|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
....at the end of the postings to this article.
Are you a double nature or is it just doublespeak.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
The instructions have to say something very
specific, to violate the current claim 19
construction. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
Can't you read? Samsung tells the court:
In its supplemental
response to the PTO, Apple conceded that Lira “achieves the visual result”
called for by Claim 19, but argued that it still did not invalidate Claim 19
because the computer instructions that caused the snap back function to occur
had the purpose of causing the web page to “center” on the screen rather than
explicitly seeking to perform edge alignment. Computer software is
instructions. All. So of course there were instructions. But the instructions
Apple talked about at trial were not the same as in Lira; the purpose was
different, even if the result looked the same.
That's the USPTO slicing the
baloney rather thin, for starters. But in any case the point is that the
instructions are different. And Samsung wants a new trial so it can defend
itself from the *real* construction Apple now insists are the *real* way to
understand the patent's words. OK, says Samsung, under the new understanding,
which isn't what you said at trial, we don't infringe. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Saturday, July 13 2013 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
I think PJ has already responded to you more ably than I could (no change
there). You've done the "long quote which doesn't actually provide a
rebuttal" thing before. It was no more successful there than here. Perhaps
you thought no-one would expect the same failing tactic again.
As a slight variation you have attempted a classic straw man argument using a
bit of quote mining. The quote of mine you chose related to a specific paragraph
of the preceding post by yourself (the reference to which you have left out, of
course). The quote you have selected provides no support for your statement in
that earlier paragraph.
The first two paragraphs related to actions taken at the outset of litigation.
The quote you provide is expert testimony at court following discovery, claim
construction discussions and various pre-trial motions. So not at the outset of
the litigation at all, then.
In that paragraph to which I referred, you suggested Apple would make a blanket
allegation of infringement and Samsung could respond by showing its own code to
demonstrate non-infringement. My response (as quoted by you) pointed out that
the correct process (IMHO,IANAL) is that Apple has to providence evidence of
infringement to which Samsung may then respond.
Care to guess what your quote from the trial shows Apple doing in court? It
shows Apple providing alleged evidence of Samsung's infringement through
Samsung's code. So the quote actually shows Apple doing as I suggested and
simultaneously undermined your statement. So, thank you, the citation is quite
enough to prove my point. Cheers.
And, to repeat it again to aid your comprehension, that thing you lack is
"understanding of the process".
---------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|