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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Innovating? | 360 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Innovating?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 10:29 PM EDT
I'm not really sure what it's trying to state. It could be read as a dig at the
abysmal quality of what the USPTO deems 'novel' these days, or it could be an
attempt to push a myth of 'true originality' and hold that anyone who uses
anything patented in anything they make, however significant a difference in
scope might be present, is clearly derivative and therefore not 'inventing'
anything at all. I'm reminded a bit of how certain parties advance hypocritical
views on copyright infringement, considering the originality and relevance of
their own works beyond question (despite deriving in many ways from various
sources) but decrying anything they perceive as having benefited from their work
without their blessing as immoral and bordering on plagiarism.

So, probably-tangential rant aside, I have to say that criticizing the
misappropriation of language in a way that makes its meaning unclear or possibly
inverted, in such a way as to make the nature of the criticism impossible to
discern, makes the grandparent post either pretty silly, or a masterful work of
subtle irony. I'll have to leave readers to decide that one for themselves.

[ 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 )