ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Microsoft v. ATT ruling by US Supreme Court on 30 April 2007"
('''Microsoft v. AT&T''' (2006, USA) posed the question of whether a company can be liable for patent violation for a product, in this case software, used in another country. So the topic was not) |
m (→External links: * [http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/07/federal_circuit.html another patently-o article]) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061215131844340 SFLC's amicus brief] (discussed on the [[SFLC]] page) | * [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061215131844340 SFLC's amicus brief] (discussed on the [[SFLC]] page) | ||
* [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/12/microsoft_v_att.html Patently-o gives an overview of Microsoft v. AT&T] | * [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/12/microsoft_v_att.html Patently-o gives an overview of Microsoft v. AT&T] | ||
| + | * [http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/07/federal_circuit.html another patently-o article] | ||
Revision as of 20:48, 16 August 2009
Microsoft v. AT&T (2006, USA) posed the question of whether a company can be liable for patent violation for a product, in this case software, used in another country. So the topic was not necessarily related to software and patentable subject matter, but there was room to discuss these topics, which SFLC did in their brief.
See also
External links
- SFLC's amicus brief (discussed on the SFLC page)
- Patently-o gives an overview of Microsoft v. AT&T
- another patently-o article
