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
Prior Art, Anyone? - A question for Mark and PJ | 167 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Person skilled in art, Anyone - A question for Mark and PJ and webster
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 08 2013 @ 06:21 PM EDT
Can anybody, with suitable credentials, independent from either side, turn up at
a court hearing and as "Friend of Court" give evidence that the patent
is "meaningless and totally incomprehensible" to somebody
"skilled in the art"?

If allowable, surely if a person(s) skilled in art says it's rubbish then court
would have no option but to squash the patent.

If so perhaps that would be the way to go. Get together and set up a group who
would do that. Perhaps under EFF mentoring.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 01:39 AM EDT
Being IANALly retentive, IIRC, I recall the Sun, Java security patent. Google
said that Android used the Linux security system which was prior art for the
Java security system.

I don't think they argued non-infringement of the Java patent.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Isn't that a big part of claim construction fights?
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 02:51 AM EDT
I seem to recall issues like that coming up in the patent fights of the Oracle
vs Google case, with much of the fighting ending up in claim construction
issues. I'm pretty sure that Google did have some arguments of the form "If
you construe the claim this way to include what we do then it encompasses this
prior art, but if you construe it that way to avoid the prior art then it
doesn't match our product either". I had the impression that Oracle did do
quite a bit of tap dancing on a fine line to show that Google practiced their
claims, as perhaps did current versions of Java, but the first versions of Java
that were too early for the patents did not.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Prior Art, Anyone? - A question for Mark and PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 06:12 AM EDT

2) ... to argue to the extent that the alleged infringement practices the prior art, the damages must be diminished?

IANAL warning etc., but it seems reasonable to me that if the patent in question represents a (say) incremental 1% improvement/variation/tweak on someone else's prior art or patent then even if the disputed patent fully describes the technique only 1% of 'damage' has been done to the patent holder, as the defendant could have implemented 99% of the technique without straying into the area covered by the disputed patent, and hence without causing any damage to the patent holder - no harm, no foul.

(Preaching to choir I know, but science and technology R&D doesn't happen in the vacuum that patent trolls would like to pretend: Standing on the shoulders of giants.)

[ 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 )