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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Priority Date, Filing Date, Publication Date | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Priority Date, Filing Date, Publication Date
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 05:30 PM EDT

It took more than a decade for the non-inventor to lie and cheat their way into conning the USPTO into granting this non- patent.

If I'm on a jury with that patent, I'd recommend that all of the law firms retained by the patent holder be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit, and that the plaintiff pay all court costs and attorney fees to the defendant, and the entire annual budget for the federal district that the court in which their lawsuits were filed. (IOW, if filed in the Eastern District of Texas, they pay however much it costs to run all of the courts --- din Torah, Sharia, city, county, state, ecclesiastical, and federal regardless of if it is criminal, civil, military, ecclesiastical, etc --- in the entire state of LA, MS, and Texas.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Priority Date, Filing Date, Publication Date
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 03:03 AM EDT
With the speed of development in the software world being so fast (but with
Patents trying to slow it down) those 11 years between prior date and filing
date would have seen a lot of development: how can we, and the USPTO, not know
that the "inventor" has not used other peoples developments in those
years to actually make their "invention" work?

One criticism I've often seen here is that some inventions are
"obvious" only in hindsight and looking back at inventions of 5-10
years ago they may seem obvious now but then they weren't. That same criticism
should be held here and clearly someone who has taken this long (11 years) is
more than likely patenting something that is now obvious due to the general
shift in the technology.

cm

[ 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 )