or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by e_veritas

  Unfortunately the dictionary does not agree with you. Do I really need to quote a definition again???
  No, I simply never assumed that 'popular' meant 'best' or 'expensive'. That is your conjecture. Since when was something that was 'cheap' no longer allowed to be 'popular'?   I really don't know how much clearer I can be considering I gave you the very definition of the word and the context I was using it in....
  Unfortunately, we don't know that there was no valid prior art because the jury foreman made it clear in the interview that the jury did not come to a conclusion by comparing the patent claims with the evidence. Instead, the jury decided that it was not valid prior art due to the fact that it didn't run on the same processor, and therefore, 'not interchangeable'.   That isn't to say that HAD the jury compared the patent claims to the evidence that they wouldn't have...
  Considering that 2 out of every 3 people in the world with a smartphone uses Android, how is this not 'popular'??   pop·u·lar (adj) - 3)frequently encountered or widely accepted
  I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. Are you asking what type of recent events are displayed at the top of the screen? Text, emails, etc...
  Apparently you have been living in a cave the last week...   http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152042/motorolas-seven-patent-itc-complaint-against-apple-detailed
Really??? What exactly do you call it then when recent events are displayed at the top of your iPhone screen?
  Clearly you don't properly understand what a 'patent troll' is, so let me help you out.     Please pay careful attention to the last part of this definition, as the last time I checked, Google was very much in the business of bringing mobile patents into the marketplace. They do after all develop the world's most popular smartphone OS.
  What an ignorant comment! First, pj (Pamela Jones) from "growklaw [sic]" isn't a 'guy'. Second, pj may be 'anti software patent', but hardly 'anti-Apple' as you claim. Groklaw was resoundingly pro-Apple during the Psystar v. Apple case and even quoted here on AI.
  Ha...you sound just like the jury foreman who self-proclaimed himself the de facto patent expert! So words on a piece of paper are not considered valid prior art to overturn a patent, huh? How do you explain the following from page 44 of the jury instructions then?   "For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single...
New Posts  All Forums: