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
But...is the patent valid? | 269 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
But...is the patent valid?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT
>the first real functional LED was Russian 1927

You obviously don't understand -
this is an "improved" "method".
For every bite, the cherry turns to expose a new lawsuit.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A petent on a particular method of manufacturing LEDs is not a patent on LEDs themselves
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 04:45 PM EDT
I really don't understand why every time the subject is some patent litigation
somebody always comes up with a comment like "But LEDs were discovered in
1927 and the first visible light LED built in 1962!"

The article about this that is now in News Picks has a link to the actual
patent. Even just reading the abstract makes it clear that this is about just
one set of techniques for manufacturing one type of LED. I don't have the
expertise to be able to say what about it if anything might be novel over the
earlier methods of using molecular epitaxy to manufacture LEDs, or if Samsung is
currently using those particular novel techniques to make their LEDs, but this
is not some vague software patent being trolled. If the techniques are novel for
the time the patent was filed and are still being used by Samsung, then BU has a
case and they are going after Samsung's downstream customers as a way of
fighting against a huge corporation that has the financial resources to
stonewall BU's attempt to get Samsung to license the patent.

BU's methods may be reminiscent of patent trolls going after end users, but are
not necessarily based on the same motivations. I do think that what they are
doing is unfair to end users who end up as collateral damage in a war between BU
and Samsung.

[ 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 )