|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 08 2013 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
Can anybody, with suitable credentials, independent from either side, turn up at
a court hearing and as "Friend of Court" give evidence that the patent
is "meaningless and totally incomprehensible" to somebody
"skilled in the art"?
If allowable, surely if a person(s) skilled in art says it's rubbish then court
would have no option but to squash the patent.
If so perhaps that would be the way to go. Get together and set up a group who
would do that. Perhaps under EFF mentoring.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 01:39 AM EDT |
Being IANALly retentive, IIRC, I recall the Sun, Java security patent. Google
said that Android used the Linux security system which was prior art for the
Java security system.
I don't think they argued non-infringement of the Java patent.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 02:51 AM EDT |
I seem to recall issues like that coming up in the patent fights of the Oracle
vs Google case, with much of the fighting ending up in claim construction
issues. I'm pretty sure that Google did have some arguments of the form "If
you construe the claim this way to include what we do then it encompasses this
prior art, but if you construe it that way to avoid the prior art then it
doesn't match our product either". I had the impression that Oracle did do
quite a bit of tap dancing on a fine line to show that Google practiced their
claims, as perhaps did current versions of Java, but the first versions of Java
that were too early for the patents did not.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 06:12 AM EDT |
2) ... to argue to the extent that the alleged infringement
practices the prior art, the damages must be
diminished?
IANAL warning etc., but it seems reasonable to
me that if the patent in question represents a (say) incremental 1%
improvement/variation/tweak on someone else's prior art or patent then even if
the disputed patent fully describes the technique only 1% of 'damage' has been
done to the patent holder, as the defendant could have implemented 99% of the
technique without straying into the area covered by the disputed patent, and
hence without causing any damage to the patent holder - no harm, no
foul.
(Preaching to choir I know, but science and technology R&D
doesn't happen in the vacuum that patent trolls would like to pretend: Standing
on the shoulders of giants.) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|