[A2k] Oh Geez . . . Prior Art was Dismissed Based on *Processor!*

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 02:55:36 PDT 2012

. . . in the Apple v Samsung case:


This guy is now going to become the poster child for "IP Delusion."
We're being encouraged to act like imbeciles just trying to sound reasonable:


Just listen -- especially close at 2m50s up to 4m. He literally has
the genius insight of making up a principle to break a stalemate on
how they understood prior art, based on the "epiphany" that the
software on the Apple could not run on the "prior art" -- the hardware
that the demonstrated prior art ran on -- and vice versa.

Listen to just before that, from 1m30s on, too -- he addresses the
prior art in terms of the "patent prosecution process" and in a
mealy-mouthed attempt to represent the issue they had, describes it as
how prior art could render a patent acceptable (!) or not -- then he
literally states that he "decided" he could represent the matter best
by saying how it would work if it were his own patent.

But listen to the whole thing to see the complete screwiness of the
reasoning that went on.

Aren't we now about to get a clamor for cluefulness on how exclusive
rights policy is represented? Aren't we about to denounce this whole
proceeding? Poor guy, I have to say, but -- dang!


More information about the A2k mailing list