[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 23:44, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 11:14 pm, you wrote:Neil Williams wrote: | "The patent was intended to only apply to printhouses but it is |phrased and was| granted on the CLAIMS and therefore could be used to extract punitive |fees| wherever a print manager is installed." It couldn't be used for that purpose, because there was extensive prior art, and the lawyers would die laughing.OK, this time it's a print manager, maybe KDE and Gnome would join with the FSF to fight the case in court - I'm quite sure the holders of the patent will be able to pay their own lawyers enough that they'll be able to keep a straight face in court. What about next time?What is sad here is a company spent good money paying for a worthless bit of paper, can't help feeling the legal department was striving to justify their head count, or some such.We know it's worthless, they obviously want a return on the 'investment'.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone with enough money made a case against them. As I read it, they've put in place a patent which they probably covers inventions already in place. In effect, they're could give the impression that these inventions are somehow down to something they did - erm if the inventions aren't down to something they did, is this called fraud ?? Jon -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.