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
That's only a problem if you refuse to do a patent search or to ask.. | 117 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That's only a problem if you refuse to do a patent search or to ask..
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 02:44 PM EDT

The inventor did not list any material of mine in the patent.
Nor did the inventor list any of my sources in the patent.
Nor did the inventor list of the sources of my sources, in the patent.

If it comes down to a lawsuit, I'm going to say that the patent was filed in bad faith, failing to disclose all of the relevant prior art. I'm not sure if I'll start with the material from 1943, 1929, or the sixteenth century.

This is over and above the fact that the "invention" is software, and software is mathematics.
On second thoughts, I can dispense with the "software is mathematics" argument, and say that the description is merely applied mathematics, but unlike the rubber cure patent, there is nothing novel in the application of that math, citing a paper from 1898 as the genesis of the invention. (Nineteenth century, for those who might think the date is a typo.)

I still have to figure out a way to eliminate the other six patents that were issued after 1980, that individually and collectively claim to cover the use of a computer in every aspect of the field. I hoping that the patents issued between 1950 and 1980, that cover the entire field of endevour, and include essentially the same claims, will suffice as "prior art", as they describe the exact same non-invention.

[ 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 )