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
rejected patent applications | 182 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
rejected patent applications
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 12:20 PM EST
they've probably tried that several times already. are
rejected patent applications visible to the public? i bet we
could find at least a few dozen from Apple describing a
smart phone.

on a related note to OP:
To Applem an injunction on samsung phones (even ones that
they don't sell anymore) is just another marketing tool.
They really don't need it on a competition level, they just
want to be able to say "we smacked them for a billion
dollars AND got an injunction on their phones that were
exact copies of our iPhone"

We all know that infringing a few patents out of 200,000 is
not an "exact copy" ... but stupid people don't, and stupid
people buy phones. It's the same concept as mudslinging in
politics and with whatever Microsoft does.

---
IANAL

[ 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 )