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
Samsung Asks For New Trial on Apple's '381 Patent - New Evidence Has Been Discovered ~pj | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What you're pointing out ...
Authored by: reiisi on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 08:07 PM EDT
What you are pointing out is that the patent office has failed it's
Constitutional mandate from quite early on.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple seems to have misled the court
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 08:41 PM EDT
Apple seems to have misled the court with what the main article refers to
(understandably) as Apple's 'snarky' notice
(http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2323.pdf).

That is because Apple's notice only says that claim 19 is now regarded as
patentable, and it remains silent on the point that the now-patentable claim 19
is not the same in substance as the claim 19 previously in issue: and that, in
turn, is because there is now (at least if Samsung's filing is not mistaken) a
new admission from Apple about the interpretation of claim 19, which alters its
relationship with allegedly infringing products.

What are the chances that Apple or its counsel will be penalised for such
misleading, I wonder?

-ts-

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Samsung Asks For New Trial on Apple's '381 Patent - New Evidence Has Been Discovered ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 01:56 AM EDT
Very much code is written that "unintended features/benefits."
They aren't bugs, they're just previously unknown "as written"
features.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is exactly wrong.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 10:26 AM EDT
"One absurdity that becomes clear here is that the only difference between
the Apple "invention" and that of the Lira prior art reference that
they were trying to construe around, is what the "purpose" of the code
was that achieved the edge alignment effect."

The point of departure from the cited document is THE TEST the process uses to
determine if its time to stop moving.

In the cited document, as I recall, the test is about the position of the center
of the document.

In the claim, the test has to do with the position of the edge of the document.

[ 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 )