Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
Maybe Apple have become as predictable as
the one whose behaviour Newton fruitfully
analyzed.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
That is, some of our prophesies become true simply because we made them, and
Apple picks up on them.
(Christenson)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
We have seen before, not only withApple, that a final rejection is not the end.
In that sense, Apple are merely stating the obvious: this is the world of
patents,
where final is not final and software can be a machine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
Maybe we're getting better at understanding things after years
of PJs training :-)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 04 2013 @ 07:03 AM EDT |
What Apple stated (as PJ notes) is stuff that the judge is
almost certainly aware of. A Final Office Action by the
USPTO is not the last stop of patent review. Heck, a Final
Office Action is not even ipso facto enough to rebut the
presumption of validity of a patent.
These are not novel legal arguments, or stretches of the
legal precedent. They are the precedent.
Which is why the USPTO needs reform and more competent
examiners so desperately. The USPTO can't invalidate one of
it's own mistakes without years of costly work and
potentially dozens of appeals if the patentee wants to fight
for their patent. Issuing bad patents is a Very Bad Thing,
and the re-examination process is provably not an effective
remedy for them. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|