Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Childish name calling?: Very persuasive argument | 457 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Childish name calling?: Very persuasive argument

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 10 2013 @ 10:45 AM EDT

Doctrine of Equivalents would certainly be argued by someone. But if a 10 x 32
bolt is equivalent to a some other bolt, why do both bolts exist? Clearly,
there is an argument to be made that they are not equivalent and the infringer
would argue that claimed bolt is prone to failure and the work around bolt is
better and not equivalent.

If you are informed enough to understand the Doctrine of Equivalents, then you
should also understand that the proposal would work against it. The Doctrine of
Equivalents serves to broaden the interpretation of claims. If the issue is
"overly broad" claiming and policy is to narrow claims, the DoE would
be eroded out of existence.

Under the DoE, if a claim specifies a step uses FFT, the DoE tends to let the
FFT be interpreted as any method of determining a frequency domain
representation of a time domain signal. Which is just the sort of thing you all
find so horrific.

So, make up your mind.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Childish name calling?: Very persuasive argument - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 11:49 AM EDT

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 )