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
Apple's Pinch to Zoom Patent Invalidated by USPTO ~pj | 222 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple's Pinch to Zoom Patent Invalidated by USPTO ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 11:51 PM EST
How hard is the process to salvage them? If it's reached this stage, is it now
hard for Apple(or anyone in that position) to argue 'this prior art isn't valid'
or is it more likely to be 'look, you're going to lose this patent unless you
can /really/ convince me that this prior art isn't applicable, but from all the
paperwork submitted, and the spotlight of people looking, I can't just rubber
stamp this like I did the initial application, so the burden of proof is on you
to show how this is deserving a patent, and if you can't, or not to a good
level, you've lost it'?

One can imagine that the patent office will be a /bit/ twitchy as it makes their
initial ruling look bad.
For added fun, shame Samsung can't now sue the Patent Office for all the time
wasted for a bad patent. At least cover the court costs for the monies they've
spent defending themselves from a bad patent (that would then be applied as
fines to the company who submitted the bad patent to start with, so everyone has
reason to be honest about these things if there's a monetary cost to being
wrong/dishonest).

[ 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 )