|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 10:47 PM EDT |
> That Order goes into detail about Judge Alsup's reasoning in coming up with
that specific wording, including why he did not accept Google's suggested phrase
about "string or character-based". Start on page 20.
Why do judges have to redefine all of our technical terms? I'm sorry, but that
interpretation is just wrong. Perhaps that's what the patent covers legally,
but techies know what we mean when we say "symbolic reference" and it
does require a string. I mean, that's what "symbolic" means. You
can't do that with technology. You can't snow the compiler.
If they don't get rid of them entirely (and they should), they should at least
require source code for software patents. That would eliminate most ridiculous
"wish" claims and hopefully narrow the patent down to exactly that
which was disclosed. Which is, of course, why patent lawyers hate the idea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|