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
Childish name calling?: Very persuasive argument | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Childish name calling?: Very persuasive argument
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 11:49 AM EDT
You're not dealing with babies who think that you've disappeared because you've covered your face.

How can one describe someone that argues one thing whilst knowing the truth is different

because all an infringer would have to do is change one bolt
    This is a blatant lie if you know of the DoE.
    If you're a patent lawyer and you don't know of the DoE then you would be inadequate.
    If you're not a patent lawyer and you don't know of the DoE yet you argue about something about which you do not know then you are woefully ignorant.
    If you are a patent lawyer and you insist on such arguments are being valid then you are trying to swindle us. A charlatan is synonymous with swindler.
So, which is it?

The DoE, as far as I'm aware, applies to each claim and not to the whole patent and consists of 3 parts,

    does substantially the same,
    in substantially the same way,
    to get substantially the same result.
If claims are too broad then the DoE will suck all the innovation out of the field.

If the issue is "overly broad" claiming and policy is to narrow claims, the DoE would be eroded out of existence.
Utter nonsense. I think you're trying to do it again - swindle that is. The court and lawyers apply the DoE, not the USPTO when granting a claim. Perhaps you can elucidate on the logic of how the DoE would be eroded if claims are narrow.

Just how broad can a claim be? Use a computer to calculate something and output the results in a human interpretable form would cover all uses of a computer. Using the DoE I've just claimed the entire human race and all its thoughts (yeah, I was using my definition of a computer because I didn't create a glossary). The DoE expands what is narrow. It isn't there to expand something that is already too big.

The horrific thing is the use of a computer to run calculations and output the results with no subsequent actions. The DoE is a rather obvious addition to patent law as long as it isn't abused.

I'm not the right person for schooling you on patent law, I know that, but I do recognise someone who is being disingenuous and this is not your first time. There's something about lawyers that gives them the chutzpah to think that they are the best at logic. The sad thing is that mathematicians, computer scientists and even lowly part time programmers and accountants also know things about logic.

And you think I'm the one who is childish? Sheesh.

j

[ 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 )