Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
That it should all be on the record, in public and in clear. After all, the
original accusation usually is a very broad public statement. That requirement
got SCO out of Europe Courts quick.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 05:16 AM EDT |
If they do not provide specifics it can only be assumed that
the patent(s) they are wielding are invalid and so should be
declared as such. If they specify no specific patent(s) then
clearly all their patents should be declared invalid.
Simples
cm[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
I'm not sure why that isn't covered by "failure to state a
claim". But then, IANAL. Obviously.
---
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 | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: yscydion on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
I think it would help a lot if claims were interpreted narrowly rather than
broadly. Adopt the principle that anything not clearly claimed is not claimed.
Obfuscated language and lawyers jargon in a technical field should be treated as
saying and claiming nothing.
The test should be whether or not an ordinary worker in the relevant field could
use what is in the claims but did not already know it.
Would that require a change in the law or just a change in how the law is
interpreted? Perhaps if all patent cases were on a fixed fee so that it is in
the interests of the lawyers to terminate them quickly that would help.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|