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

for doing absolutely nothing BUT FILING THE BROAD CLAIM WITH NO INVENTIVE PART IN IT. | 457 comments | Create New Account

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

for doing absolutely nothing BUT FILING THE BROAD CLAIM WITH NO INVENTIVE PART IN IT.

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 06:14 PM EDT

Right and there are no patents too: "mouse trap."

There are patents to broad particular classes of mouse traps:
Mouse traps That use adhesives without reciting particular adhesives in
the claims.
spring activated traps without reciting particular spring designs or spring
tensions.
Electrical zapping traps that don't recite particular voltages or currents.

A patent where every nut and bolt is specified Would be worthless and
no one would bother with patents because all an infringer would have to
do is change one bolt.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

for doing absolutely nothing BUT FILING THE BROAD CLAIM WITH NO INVENTIVE PART IN IT. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 10 2013 @ 04:52 AM EDT
- Childish name calling?: Very persuasive argument - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 10 2013 @ 10:45 AM EDT
  - 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 )