|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:08 PM EST |
I wonder why there should be any limits on the amount of evidence that can be
presented, the verbosity of the arguments, or the number of patents that each
party is accusing the other of violating. I read in one of Florian's posts, that
Apple has 100s of multi-touch patents, so it is surprising that Samsung is
alleged to have violated only 3 of them. And he further said that Apple has
1000s of patents related to smartphones, so again I feel atleast Samsung should
be violating a few dozens.
Why trim the number of patents to be examined for potential violation? Why set
limits on the arguments? When billions are at stake, and companies have invested
<sarcasm; lots of money, effort and research into building thousands of
patent-worthy innovations ;sarcasm> why should courts get to set arbitrary
limits on these trials?
Should not these trials be as thorough and complete as possible, so that justice
"is seen" to be done? Why this haste?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:15 PM EST |
Changes in Title Block if possible.
"Eror" -> "Error"
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:17 PM EST |
Keep away from being relevant!
Nothing allowed on late night infomercials that concern
slicing and dicing, either.....
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:18 PM EST |
URL, please?
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:20 PM EST |
For those steadfast volunteers who keep moving forward. Will
it be done before Microsoft circles the drain?
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 06:06 PM EST |
There are legitimately cases where you could make hundreds,
possibly thousands, of independent but related arguments.
Patent cases are great examples. Patent portfolios are
large. If you could make as many claims as you wanted, and
put forward as many theories of infringement as you wanted,
a business dispute could run to the thousands of pages.
They infringed this patent in this way. Also this other
very close but slightly different way. This thing over here
could be argued to be sort of related to one of the claims
of this patent over here. And so on. Not only is this
burdensome to respond to, it's incredibly burdensome on the
court. Just to rule on it all, let alone hear arguments.
The time of the courts is a valuable, finite, and scarce
resource. Allowing parties to consume "as much as they
want" if they want deprives other potential litigants,
potentially with larger or more valid claims, from having
courts hear them. And that's not exactly in the interest of
justice either.
I suppose you could make the argument "have more courts and
more judges," but like water finding it's own level, that
just makes the reasonable limit larger - it doesn't
eliminate the need for some limitations on a party's ability
to request to be heard on every single remotely relevant
point.
Page limits and other limitations are the courts answers,
and they tend most often to be thrown at parties (such as
the parties to this case) who will simply not shut up
otherwise. Oh, so you've been damaged? Great. Put your
very best arguments front and center, and be heard on them.
If you can't prove your point on those, you're not getting
another chance with your second best arguments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:58 AM EST |
Yes, Patent Law is an incredible mess. It impacts everything, not just
software, though software may be more visible. The problems seem to
break down into these categories:
1) Inadaquete Prior Art consideration by the USPTO
2) Inadaquete technical knowledge by examiners
3) Overloaded Patent Office
4) Inability to fix mistakes quickly and easily
5) Patents written in impossible to understand manner
6) Regulatory bias towards patentability
Add the six together, and you have an unholy mess. I spent a lot of time
working with patents. When I started I had tons of respect for the regulatory
process of invention. Now I have none.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 02:52 AM EST |
I didn't know this was hosted at Groklaw. Could a link be added on the main
page, I believe there many more entries will be added. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|