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
What you're missing is | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What you're missing is
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 04:58 AM EDT
Can't the defendant get the manufacturer and/or supplier
joined in the defence as co-defendants for aiding and abetting
them in their "infringement"?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What you're missing is
Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 11:50 AM EDT

My thought is that if it's capable of it when shipped from the manufacturer (capable and set not to do it is still capable) then either it's infringing as shipped (in which case the manufacturer's supposed to be the target of the suit) or it's not (in which case the patent-holder isn't entitled to sue). Modifying things to do what they're capable of sans any artificially-imposed limits may void warranties and such, but I've little sympathy for the idea that you're legally barred from such modifications absent either specific law addressing it or such agreement was negotiated and payment made for that concession from the buyer as part of the sale.

[ 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 )