|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
The lawyer might have had to obfusflatificate the patent text to avoid prior
art.
If you take out the convolution required to relate it to a Java-like VM
platform, what is left looks like a fragment from "Programming 101, 1st
Edition", Introduction.Programming 101, 1st Edition
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:29 AM EDT |
I understand the standard practice is to take the patent
texts, and then basically rewrite them for the court
according to what you (think you) want to prove infringed.
Of course that doesn't make much logical sense, but that's
the impression I have got from looking at these cases.
Does the claim construction have to relate to the actual
patent? I'm not even sure if it matters to the law as long
as the parties agree on the terms they are arguing.
Of course I may be wildly off base here, IANAL.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|