To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm no lawyer, and certainly this may differ depending on the country, but certainly in the UK previous disclosure can invalidate a patent, independent of who patented it first.
Basically, if the information is made public before being patented, it can't then be patented by anyone.
This is actually really important, since part of the point of a patent is to act as an incentive to publicly document your invention (for the benefit of society). If an idea is already public, there's no need for the government to provide this incentive.
That's why NDAs are so common: they protect companies against an idea being made public and therefore becoming unpatentable.
I think the law in the US is slightly different in that there's a one-year window after public disclosure within which you're still able to patent something, although the spirit is similar. As I said, I'm not a lawyer though.
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:
2011-07-13
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.