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
The Problem With Patents: Operating with Blunt Instruments | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
An important addition
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 05:53 PM EDT
That it should all be on the record, in public and in clear. After all, the
original accusation usually is a very broad public statement. That requirement
got SCO out of Europe Courts quick.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Problem With Patents: Operating with Blunt Instruments
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 05:16 AM EDT
If they do not provide specifics it can only be assumed that
the patent(s) they are wielding are invalid and so should be
declared as such. If they specify no specific patent(s) then
clearly all their patents should be declared invalid.

Simples

cm

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Problem With Patents: Operating with Blunt Instruments
Authored by: artp on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 12:44 PM EDT
I'm not sure why that isn't covered by "failure to state a
claim". But then, IANAL. Obviously.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interpreting claims narrowly not broadly would help a lot
Authored by: yscydion on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT
I think it would help a lot if claims were interpreted narrowly rather than
broadly. Adopt the principle that anything not clearly claimed is not claimed.
Obfuscated language and lawyers jargon in a technical field should be treated as
saying and claiming nothing.

The test should be whether or not an ordinary worker in the relevant field could
use what is in the claims but did not already know it.

Would that require a change in the law or just a change in how the law is
interpreted? Perhaps if all patent cases were on a fixed fee so that it is in
the interests of the lawyers to terminate them quickly that would help.

[ 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 )