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
They're going back to 1998 to find prior art here... | 265 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Samsung Granted Leave to Depose Toshiyuki Masui in Japan Re Prior Art ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 12 2013 @ 12:12 PM EDT
I don't recall how long ago it was, but the last time I used Quicken, it gave me
a list of previous entries that matched what I had typed every time I started to
enter the payee name for a check. That had to be almost two decades ago. Does
this mean that all of those editions of Quicken and QuickBooks now infringe on
this new patent?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

They're going back to 1998 to find prior art here...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 12 2013 @ 01:00 PM EDT
The professor who is being deposed is apparently testifying about work that he
did in 1998, so the original patent application may go back to 1999, so it
doesn't matter whether software that you use has been doing it "for years
now", unless you mean "more than 15 years". It matters whether
any software was doing it at least one year prior to the patent application.

5 years after Edison patented the light bulb, people had been using light blubs
"for years", but no one could come up with an example that predated
his patent application, so his patent was valid until it expired.

[ 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 )