WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Decision here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1507.pdf
Basically telling Judge Koh she screwed up in both the facts and the law.
Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.
- Thread starter Audible Click
- Start date
Basically telling Judge Koh she screwed up in both the facts and the law.
This is The End
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 10,925
Well that shows that even judges can make mistakes.
And patent attorneys as well... every trial has attorneys on both sides, and they can't both be right!
I hope they stay more calm and cool headed than we do! Probably not.
And patent attorneys as well... every trial has attorneys on both sides, and they can't both be right!
I hope they stay more calm and cool headed than we do! Probably not.
GraculusTheGreenBird
Muse
The Slide to Unlock thing has been done to death already, but in response to someone asking about a touch screen showing a slide control before the iPhone, this was incredibly common as it was implemented in all versions of Windows Mobile from at least 2003 (and probably earlier under the Pocket PC technology), specifically for their popup volume slider control, which showed a graphical nub on a track.
You could use the Volume buttons on the phone, or slide the nub directly with your finger or a stylus.
You could use the Volume buttons on the phone, or slide the nub directly with your finger or a stylus.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Ahh ... but did it unlock?
Surely you can see the obvious, original, fundamental difference.
One uses touch manipulation of a graphical object on a screen to instruct the device to perform a certain action.
The other, however, uses touch manipulation of a graphical object on a screen to instruct the device to perform a different action.
Can't you see the obvious, fundamental difference? Worthy of patent protection? And a few billion dollars in damages?
...
Neither can I.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Obviously you haven't read the patent correctly. Did you see the big words? The fancy jargon? Wasn't it impressive?
Good ruling on causal nexus -- and the court should have stopped there, becuase they went on to make a very bad ruling on claim construction. They're just blatantly wrong.
It makes me sick to my stomach when courts make mistakes on claim construction, and it happens so often. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that far too few judges ever bothered with a decent suite of math classes in school -- most of the mistakes clear from some basic education in symbolic logic or set theory.
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
Both judges, in this case -- Koh on the preliminary injunction, and the appeals panel with an appalling claim construction blunder.
No, they very much don't. It gets... heated.
Thank you for providing an example. Before I investigate, could you also explain the facts about this case that you believe make it a good example? How many times do you claim the inventor "re-submitted" the application before getting his patent, and how many different Examiners were involved? Since you claimed that inventors "re-submit" applications "even tens of times," is this an example of that or not?
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
The claim was revised and resubmitted eight times, according to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/t...ts-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all
Oh, so you just referenced the very application that I had already explained was completely mischaracterized by the article.
Please refer to post #669 for a full analysis of that application. If that's your best example, I'm afraid your assertion just doesn't hold any water.
Please refer to post #669 for a full analysis of that application. If that's your best example, I'm afraid your assertion just doesn't hold any water.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Wow. Not only a self-proclaimed patent expert, but also one who is much, much brighter than judges.
Have you ever thought about the possibility that it might be you who lacks the knowledge, and that you are not as well versed in these matters as you believe you are? Especially when "it happens so often"?
But yeah, i know. Much simpler to dismiss the others, to claim they have no clue, to say that judges are blatantly wrong. "So often", no less.
Greetings,
Chris
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
And what more, they must have been absolute geniusses! I mean, really, they had this outstandingly brilliant idea to use a touchscreen for that! It's mindblowing that anyone could come up with such an crazy idea.
That's so fantastic. I mean, it's as if someone would get the crazy idea to use a car to drive around.
Oh, wait....
...me neither.
Greetings,
Chris
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
"My assertion just doesn't hold any water," huh?
Well just what was my assertion? Do you even remember?
Or are you just talking to hear yourself talk and then calling everybody wrong who disagrees with your position?
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
Well, given they work at Apple, I think that much is obvious.
Even the lackey college students who hawk iPods and work customer service in the Apple retail stores are geniuses by definition.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Yeah, those appelate court justices schooled once again by the internet expert.
Because in bizarro-Christian Klippel world, saying "I may know better than a panel of judges in a very specific, technical area that I work with on a daily basis and most judges encounter only rarely" is exactly the same as saying "I am brighter than judges."
The possibility exists, but the errors here are blatant. You don't narrowly construct a "comprising" claim to only apply to the full set of elements; you certainly don't construct it so that the addition of a non-conforming element in addition to the conforming elements takes a configuration outside the scope of the claim.
For example, I claim:
A collection of marbles comprising a plurality of marbles, each of which is green.
In the correct construction, a bag of two blue, two green, and two red marbles would infringe this claim. The plurality of marbles would be the two green marbles, and the "comprising" language means any additional number of marbles (or other objects, for that matter) would be fine.
Under the court's construction, the bag of two blue, two green, and two red marbles would not infringe this claim, because they insist that all the marbles must be included in the plurality of marbles, and some of the marbles aren't green. But not only does that misapply the plurality limitation, it eviscerates the claim by allowing me to add an extraneous element (adding a single red marble to a bag of green marbles, say) and escape the claim -- something the comprising language is specifically designed to avoid.
It's contrary to basic claim construction canon, and a very bad ruling. I recognize that they used an ill-advised line from the prosecution history to bolster their interpretation, but just following basic principles of construction, it's very poor. I'm very disappointed.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
And people just like you have issued patents for perpetual motion machines.
Here are your claims:
Now, if all you really meant to say was, "Patent attorneys work with the assigned examiner, repeatedly amending patent claims until the application is allowed," then that's true. The patent application process involves making claim amendments.
Of course, that's very different that "re-submitting" an application to different examiners "until you luck out".
Now, if all you really meant to say was, "Patent attorneys work with the assigned examiner, repeatedly amending patent claims until the application is allowed," then that's true. The patent application process involves making claim amendments.
Of course, that's very different that "re-submitting" an application to different examiners "until you luck out".
People just like me? How do you figure?
I don't understand why people are personally attacking me here for actually being knowledgable about patent law and procedure.
I certainly have never prosecuted or issued an application for a perpetual motion machine, or any other technology that I did not believe would work. I would consider it dishonest to do so. So I really don't appreciate that implied insult.
Last edited: