|
Authored by dannyb on Sept 26, 2013 21:48:36 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 26, 2013 23:32:06 GMT
While I can't see how that feature could be considered patentable (I remember "bounce back" being implemented in BBS ANSI), this can't be considered a real win. It was a technical win, but doesn't do anything to rein in the Patent System. Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
|
Authored by penguinhead on Sept 27, 2013 22:09:41 GMT
While I can't see how that feature could be considered patentable (I remember "bounce back" being implemented in BBS ANSI), this can't be considered a real win. It was a technical win, but doesn't do anything to rein in the Patent System. Wayne madhatter.caMaybe not a true win, but hopefully it gives more time to find prior art to actually invalidate that nonsense patent. And hopefully it was yet another thing FloMo got wrong (I don't know anymore because I can't stand to read him).
|
|
|
Authored by tiger99 on Oct 1, 2013 15:36:02 GMT
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/30/steve_jobs_bounces_out_apples_patent_case/">The Register</a> also has this story.
It is a feature of patent law almost everywhere in the world, except the US and a few other countries, that prior disclosure invalidates any patent. But, just as they go about violating other laws such as Data Protection, a number of large and arrogant US companies and their execs think that they can act in Europe the same way as they can back home. Sadly for them, it just is not so, and the courts reliably will enforce the local law. I seem to remember that not very long ago a US judge was seemingly claiming authority over the EU court system. Well, it doesn't work that way!
All that happened here was that Jobs opened his big mouth and blew away the right to patent something trivial in much of the world, and justice was eventually done. In the EU we have known for a very long time that you don't ever disclose before submitting the patent application, but he took the US-centric view of how the universe works....
It is necessary that the US brings their patent laws into line with the rest of the world, who are not going to budge on this. Otherwise, US industry will continue to suffer from self-inflicted damage, and production of affected items will shift to countries which follow the more conventional style of patent law. Sales, in the US only, of various things will be subject to a "patent tax", to satisfy the rogue corporations and patent trolls.
When goods and "intellectual property" are traded worldwide, stupid and expensive legal problems like this will always continue unless the relevant laws are made basically compatible with each other. The costs are a continuing drain on society at large.
|
|
squib
Veteran Member
Posts: 27
|
Authored by squib on Oct 1, 2013 22:53:42 GMT
@ penguinhead. Prior art has already been presented to a court but a certain self-proclaimed expert (that Samsung could not cross examine) said it wasn't. RE: The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj - Updated www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120828225612963
|
|
|
Authored by tiger99 on Oct 3, 2013 8:41:36 GMT
My first ever action as a forum moderator. Accidental double post deleted!
|
|