Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Aug 2012 10:28 UTC
Permalink for comment 532479
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-04-25
And your argument was the jury found devices with more than one button infringing.
But you can't use some forum poster's personal logic for non-obviousness as an argument against why devices can be found infringing.
Invalidity of patent because of obviousness and/or your personal opinion of what is obvious is not determined in the same manner that a court determines if someone is infringing a valid patent.
Since the utility patents cover software, and the design patents of the iPhone form relate to hardware -- which patent do YOU think I'm talking about?
Edited 2012-08-26 19:39 UTC