Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Jul 2011 20:47 UTC
Legal Tell 'm like it is, HTC. "HTC is disappointed at Apple's constant attempts at litigations instead of competing fairly in the market," said HTC general counsel Grace Lei in a statement, "HTC strongly denies all infringement claims raised by Apple in the past and present and reiterates our determination and commitment to protect our intellectual property rights."
Permalink for comment 481102
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:


One of the issues I have with the "obvious" tests, as currently applied, is when things which were non-obvious in the past become obvious in the present.

For example, in an era which predates modern ecommerce, a one click design might very well have been non-obvious in the sense that the whole of ecommerce was in it's infancy and noone thought about it.

Once the infrastructure (online CC processing/consumer dialup/secure web browsers/etc) is in place and online vendors start to crop up, then the one click design really becomes obvious. And not because amazon's patent did such a good job educating everyone, but because it was a natural step in the development of e-commerce.

In the same vein, it's absurd to claim things are novel by combining them in an invention*context matrix. An algorithm/UI element/security feature should not be patentable each time a new type of product is on the market. The product may be novel, but NOT combining it with pre-existing algorithms, that's obvious.

A patent system should not protect obvious solutions to novel problems, even if the solution is inherently novel too.

I still haven't heard anyone give a compelling reason why software should be patentable in the first place.

Edited 2011-07-15 20:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2