bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to rhdcheme
Re: Patent law on patenting processes needs a mjor overhaul
OK, fair enough. I guess I was taking the approach of reason as opposed to court proceedings. Funny, I'm going to see my lawyer today to get his computers working. Christmas eve stops no litigator along his chosen path in life, eh?
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am. |
|
rhdcheme
join:2006-11-18
Lorton, VA
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to bigunk
said by bigunk  :Fair enough. You may well be more schooled in patent law than I. No problem here, but am I right as far as what I have written? Not knowing what was presented in court - I don;t know. But a US patent carries with it the presumption of validity (i.e., the imprimatur of the patent office having granted it after an examination).
In patent litigation, the patent owner will be confronted with the best prior art available by the infringer(s)/defendant(s) in court. Based on what the article says, it seems that the judge/jury did not believe that the patent claims were invalid. That is why the judge ruled the way he did, assuming that the judge is all up there (if you know what I mean).
These cases usually end up on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where US district courts judges are routinely reversed. Trial judges with no technical background are incapable of handling these technical cases, IMHO. |
|
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA | reply to rhdcheme
Fair enough. You may well be more schooled in patent law than I. No problem here, but am I right as far as what I have written?
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am. |
|
rhdcheme
join:2006-11-18
Lorton, VA
·Cox HSI
| reply to bigunk
said by bigunk :A quick read of the abstracts suggests this is nothing more than off-site backup. If that patent gets pursued, every company using this idea is vulnerable. The applicants should be tarred and feathered. They did no research. Abstracts do not define the scope of patent protection. Patent claims do. |
|
