Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Aug 2012 21:15 UTC, submitted by Torbjorn Vik Lunde
Thread beginning with comment 530865
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It can, at least, be used to argue obviousness. The product not being released to the public does not mean it wasn't known by the public in a legal sense. This is clearly a presentation, so for all we know, the product may have been shown around Silicon Valley or at trade shows.
That's for lawyers to argue.
That's for lawyers to argue.
If it were relevant. It doesn't appear to be relevant because the video, and the product it showed, does not use the bounce animation to indicate overscroll, and it is the overscroll bounce which is the key feature in Apple's patent and in it's legal actions.
Very interesting; one does not have to be a lawyer to know that if apple is using a technology that they did not created the patent it simply not theirs unless they paid for it. If a product never reaches the market or if the product gets to the stores is totally irrelevant. Now the question is; does apple have the rights to use the technology? If that is not the case, they may have to pay for it.
RE[2]: Can it be used?
by allanregistos on Mon 13th Aug 2012 02:56
in reply to "RE: Can it be used?"
Very interesting; one does not have to be a lawyer to know that if apple is using a technology that they did not created the patent it simply not theirs unless they paid for it. If a product never reaches the market or if the product gets to the stores is totally irrelevant. Now the question is; does apple have the rights to use the technology? If that is not the case, they may have to pay for it.
The real question my friend, if those lawyers are also tech experts? How can they knew a lot about programming practices without years/decades of real-world experience? A software patent is a technology patent where most lawyers will fall short on knowledge about these things. They didn't even know of what OS is. They knew only the apple and the Windows logo and ignored the penguin. And yes, one does not need a lawyer to understand Apple's claims in court I believe as an IT man myself, but you may need a patent lawyer to argue on your part, not an ordinary lawyer.
I think, Apple may have the rights to use a certain the technology in question, especially of those they patented, but they cannot enforce anyone to not use that technology because of a prior art.





Member since:
2010-03-11
I'm curious, if the Star7 never went to market, can it be used as prior art? I would think someone would have to demonstrate a product already on the market to show prior art in a patent case. Anyone know what the law says about inventions that never reach the public being used as evidence in patent cases?