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
If there's prior art ... | 191 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Don't read too much into the word "Final".
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 01:16 PM EDT
This one's done. It's somewhat pathetic that Apple wants to hold phone
manufacturers to ransom because their screen goes "Boinggggg..." when
you scroll to far.

Even more pathetic that some think it's a patent with any merit whatsoever. To
even call it a gimmick would be insulting to gimmicks the world over.

Just my tuppence worth of course.

Calling 'pinch to zoom'; your time is up.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Also, some claims were allowed
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 01:44 PM EDT
Claims 14, 17 and 18 were found patentable and/or confirmed....so.... you
know...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Don't read too much into the word "Final".
Authored by: mossc on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 02:03 PM EDT
I THINK at this point from a legal standpoint the patent has to be assumed to be
invalid so it does make a difference in ongoing court cases(including damage
calculations, appeals, and injunctions). Of course IANAL

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If there's prior art ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 09:29 AM EDT
If there's prior art and it can be shown that Apple knew
about it, there should be more action taken than simply
rejecting the patent. Apple should be fined for criminal
misconduct.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Food for thought? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 04 2013 @ 05:45 AM EDT
Told ya. :-P n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 04 2013 @ 01:24 AM EDT

[ 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 )