|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 07:15 PM EST |
"important techniques which make touchscreen-based interfaces usable"
so couldn't it also be labeled a FRAND patent if its pretty much needed to make
touch screens useable?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 07:18 PM EST |
"assuming the USPTO has already investigated and found validity, and juries
tend not to assume they know better. If you are ever on a jury, please don't
make such an assumption"
If go back and read cases notes from groklaw, you can see how the jury HAD
instructions on how to declare a patent invalid and even had the prior art in
front of them showing a few of apples patents were so invalid. they just choose
to ignore the prior art cause it would took to long. That is not way for a jury
to go in to a case. One juror assumed made his mind up first day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 08:15 PM EST |
All this functionality patent abuse, really, it's ridiculous. While tech users
hope and pray that the USPTO will, at some point, finally learn to regard these
patents as they do in other industries, my fear is that the office just might
start granting the same type of patents in other sectors. I can imagine what
would happen if a company could patent the turn clockwise on-off/volume control
operation of a radio potentiometer, worse yet, the right/left sweeping action of
rubber bladed rain removal devices for a vehicle windshield. Good grief. Some
sanity puhleeese.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 08:17 PM EST |
The second of the patents in suit, the previous claim 19 of the 7,469,381
patent (See Apple "rubber band" patent invalidated by
previous Apple patent). Again found invalid and not yet final by the
USPTO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 08:18 PM EST |
Lawyers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 09:22 PM EST |
They can argue this quite easily. What they can't do is provide proof that
they are right.
I'm working on an article about this right now. I'll be using Groklaw as one
of my sources, of course.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 09:36 PM EST |
Please post corrections here.
A hint in the posts title may be helpful.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 10:03 PM EST |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 10:05 PM EST |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 10:09 PM EST |
Please include a link to the article you are referencing
as the article will roll off the main page.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 08 2012 @ 03:03 AM EST |
You'll be exchanging Christmas cards next! :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 08 2012 @ 08:05 AM EST |
If you're ever on a jury and come in with this prejudice, please disclose it to
the court.
You should make your informed decision based only on information provided to you
during the court process, not based on your previous groklaw-earned knowledge...
previous to the process... properly known as prejudice.
K[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|