT
|