- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
BT's gift to Google: A patent war over Android
|
|
|
Comments (5)
After reading the abstracts, I can't believe there isn't prior art all over these patents ... So incredibly un-novel of an idea, I have a hard time believing the implementation is novel ... Granted, I've only read the abstracts, ... but jeez...
Reading only the abstracts is not useful at all to determine unique claims in a patent filing. You have to ignore the abstract. Not saying this patent claim has any validity but your approach isn't effective.
Obviousness?
If the abstract lays out the patent's intention is proving that 1+1=2, then the claims are immaterial.
Oh, that's right...all software is reducible to 1+1=2. Woops!
If the abstract lays out the patent's intention is proving that 1+1=2, then the claims are immaterial.
Oh, that's right...all software is reducible to 1+1=2. Woops!
You would think so but in fact what the abstract says is immaterial. Always read the claims.
In software patents, the purpose of the claims is to bamboozle the examiners and frighten the public into not doing anything without their corporate masters' permission.
Such as adding 1 and 1.
Because that's all they're doing, if they're doing it with a computer.
Any claim otherwise is obfuscation, on par with redefining pi as 3.0.
Such as adding 1 and 1.
Because that's all they're doing, if they're doing it with a computer.
Any claim otherwise is obfuscation, on par with redefining pi as 3.0.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post